4 ms·

Devil's advocate: Consumer preferences or the fact that it was a work phone don't matter, as long as a warrant has been attained. This case is a constitutional

by txru 11y ago

Devil's advocate: Consumer preferences or the fact that it was a work phone don't matter, as long as a warrant has been attained. This case is a constitutional matter from the beginning-- the Federal government does possess the ability to search a citizen's belongings and communications, given that it has a proper warrant. The Fourth Amendment checks this power. So, if a Federal judge has issued a warrant, and it is possible, even if difficult, to serve that warrant, the government does have the authority to make that material available to the court. What I'm getting at is that encryption can make subpoenas and serving warrants impossible for the courts, and that's something that I understand the government being concerned about. Could this be a power play to establish a precedent, and say the party withholding is aiding terrorism? Probably. Despite that, I understand the government's case.

zepto 11y ago
You could equally argue that reducing security is aiding terrorism by enabling a class of cyberattacks that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
bad_user 11y ago
They are coercing companies into using their resources to produce software and introduce backdoors that can hurt honest customers. And this will hurt companies like Apple, since security is something they sell. In regards to subpoenas, can the government read your mind? Should they be able to? Well, our devices are an extension of our mind and if you make the case that the government should have access, that's a slippery slope imho. Furthermore, this will only work against small time criminals. Crime syndicates on the other hand have the resources to acquire knowledge and protect themselves. There's always the analogue loophole and some would argue that such tactics do nothing but to misuse resources, instead of good old detective work, ultimately hurting the honest taxpayers.
- qiqing 11y ago
  On that note, if the government has a warrant, should they be allowed to use EEG to get your phone's PIN code regardless of your consent? https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/technical-sessions/presentation/martinovic https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/technical...
  - Crito 11y ago
    If the government has a warrant, should they be allowed to use a stethoscope to get into your safe regardless of your consent? I can't think of any possible reason they shouldn't...
    - khuey 11y ago
      Your analogy doesn't require compelling the participation of the safe manufacturer. The government has the phone, nobody is stopping them from hacking it.
      - Crito 11y ago
        My analogy does not, but neither does the hypothetical scenario it was a response to. > "should they be allowed to use EEG to get your phone's PIN code regardless of your consent?" On the point of compelling labour, I question where Apple's sense of civic responsibility is. They should be eager to help their community and provide any assistance the FBI needs, provided the FBI is acting legally. They should not need to be compelled to help. You can't compel Apple to have a sense of civic duty of course, but it sure is disappointing that they lack one.
- txru 11y ago
  I know that this particular case makes access to subpoenaed resources a relatively more nuanced and impactful situation. The ideal situation for the government is: 'We need that communication. It is locked to us. We unlock it, given that we have a warrant.' The matter ends. (Ignoring bulk collection, for the moment). The ideal situation for the private consumer is: No one has access to my communications, because I believe in my own privacy strongly. So, in the ideal world, the government requires a method that, if they need to, can decipher communications that occur with a US citizen involved, provided there is a warrant. This is difficult because of the nature of cryptography. What solution shall we find that marries the needs of the government and the private citizen? I don't know. We'll find out. Mind reading is not applicable. That's a problem for a future world. What the government cares about now in terms of subpoenas, and has always cared about, is communication between criminal individuals that they have probable cause and a warrant to search. Again, arguing who it will or will not work for isn't really the concern of the government. They care about the achievability of their enumerated powers, whether they be against terrorists or petty criminals. They are working for a solution, and they will approach some simulacrum of that solution.
bsder 11y ago
> So, if a Federal judge has issued a warrant, and it is possible, even if difficult, to serve that warrant, the government does have the authority to make that material available to the court. This goes FAR beyond that. This is coercing a company to do something beyond simply turning over information. There is a big difference in turning over something which already exists and compelling a company to perform work to create something which does not yet exist. Picture this if served to a small company. Even if the company was compensated for the work, what happens if it takes all of the company resources over 3 months? Will the government compensate for lost clients? Will the government compensate for lost opportunities? This kind of government demand is much more like quartering troops (government compulsion to perform an action), and we know full well what the Founding Fathers thought of that.
- txru 11y ago
  I'm willing to believe that you're right. I think, though, that the government will take this as a sign that they need to never have the need to ask this question again. The demand that encrypted communications devices have some back door wasn't some capricious whim this year: it's been brewing for years, and only accelerated with the widespread adoption of distributing encrypted operating systems. While I agree that this particular request is similar to demanding that citizens (or corporations), quarter troops, I think it's an error to look too far outside of the realm of communications with regard to the Constitution.

