8 ms·
That is an interesting question. "signing a binary" is a form of endorsement. If code == speech, as Apple is arguing, then compelling the endorsement of code i
by coreyp_1 11y ago
That is an interesting question. "signing a binary" is a form of endorsement. If code == speech, as Apple is arguing, then compelling the endorsement of code is, quite literally, compelled speech, which may fall afoul of the 1st Amendment.
- facetube 11y agoApple made this specific argument in their motion to vacate. IMO it's a powerful one, because the potential implications for certificate authorities seem quite staggering.
- Zizzle 11y agoDick Clarke has been saying the same. > Clarke explained that the FBI was trying to get the courts to essentially compel speech from Apple with the All Writs Act. "This is a case where the federal government using a 1789 law trying to compel speech. What the FBI is trying to do is make code-writers at Apple, to make them write code that they do not want to write that will make their systems less secure," he said. "Compelling them to write code. And the courts have ruled in the past that computer code is speech." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/former-cyber-czar-says-nsa-could-crack-the-san-bernadino-shooters-phone/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/former-cyber-czar...