3 ms·

I am not a lawyer, but it seems like the EFF's argument still reduces to "the government cannot dictate the content of code" in cases where the code is signed,

I am not a lawyer, but it seems like the EFF's argument still reduces to "the government cannot dictate the content of code" in cases where the code is signed, which a lot of modern code is. It's an interesting argument, but I think it might reach a little too far to be successful. I can guess why the EFF is making it though. A decision vacating the order because of 1st amendment protections seems like it could also be a precedent against something like a version of CALEA expanded to include Apple, or even CALEA as it stands now.

contravariant 11y ago
It's not quite the same. The government could (conceivably) dictate the content of the code, but the argument then goes that signing the code conveys the message that Apple has 'approved' of the code, similar to signing your name on a particular declaration. Conversely should the first amendment not protect Apple from having to cryptographically sign their code, then arguably the government should also be able to force a person to cryptographically sign a message that runs contrary to their views. Which seems a pretty clear violation of the freedom of speech.