Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tracker47

The Apple case is unique in that the owner of the phone is dead, and the encryption technology separates the data from Apple like a locked suitcase which only the phone owner has.

Warrants are really great things. Backdoors where potentially anyone can access without a check — not so hot.

People understand both concepts, and hopefully agree with them. The phone or warrant can go to Apple, and they take care of it. The “suitcase” never goes outside Apple, but the data inside the suitcase goes to HSA.

Apple can update its end user agreement to reflect this. However, I do understand everyone’s meta data collection, warrant flooding, etc. concerns.

Maybe a compromise would means law enforcement is limited to x number of requests at y level severity per pre-determined timeframe (and maybe geographic area for the HIGHEST level). And once the threat passes or process of elimination is complete, then a new “suitcase lock” is put back in place.

I’m no lawyer, but even I know wiretap laws on the books can cover quite a bit of this.


9 posted on 02/22/2016 2:29:36 PM PST by Read Write Repeat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Read Write Repeat

More like a safe maker being ordered to crack their own safe: their whole point in making the thing in the first place was that NOBODY could get inside without the code/key. Should the safe maker crack their own safe (under duress) customer confidence plummets; if done right, they simply can’t crack it.

Any precedent for compelling a safe maker being ordered to crack their own safe?


11 posted on 02/22/2016 3:10:42 PM PST by ctdonath2 (History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the week or the timid. - Ike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Read Write Repeat
Maybe a compromise would means law enforcement is limited to x number of requests

I agree with that. Where x=0. There are only two choices in computer security, back doors or no back doors. If we force Apple to create a back door it just means China will sell a phone with a PLA back door for the terrorists who want to avoid US snooping but are not afraid of the PLA.

The "suitcase" never goes outside Apple, but the data inside the suitcase goes to HSA.

DHS? No, they can gather data some other way. The inevitable solution, whether or not anyone likes it, is that the phone will not unlock or update without the passcode. Then Apple cannot be forced to provide an update that breaks the security. It will simply be impossible rather than difficult and counterproductive.

15 posted on 02/22/2016 4:05:09 PM PST by palmer (Net "neutrality" = Obama turning the internet over to foreign enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson