Regarding Apple. Here's the deal as I see it

[Xipe Totec]

No links, no sources. This is my personal opinion only. Take it for what it's worth.

Breaking encryption on a phone is a violation of the 5th amendment right against self incrimination.

In the cyber era, a phone, a computer, or any device where we keep personal information is an extension of our self, of our Id.

And prying into these devices is the cyber equivalent of forcing self-incriminating testimony against ourselves.

Based on this, it should be ruled unconstitutional to crack the encryption on any device holding personal information as a violation of the fifth amendment against self incrimination.

There. I've said it.

Flame away.

[jeff47]

1. EULAs make this get blurry.

It's really common for EULAs and other license agreements to not actually grant ownership of the device or software on the device. But a license to use it.

Is it a 5th amendment situation when it isn't legally your phone, but Apple's phone that they are letting you use?

[Xipe Totec]

2. I don't think EULAS trump the bill of rights. nt

[jeff47]

6. If it isn't your phone, why would you have a 5th amendment right?

If you gave me something that incriminated you, the 5th amendment would not keep the government from getting that evidence from me.

The license agreement says it's Apple's phone, not yours. Doesn't that turn it into the identical situation?

AFAIK, this hasn't been litigated yet.

[Xipe Totec]

7. would not keep the government from getting that evidence from me, if I consented.

I being the person granting access.

All that is needed is for Apple (which is a person according to the SCOTUS) to claim 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination.

[jeff47]

9. What would Apple be incriminating itself with?

Apple didn't break any laws. They'd be covered under safe harbor.

Again, my only point is licenses and their typical terms may not make this so straightforward.

[Xipe Totec]

11. You don't have to explain how or why. That's the beauty of it.

Brush up.

[Big Blue Marble]

10. The physical phone is your property.

You buy it and you have the right to sell it or transfer it to whomever you wish. It is legally your phone.
The data including your health and financial data, that you place on the phone is also yours.

[jberryhill]

3. Surprised I didn't see you here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027625934

[longship]

4. More importantly...

Encryption algorithms are not very complex. One could put the equations on a T-Shirt. I have one with the RSA trapdoor on it. What they are are functions which are straight forward in one direction and really, really difficult to solve in the other without the key.

However, since they are pretty simple, any back door would be trivial to discover, which means that those who advocate for such a thing are fucking idiots. A back door opens up the encryption to anybody, whereas the basic encryption, a simple algorithm, is as secure as can be desired. Just make the key length longer.

What Apple is standing up for is the future of their ability to sell their products. If Apple can supply a back door, or break the encryption for a customer's phone, none of their products would be seen as secure. No computer company would ever allow that to happen.

The best way to insure this is to make the device unhackable even by the manufacturer themself, which is precisely what Apple is apparently doing.

Good for them!

[Downwinder]

5. How many smart phones do Government officials have?

A backdoor will make them vulnerable along with any business phones. Somebody always finds the backdoors sooner or later.

[Xipe Totec]

8. While I agree with you on the bad consequences, the point is about constitutional protections. nt

[Downwinder]

12. You misunderstand me.

I am not saying they are necessarily bad. They would make it easier for the Snowdens

[Xipe Totec]

13. I think I'm still confused on your point, and it merits attention

so please, and I say this with all due respect and sincerity, please elaborate and enlighten me.

I feel I'm missing a subtle point.

[Downwinder]

20. I am just hypothesizing that if there are backdoors

we will get document drops on the lobbyists the Senators, Congressmen an Justices are communicating with. I think it would be good to go back to the theory that no communication is secure. Back to the only way to truely secure a computer is to lock it in a secure vault with no connections to outside.

[Xipe Totec]

23. Well, yes. That is absolutely true. You are right, of course.

But, the question is not about the consequences, but about the rights we have.

You are speaking, correctly, about the consequences of having our rights violated.

I am speaking about whether the government has the right to violate them in the first place.

So, we are in agreement that the consequences would be bad.

I'm saying let's not even go that far.

[moondust]

14. So...

if a suspect is picked up and detained for a murder should the suspect's home and personal belongings be off limits to police?

[Xipe Totec]

16. No, but this is different. You're riffling through the contents of the suspect's mind.

There's the rub.

[moondust]

18. How is that different from

going through a murder suspect's home Rolodex, desk drawers, files, safe, etc.?

[Xipe Totec]

19. The fact that it is open for visible inspection, or whether it requires consent of the searched.

Let me turn it around for you.

How much pressure are you allowed to exert on an individual to 'coax' him into confessing?

[moondust]

21. I have no idea.

I've never worked in law enforcement. I just don't see a difference between police getting a search warrant and going through a murder suspect's home and private belongings vs. using a search warrant to go through a suspect's electronic device. There is probably a body of laws already governing information on paper vs. information stored electronically when it comes to police search and seizure.

[Lee-Lee]

25. They have a warrant- but they don't have the tools and they don't exist

Imagine if a murder suspect had a safe in his house. A safe that there was no way to crack because it was so well made.

The government gets a warrant- and still can't get in. Their safe crackers try and can't get it open. They know if they torch it they will destroy the contents.

So they go to the safe maker, a party not involved, and ask them to open it. They say they can't. So they get a court order demanding the safe maker invent a tool that will let them open thier unbreakable safe- not just this one, but every one they have ever made.

Apple is getting a court order being told to create a tool that doesn't exist.

[KentuckyWoman]

15. This whole thing is baffling to me.

Why is the government so inept it needs Apple's help to break into the phone? The NSA should have already captured all the passwords etc. Not to mention our covert guys should be able to run circles around anything Apple can create.

Mind boggling.

[Xipe Totec]

17. They don't seem to be quite as gobstoppingly awesome as they pretend to be. nt

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

22. Not a 5th amendment violation but a 1st amendment for Apple

Apple cannot be forced to write code, but it can be forced to deliver code. It also can't penalize an employee for volunteering to work with the FBI

[Xipe Totec]

24. I know that's Apple's position (1st amendment) I'm saying they should argue 5th Amendment. nt

[Travis_0004]

26. I dont see how that applies

If rhe murder suspect wrote the encryption, I would agree they cant force him to break it

Since apple doesnt own the phone or personally use the phone, asking them to break it does not violate their 5th amendment right.

I support apple on this, not not on the basis of the 5th amendment.