Consider these two statements by FBI Director James Comey

[IDemo]

Both while addressing a congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

1) "Whatever the judge's decision is in California … will be instructive for other courts, and there may well be other cases that involve the same kind of phone and the same operating system."

2) "The San Bernardino litigation is not about us trying to send a message or establish some precedent."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/fbi-director-san-bernardino-iphone-case-not-about-setting-precedent-n525591

Discuss.

[Sherman A1]

1. There is nothing to discuss

The statements stand on their own and explain everything.

[IDemo]

2. I don't see it that way

Please explain how these two statements are not at direct odds to one another.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. Exactly what I have been saying...

The FBI may have gotten used to Apple responding to legal requests on the older phones.

VERY interesting the minute Apple develops basically an unbreakable code for new phone, teh FBI becomes adamant that it be allowed into the phone.

The precedent here is very important.

[avebury]

5. Totally agree. nt

[Drew Richards]

4. Let me translate for you

These are not the droids you are looking for...

[IDemo]

6. Maybe you can explain

how the first statement can be interpreted to mean anything other than Comey's belief that the case can indeed establish a precedent.

[Drew Richards]

7. Oh I agree completely the we one statement reflects my star wars reference.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Anyone who thinks that if Apple caves and writes a new OS to unlock the San Bernadino iPhone,

that the feds will not then demand the same thing for a plethora of iPhones seized from other suspected terrorists, suspected drug dealers, sex offenders, and so on, is being a little bit naive IMO.

[NutmegYankee]

9. He lets the truth slip in the first statement.

The second was the lie he was supposed to tell.