12 ms·
Modern encryption isn't that much difference in basic concept to a cipher, such that it takes data in readable form and makes it unreadable. In Apple/Gov dispu
by sologoub 10y ago
Modern encryption isn't that much difference in basic concept to a cipher, such that it takes data in readable form and makes it unreadable.
In Apple/Gov dispute on the San Bernardino iPhone case, Gov brought up the Burr case from 1807, arguing that a 3rd party could be compelled to decipher the contents, provided there was no self-incrimination (Apple argued Burr did not apply): http://www.macworld.com/article/3046095/legal/burrs-cipher-sir-the-1807-treason-case-that-featured-in-the-applefbi-conflict.html http://www.macworld.com/article/3046095/legal/burrs-cipher-s...
Does anyone know if there has been an attempt to equate decryption to deciphering in US courts?
- enneff 10y agoAren't decrypt and decipher synonyms? What is their distinction, if any?
- sologoub 10y agoNot sure from the mathematical point of view. Not a lawyer, but the Burr case seems to imply that the secretary could be compelled by court to translate the cipher (literally decipher) the letter, provided in doing so he was not going to incriminate himself. If translating a cipher and decrypting a drive is held equivalent, then the subject of this article is likely protected, irrespective of how reprehensible the alleged crime is...