3 ms·
If this was really about the privacy of the perps; an NSL would've been enough and we'd never know about it. This is about setting precedent, and as publicly as
by ohyeshedid 11y ago
If this was really about the privacy of the perps; an NSL would've been enough and we'd never know about it. This is about setting precedent, and as publicly as possible.
If the feds get their way the entire idea of encryption is weakened, and not just for the lawful citizens. I suspect the reason for having this battle so publicly is propaganda based, just as it was with Zimmermann in the 90's.
- dhimes 11y agoSince you brought up NSL.... The legality of the NSL (which does not require oversight- the FBI can self-sign them) hinges on the idea that the persons on whom the information is being gathered have/had "no reasonable expectation" of privacy of the information. That said, if these back doors were to be instituted, could the argument then be made that we now have "no reasonable expectation" of privacy of anything on our cell phones? Could this set a precedent of unholy proportions?
- ohyeshedid 11y agoAbsolutely, and as terrifying as that possibility is I personally think they didn't go the NSL route because Apple is big enough to finally prove or disprove the constitutionality of NSL's; even bring the process to mainstream attention. That's something the DOJ would never want to see happen, because then everyone can come out of the shadows and tell their story.