3 ms·

> The more important question is "Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without

> The more important question is "Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without compromising the general security of the device? The government already does have access to these citizens' data. That data simply has the quality of having been encrypted. If I have printed encrypted text and lock it in my home safe, when the government gets a court order to search my house, they'll have complete access to those documents. They can't compel me to decipher those documents though, it's on them to break the encryption. It's the same situation here. Here, Apple may be able to perform that decription service for the government. The question to me is, should the government be legally able to press a person or firm into service?

comex 11y ago
If the encrypted data is stored on a hard drive in that safe, the government can compel production in some cases, blocked mainly by a legal quirk involving the Fifth Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_St... IANAL, but I think your original hypothetical would be roughly analogous. I think the difference in this Apple case is essentially the amount of effort required (producing a password versus actually writing [a modicum of] new OS software), but I could be wrong.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  My NAL understanding there was that, in cases where the government has already seen the evidence, decription is not self-incrimination. But in general excepting that, they can't compel the owner in the possibility that doing so would force the owner to self-incriminate.
upofadown 11y ago
I think a better analogy for this sort of thing is an unknown location. It's like you took some unencrypted text and hid it in a tree in a national forest. Everyone strongly suspects that the unencrypted text existed in the past. It's just that only one person knows how to access that text in the present. The problem with the locked box analogy is that it implies that the cypertext is in some way equivalent to the plain text. In practice that isn't really true. If you don't have the key you don't actually have the plain text. Nothing says you can't look for it if you want. You could even hire a company to help you look. Can you force a company to look if that search would be against their business interests?
- mattlutze 11y ago
  Ah, I'm not using the safe in the above as analogy to the cyphertext; in both cases I'm talking about encrypted text being stored (printed physical form or digital data form).
Chefkoochooloo 11y ago
You scenario is wonderfully worded and poses a great dilemma. I personally believe that the government should not be able to press a person or firm into service. In today's world of technology, we tend to forget that what we have on our phones is simply an electronic copy of paperback versions. "Printing out" our phones in the encrypted way you refer would not be any use to anyone but the primary owner of the data. Just because we have the means to decipher documents does not mean we should and it should be ultimately up to the person/firm to decipher said documents.

comex 11y ago

If the encrypted data is stored on a hard drive in that safe, the government can compel production in some cases, blocked mainly by a legal quirk involving the Fifth Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_St... IANAL, but I think your original hypothetical would be roughly analogous. I think the difference in this Apple case is essentially the amount of effort required (producing a password versus actually writing [a modicum of] new OS software), but I could be wrong.

mattlutze 11y ago
My NAL understanding there was that, in cases where the government has already seen the evidence, decription is not self-incrimination. But in general excepting that, they can't compel the owner in the possibility that doing so would force the owner to self-incriminate.

upofadown 11y ago

I think a better analogy for this sort of thing is an unknown location. It's like you took some unencrypted text and hid it in a tree in a national forest. Everyone strongly suspects that the unencrypted text existed in the past. It's just that only one person knows how to access that text in the present. The problem with the locked box analogy is that it implies that the cypertext is in some way equivalent to the plain text. In practice that isn't really true. If you don't have the key you don't actually have the plain text. Nothing says you can't look for it if you want. You could even hire a company to help you look. Can you force a company to look if that search would be against their business interests?

mattlutze 11y ago
Ah, I'm not using the safe in the above as analogy to the cyphertext; in both cases I'm talking about encrypted text being stored (printed physical form or digital data form).

Chefkoochooloo 11y ago

You scenario is wonderfully worded and poses a great dilemma. I personally believe that the government should not be able to press a person or firm into service. In today's world of technology, we tend to forget that what we have on our phones is simply an electronic copy of paperback versions. "Printing out" our phones in the encrypted way you refer would not be any use to anyone but the primary owner of the data. Just because we have the means to decipher documents does not mean we should and it should be ultimately up to the person/firm to decipher said documents.