by txru 11y ago

zepto 11y ago

You could equally argue that reducing security is aiding terrorism by enabling a class of cyberattacks that wouldn't otherwise be possible.

bad_user 11y ago

They are coercing companies into using their resources to produce software and introduce backdoors that can hurt honest customers. And this will hurt companies like Apple, since security is something they sell. In regards to subpoenas, can the government read your mind? Should they be able to? Well, our devices are an extension of our mind and if you make the case that the government should have access, that's a slippery slope imho. Furthermore, this will only work against small time criminals. Crime syndicates on the other hand have the resources to acquire knowledge and protect themselves. There's always the analogue loophole and some would argue that such tactics do nothing but to misuse resources, instead of good old detective work, ultimately hurting the honest taxpayers.

qiqing 11y ago
On that note, if the government has a warrant, should they be allowed to use EEG to get your phone's PIN code regardless of your consent? https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/technical-sessions/presentation/martinovic https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/technical...
- Crito 11y ago
  If the government has a warrant, should they be allowed to use a stethoscope to get into your safe regardless of your consent? I can't think of any possible reason they shouldn't...
  - khuey 11y ago
    Your analogy doesn't require compelling the participation of the safe manufacturer. The government has the phone, nobody is stopping them from hacking it.
    - Crito 11y ago
      My analogy does not, but neither does the hypothetical scenario it was a response to. > "should they be allowed to use EEG to get your phone's PIN code regardless of your consent?" On the point of compelling labour, I question where Apple's sense of civic responsibility is. They should be eager to help their community and provide any assistance the FBI needs, provided the FBI is acting legally. They should not need to be compelled to help. You can't compel Apple to have a sense of civic duty of course, but it sure is disappointing that they lack one.
txru 11y ago
I know that this particular case makes access to subpoenaed resources a relatively more nuanced and impactful situation. The ideal situation for the government is: 'We need that communication. It is locked to us. We unlock it, given that we have a warrant.' The matter ends. (Ignoring bulk collection, for the moment). The ideal situation for the private consumer is: No one has access to my communications, because I believe in my own privacy strongly. So, in the ideal world, the government requires a method that, if they need to, can decipher communications that occur with a US citizen involved, provided there is a warrant. This is difficult because of the nature of cryptography. What solution shall we find that marries the needs of the government and the private citizen? I don't know. We'll find out. Mind reading is not applicable. That's a problem for a future world. What the government cares about now in terms of subpoenas, and has always cared about, is communication between criminal individuals that they have probable cause and a warrant to search. Again, arguing who it will or will not work for isn't really the concern of the government. They care about the achievability of their enumerated powers, whether they be against terrorists or petty criminals. They are working for a solution, and they will approach some simulacrum of that solution.

bsder 11y ago

> So, if a Federal judge has issued a warrant, and it is possible, even if difficult, to serve that warrant, the government does have the authority to make that material available to the court. This goes FAR beyond that. This is coercing a company to do something beyond simply turning over information. There is a big difference in turning over something which already exists and compelling a company to perform work to create something which does not yet exist. Picture this if served to a small company. Even if the company was compensated for the work, what happens if it takes all of the company resources over 3 months? Will the government compensate for lost clients? Will the government compensate for lost opportunities? This kind of government demand is much more like quartering troops (government compulsion to perform an action), and we know full well what the Founding Fathers thought of that.

txru 11y ago
I'm willing to believe that you're right. I think, though, that the government will take this as a sign that they need to never have the need to ask this question again. The demand that encrypted communications devices have some back door wasn't some capricious whim this year: it's been brewing for years, and only accelerated with the widespread adoption of distributing encrypted operating systems. While I agree that this particular request is similar to demanding that citizens (or corporations), quarter troops, I think it's an error to look too far outside of the realm of communications with regard to the Constitution.