Timothe Litt's comments "hit the nail on the head" with his first sentence in which he writes:

On 08/07/2014 12:02 PM, Timothe Litt wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
If you read the comments, you'll note that they didn't even get the 'take-over' right.

Forget for a moment the contentious issue of whether or not this was the right way to attach the problem. Clearly it was not. BUT, and this is a very big but, when the case for "doing something quick" is typically put before the judicial system, the judicial system only has (hopefully it has) the capacity to determine if the "something", both grounds and proposed solution, are warranted under the law. What the judicial system does not have is the capacity to assess the ability of the petitioner (police?, MicroSoft?, who is legit here?) to do the something correctly, with the intended effect, and without unintended collateral damage.

This is not a small problem. It is a big problem. Suppose the police thought there was an illegal marijuana "grow op" in your neighborhood, based on electricity load data, and the courts gave them permission to selectively turn off the power to every abnormal user. They may interrupt the grow op, but they may also turn off medical devices and the like.

There are two big problems here. The first it what should be subject to judicial authorization. The second is what criteria (or credentials) are used to determine who has the proper capacity to act. In a criminal case if the courts give permission to search a premises they don't give that permission to the postal deliver person, or the lawn care company, it goes to the police.

There are two problems here.

Sam L.