3 ms·

>This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. This case is actually super with precedent, if you ignor

by rtpg 11y ago

>This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. This case is actually super with precedent, if you ignore the digital nature of things. Apple has keys to a safe (digital signage key for iOS updates), FBI has warrant to search safe, court orders keys to safe. Fourth amendment doesn't apply because Apple can't incriminate themselves by giving signage keys. There is the whole "asking Apple to write the OS changes and sign it", instead of just "Asking Apple for the signing keys." I would call this a compromise ruling to avoid having Apple have to give the actual for real skeleton key. Asking a judge to not force Apple to surrender the digital signage keys requires more subtle arguments about burden. Asking for any ruling on encryption itself is asking a court to legislate from the bench

studentrob 11y ago
> if you ignore the digital nature of things That is a gigantic "if"
parenthephobia 11y ago
The precedent you reference doesn't really apply because, as you say, the FBI isn't actually asking for the signing keys. The big difference between what's being asked and the signing keys is that Apple already have the signing keys. There is certainly plenty of precedent for a court to ask Apple to produce something they already have, but less precedent for a court to ask Apple to make something that doesn't exist yet. In the analogy, the FBI doesn't have a warrant to "search the safe". What is protected by the signing keys is the ability to distribute iOS updates, but the court wants the data on the phone, which is protected by a different key Apple don't have. A more correct non-IT analogy is to imagine that the safe has two locks: one pickable, the other unpickable. Apple don't have a matching key for either, but knows how to cut a key for the unpickable one. The FBI has asked Apple to set up a key-cutting facility, definitely only for use on this one occasion, so they can make a key for the unpickable lock.

by rtpg 11y ago

studentrob 11y ago

> if you ignore the digital nature of things That is a gigantic "if"

parenthephobia 11y ago

The precedent you reference doesn't really apply because, as you say, the FBI isn't actually asking for the signing keys. The big difference between what's being asked and the signing keys is that Apple already have the signing keys. There is certainly plenty of precedent for a court to ask Apple to produce something they already have, but less precedent for a court to ask Apple to make something that doesn't exist yet. In the analogy, the FBI doesn't have a warrant to "search the safe". What is protected by the signing keys is the ability to distribute iOS updates, but the court wants the data on the phone, which is protected by a different key Apple don't have. A more correct non-IT analogy is to imagine that the safe has two locks: one pickable, the other unpickable. Apple don't have a matching key for either, but knows how to cut a key for the unpickable one. The FBI has asked Apple to set up a key-cutting facility, definitely only for use on this one occasion, so they can make a key for the unpickable lock.