If a company sells bank-vaults, can the US government have the authority to force them to blowtorch into one of their own products that was bought by a suspect? Can the government force them to include a master skeleton key for every single vault they manufacture?
... Also, remember how encryption was once blocked from export as a kind of weapon? How about we hoist them in their own petard? Let's talk about guns:
Does the US government have the authority to force a gun-manufacturer to include a "remote off-switch", so that police can point a transmitter at a suspect and disable anything they may be carrying?
I think all liberty loving individuals should learn a thing or two from NRA and Gun rights advocates on such issues even if they might hate NRA.
NRA and well knit group of Gun rights advocates (such as myself) concedes 0 space to the government irrespective of any shooting and casualties. Why cant we do the same for such cases ? One mad man shot some people and we want to build backdoor into iPhone threatening privacy and security of millions of Americans?
Idea is not to get into details of "FBI wants to protect Americans" but simply deny any legislative space to the politicians and executives. The moment people get into the trap of "we need to balance things out" the balance would invariably go towards government on long term, the idea is to simply "deny space" to FBI.
FBI (and full respect for them) should use the existing tools and methods to hunt terrorists and protect Americans. There is a good reason why FBI is expected to work under constraints, that is what makes them good guys. Else there are not really different from drug mafia.
Trick will lie in totally isolating government and security agencies behind the wall of 4th Amendment by stick to original interpretation. If we buy into the BS of "we need to find balance" or "constitution is a living document" then we will have to see US government becoming Chinese oppressive state.
> Trick will lie in totally isolating government and security agencies behind the wall of 4th Amendment by stick to original interpretation
The difference is that the 2nd amendment has text that is helpful to you, and the 4th amendment does not. The 2nd amendment does not only ban "unreasonable" restrictions on guns, while the 4th amendment only bans "unreasonable" searches. Moreover, the 4th amendment allows for the issuance of warrants pursuant to which the government can conduct a search that would otherwise be considered unreasonable. All that is right there in the text.
You don't need "original interpretation" here. You need "living document" and you need to conjure up a right of privacy--one that defeats even a search pursuant to a warrant--that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.
> There’s nothing preventing the FBI from writing that hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues.
My understanding is that this isn't correct, and is in fact the focal point of the order:
> This signature check is why the FBI cannot load new software onto an iPhone on their own — the FBI does not have the secret keys that Apple uses to sign firmware.
The FBI can subpoena/nsl/all-writs-act the necessary signing key, if necessary. That would probably be easier than ordering Apple to write a new (miss-)feature, as this would only be turning over existing data, similar to a subpoena for common business records or the footage from a surveillance-camera.
I'm siding with the idea that if the cops want to install something on a device that I own, they have to get my cooperation, not that of the manufacturer.
Isn't that the purpose of a court order? They compel you to answer the court's questions. In this particular case, the device owner, the agency which issued the phone, has granted permission.
It's imaginable that apple could manufacture multiple kinds of devices. Those for personal use and which cannot be compromised via any keys whatsoever, and commercial/enterprise versions which can be centrally managed.
My take is one of the big markets, the US, China, India or EU will tell Apple they either offer the option or they forgo the market.
Governments with large economies will compel manufacturers to provide this option, despite what the company or privacy advocates, privacy minded users would prefer.
[+] [-] Terr_|10 years ago|reply
If a company sells bank-vaults, can the US government have the authority to force them to blowtorch into one of their own products that was bought by a suspect? Can the government force them to include a master skeleton key for every single vault they manufacture?
... Also, remember how encryption was once blocked from export as a kind of weapon? How about we hoist them in their own petard? Let's talk about guns:
Does the US government have the authority to force a gun-manufacturer to include a "remote off-switch", so that police can point a transmitter at a suspect and disable anything they may be carrying?
[+] [-] tn13|10 years ago|reply
NRA and well knit group of Gun rights advocates (such as myself) concedes 0 space to the government irrespective of any shooting and casualties. Why cant we do the same for such cases ? One mad man shot some people and we want to build backdoor into iPhone threatening privacy and security of millions of Americans?
Idea is not to get into details of "FBI wants to protect Americans" but simply deny any legislative space to the politicians and executives. The moment people get into the trap of "we need to balance things out" the balance would invariably go towards government on long term, the idea is to simply "deny space" to FBI.
FBI (and full respect for them) should use the existing tools and methods to hunt terrorists and protect Americans. There is a good reason why FBI is expected to work under constraints, that is what makes them good guys. Else there are not really different from drug mafia.
Trick will lie in totally isolating government and security agencies behind the wall of 4th Amendment by stick to original interpretation. If we buy into the BS of "we need to find balance" or "constitution is a living document" then we will have to see US government becoming Chinese oppressive state.
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
The difference is that the 2nd amendment has text that is helpful to you, and the 4th amendment does not. The 2nd amendment does not only ban "unreasonable" restrictions on guns, while the 4th amendment only bans "unreasonable" searches. Moreover, the 4th amendment allows for the issuance of warrants pursuant to which the government can conduct a search that would otherwise be considered unreasonable. All that is right there in the text.
You don't need "original interpretation" here. You need "living document" and you need to conjure up a right of privacy--one that defeats even a search pursuant to a warrant--that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.
[+] [-] jmiwhite|10 years ago|reply
My understanding is that this isn't correct, and is in fact the focal point of the order:
> This signature check is why the FBI cannot load new software onto an iPhone on their own — the FBI does not have the secret keys that Apple uses to sign firmware.
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with...
Is it possible for anyone to load a modified firmware without Apple's signing keys?
[+] [-] pdkl95|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|10 years ago|reply
It's imaginable that apple could manufacture multiple kinds of devices. Those for personal use and which cannot be compromised via any keys whatsoever, and commercial/enterprise versions which can be centrally managed.
My take is one of the big markets, the US, China, India or EU will tell Apple they either offer the option or they forgo the market.
Governments with large economies will compel manufacturers to provide this option, despite what the company or privacy advocates, privacy minded users would prefer.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]