5 ms·
I like to think it's about the 3rd amendment. The backdoor is a digital soldier. Frankly though, I hope Apple loses this one. I'd like to see it spur them into
by danjoc 11y ago
I like to think it's about the 3rd amendment. The backdoor is a digital soldier.
Frankly though, I hope Apple loses this one. I'd like to see it spur them into developing a device that they do not have the ability to compromise, because it gives the end user the freedom to modify all the way down to the firmware. Like how you can theoretically flash your own signed coreboot into a chromebook.
- remarkEon 11y agoInteresting thought, though I'd imagine that if Apple loses the kind of device you're talking about might be by extension criminalized depending on the breadth of the ruling - or explicitly criminalized by congress. I'd actually like to think of encryption as a 2nd amendment issue - protection against an unruly and intrusive government. Encryption being necessary to the security of a free state...or something.
- dougabug 11y agoThis is an astute point. Encryption is a modern, defensive technology against an overreaching State intent on total control over its populace. In the 21st Century, guns are a relatively weak counterbalance to State power. Even in Saddam's Iraq, people had guns.
- rosser 11y agoTo your point, remember that the US government has long classed encryption as a munition, and subjects it to arms control and export regulations. It is a Federal felony (though, aside, what isn't anymore?) to travel with crypto of a certain strength to dozens of countries — many of which don't even require a visa or do visa-on-arrival. You weren't thinking of bringing your US-purchased laptop or smartphone along with you when you went abroad, were you? EDIT: phrasing.
- Outdoorsman 11y agoI think you make an excellent point... >>if Apple loses the kind of device you're talking about might be by extension criminalized depending on the breadth of the ruling - or explicitly criminalized by congress.<< I can easily see this going in that direction...
- jkestner 11y agoI love this point tying it to the Second Amendment. Originalists won't. Someday we'll remember our history and not just recite the words. Which reminds me, this brings another lens with which to examine the next Supreme Court appointee, as they'll likely see this case.
- rhino369 11y ago>I like to think it's about the 3rd amendment. The backdoor is a digital soldier. I do like the creativity. However, we are arguably at war with ISIS. Congress could probably pass a law quartering soldiers in our houses. Plus this court order isn't putting the backdoor in any phone other than the one the FBI already possess.
- sundaeofshock 11y agoNo, we are not at war with ISIS. Only congress can declare war, and I don't recall such a vote.
- rhino369 11y agoDeclaring war and being at war aren't necessarily the same thing.
- philovivero 11y agoAnd just making up your own definitions for everything isn't necessarily the most useful way to engage in a conversation.
- rhino369 11y agoI'm being totally serious. I'm not at all convinced that the only way the United States is at war is when Congress declares it. Declarations of war are diplomatic in nature. There is even a theory that declarations of war are unnecessary after an act of war has already been undertaken. Like the USA running a bombing campaign on ISIS.
- VikingCoder 11y agoDo you remember the last war that the US declared?
- rosser 11y agoFree hint: my parents weren't even born yet, and I'm at the early end of Generation X.