5 ms·
> I deeply hate the fact that anybody thinks anything on my personal devices belongs to them. I think my devices should fall under the inviolability of the phys
by patrickmay 11y ago
> I deeply hate the fact that anybody thinks anything on my personal devices belongs to them. I think my devices should fall under the inviolability of the physical body and that decrypting them is akin to forcing me to testify against myself.
If only that attitude were documented in the most basic law of the U.S., clearly defining the strictly delimited powers of the government. Maybe something like this:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
ETA: Yes, I know the government has a warrant in this case. The judge is considering the question of whether that warrant is reasonable.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- a3voices 11y agoI think what he's saying is even warrants shouldn't be allowed to search the contents of your personal devices.
- patrickmay 11y ago> I think what he's saying is even warrants shouldn't be allowed to search the contents of your personal devices. Indeed. I agree that such warrants should be deemed unreasonable. Unless the government can meet the criteria of "describing the place to be searched", going through a phone is more akin to a fishing expedition.
- ams6110 11y agoI think the content of messages, images, etc. on a phone are pretty close to the meaning of "papers" in the quote from the constitution. Not unreasonable to demand in a warrant.
- Natanael_L 11y agoBut if the papers sought after would be about work, would you gather every piece of paper from the entire house/phone when you know most of it is irrelevant?
- mattlutze 11y agoPolice authorities executing a warrant do do that, yes. They'll collect everything they can during the seizure, as far as Nightline tells us, then spend their time combing through it all looking for their smoking gun.
- Natanael_L 11y agoAnd that doesn't violate the requirement to narrow the search and describe exactly what they'll look for?
- dragonwriter 11y agoA phone is a pretty specific place; how does identifying the phone not meet the criteria of "describing the place to be searched"?
- Natanael_L 11y ago> A continent is a pretty specific place; how does identifying the continent not meet the criteria of "describing the place to be searched"? There's the photo gallery, downloads, multiple social networking apps, SMS, maps, IM, search history, configurations, app list, games, note taking apps, etc...
- ams6110 11y agoI think he's not even saying the warrant is unreasonable. It was issued, therefore probable cause must have been presented. What he's questioning is whether the government has the authority to conscript a third party (Apple) and force them to execute the warrant.
- patrickmay 11y agoIt would be interesting to see what would happen if all the capable technical staff at Apple refused to unlock the device. Would the court pick one at random to compel?
- Natanael_L 11y agoThey'd have the ability to pick all of them. Contempt of court to all unless one agrees. In which case you make the tool require anonymous treshold signatures in where at least m of n technicians must issue the order. So that if n-(m+1) or more technicians refuse to cooperate, the request fails and you don't know who is innocent and who made the choice to break it. Unless of course everybody are forced to hand over their keypairs and all - in which case you go yet another step further and give them canary keys which then cause a lock-down (the HSM could even wipe its secret keys completely in this case), and you still don't know who did it.
- ak4g 11y agoIf the HSM gets wiped, via whatever mechanism, you prosecute (successfully) everyone involved for obstruction of justice. At that point they've all participated in a criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence. The m'th hand doesn't have to know that the n'th hand gave the canary key; that changes nothing. You pre-arranged to allow yourself or a collaborator to commit a crime, and (at least) one of them did - everyone's guilty of the conspiracy charge, go directly to jail, do not pass go. The law doesn't have to - and never does - respect clever CS constructions.
- Evolved 11y ago
- rmc 11y agoThat only applies to the people in the USA (and/or US citizens). Non-US people living in the rest of the world aren't counted.