Replies

The idea here is that these files can’t be accessed even with a warrant.

I have no idea whether that’s really true or not.

But the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure,” which of course means that reasonable S&S is entirely constitutional.

There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant.

You have the technological point correct, the files are (claimed to be) inaccessible even with a warrant. Current practice is to seize the phone, and send it to Apple with a copy of the signed warrant. Pursuant to the warrant, Apple gives unencrypted phone contents to the police.

What Apple is claiming is that it will lock itself out of that capability.

Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unconstitutional just FYI.
Yes I do happen to be a lawyer in this area of practice.
The “reasonableness” clause has been used to apply to “administrative searches” such as airport screenings, etc.
But targeting an individual’s phone or computer? That must be done with individualized and particularized suspicion whereby articulated facts support probable cause that a crime has been committed and warrant should issue.
I don't see any constitutional justification for the government having blanket authority to search the contents of our belongings, digital or otherwise.
The danger to our liberty is greater than any danger posed by the criminal element.
In other words, the government has become the danger that our Founders fought hard to restrain.

"There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant."

That's an understandable concern, but here are a few more considerations.

* What are those dangers? Can the dangers be publicly defined?

* There might be more danger already in process with many in the general public being afraid to speak of personal matters through phones, e-mails, etc. By law, federal officials can relay private information to local officials upon request with some suspicion contrived by local officials. In some locales, that information will then be available to some of the worst but most influential crooks.

* Strong encryption for communications can also be done without having such encryption in cellphone service packages. It would seem that crooks who are harder to catch may try to use those methods.

* A war on terror must be fought as a war with soldiers with the goal of destroying the enemy's will to fight at all. Even good police work will not serve to catch every sneaky foreign enemy attempting to wage war by assassinations and terror. Sooner or later, the assassins will get through undetected while using older methods of communication and carry out successful attacks.

But the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure,” which of course means that reasonable S&S is entirely constitutional. There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant.

Let's take a non-electronic example. I have some physical paper documents that the government would like to seize and inspect. I have them stored where the government cannot get to them (whether buried someplace only I know, or in some foreign country). I choose to remain silent about the location of those documents.

Would you consider the government has the right to waterboard me to find out where they are?

There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant. —

I still have some ‘stuff’ between my ears that they cannot seize and inspect. I know they are trying.

There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant.

Yes, there is. It's called FREEDOM.

The ferragummit can't outlaw mathematics.

If someone wants to encrypt their information, they have every right to, and the ferragummit can't even access the scrambled stuff without a proper warrant.

Terrorists would obviously disregard such law anyway, so such law could only be calculated to cast a wide net over everybody. And that violates both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

Given the choice between a totalitarian society and losing a US city to the occasional nuke, I'll take losing the occasional city.

A totalitarian society is not one worth living in or fighting for. The only thing such a society merits is obliteration.

The solution to avoiding a wahhabist totalitarian society is not to establish some other flavor of totalitarian society.

Reeeelleeee?

Who says the Government has an absolute right to anything and everything?

Shall we print using the King’s paper?

Shalle we submit oir sermons, for their review and approval?

Do they have an absolute right to tell us who we may confer with?

Share our thought?

Force us to give up our Nom de Juers?

Yey, the government should be unbridled?

A Lois Lerner should be allowed to act in accoradance with her fascist belief, harming another American? Disadvantaging them?

The EPA can run roughshod over whomever they please ?????

We lost all our records but, YOU are still in jeopardy of whatever we decide suits our agenda????

A policeman should have the unfettered right to peruse your cell phone? For a traffic stop? For a DUI?

For whatever reason....they deem?

You are a rug???

I don’t believe it!!!

“reasonable S&S”

My concern is that those in power will always find a way to abuse this. They always seem to be able to create trumped up charges against “enemies.” And by “enemies”, I don’t mean terrorists and criminals, I mean political opponents, conservatives, Christians, and anyone not on board with the liberal agenda.

Maj. Hasan, the Ft. Hood killer, was communicating openly and practically spelled out his intentions. Many in authority were fully aware of this and did nothing to prevent it.

The government is not using their current ability to snoop on us to protect us. They are using it for their own political purposes.

In addition, privacy goes down the drain even at low levels. You can count on it that your cranky neighbor or brother-in-law will snoop into your medical records, tax records, DMV records or whatever if he has a job that gives him access.

The idea here is that these files can’t be accessed even with a warrant.

Yes, they can be accessed with a warrant... unless the target refuses to cooperate with the warrant, which puts him in legal jeopardy anyway. As far as I know, you can't claim the 5th on documents covered by a warrant.

The idea here is that these files can’t be accessed even with a warrant. I have no idea whether that’s really true or not.

It's not. In most cases, it doesn't matter how strong the encryption is because the idiot user neglected to securely delete the original documents after encrypting them or used his cat's name for the password or something. In the few cases where encryption is used correctly, it can still be overcome by planting key-capture software to get the password.

That gives the feds all the access they need to investigate actual suspects. It's too much work to snoop on everybody, which is what they want to do, Constitution or no Constitution.