Reposted from MacRumors.
Judge James Orenstein in his own words.
In deciding this motion, I offer no opinion as to whether, in the circumstances of this case or others, the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring that no door is too strong to resist lawful entry should prevail against the equally legitimate societal interests arrayed against it here. […]
How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago.
But that debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive. It would betray our constitutional heritage and our people’s claim to democratic governance for a judge to pretend that our Founders already had that debate, and ended it, in 1789.
My take: This is a very sensible ruling and gives me some hope there are still checks on unlimited government power. The House Judiciary committee is grilling Director Comey. My intent on posting these articles is bringing attention to items that are buried by the main stream press and are important to all of us. My specific focus is showing how the government wants to pull the wool over our collective eyes.