"While Apple CEO Tim Cook has consistently argued that unlocking one device would set a dangerous precedent, Gates doesn't believe that it would. He argues that Apple has access to the information, but that they are declining to provide access to the information."
This sounds correct to me. Instead of the government being the gatekeeper (access by way of court orders), Apple is arguing Apple should be. Why? Should we trust Apple won't abuse their power when their own interests are at stake?
Remember Terry Childs? Do you mean to tell me if Apple had an an ex-employee with the keys to their kingdom on his/her iPhone, Apple would just write-off 700 billion dollars? They'd crack that phone without thinking twice about it.
This is so ignorant, the worst part is "there would have to be rules in place to limit how they can access that information."
How did those rules work out for telecom/internet traffic data... The government can now access anyones data, often even without a judge ruling whether it is necessary.
Gates went on to say that there were benefits to governments having some access to information, but that there would have to be rules in place to limit how they can access that information. He says that he hopes people will "have that debate so that safeguards are built and so people do not opt out -- and this will be in country by country -- [to say] it is better that the government does not have access to any information."
Is this not the same thing that Apple is arguing for? Except they are looking for the conversation to happen before the requested action?
Gates does some great things but he's not thinking far enough into the future here.
If our law enforcement cannot understand that terrorists will simply switch to use another encryption tool, then we have a much bigger problem than unlocking a single iPhone. Our security force does not know how to keep us safe. I'd rather they figure out another way sooner than later.