3 ms·
Interesting 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
by remarkEon 11y ago
Interesting 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.