3 ms·
You've still got the word "unreasonable" to contend with. This is, I think, the place where the metaphor shear between technical limits and legal limits actual
by vec 9y ago
You've still got the word "unreasonable" to contend with.
This is, I think, the place where the metaphor shear between technical limits and legal limits actually happens.
Legally, we treat reasonableness as the salient divider. To a first approximation, everyone agrees that some searches and seizures are reasonable and some are not, and we've developed a well-defined social technology (warrants, judges, courts, etc.) to distinguish the two cases.
But technically the dividing line is possession of the backdoor. Third parties without a backdoor cannot perform a search, no matter how reasonable it may be, and third parties with a backdoor can perform even the most unreasonable search. There is no mechanical way to introduce a hole for reasonable cases but not unreasonable ones, no matter how well we formalize the decision making process.
Software does kinda work like a form of law, but one without recourse to human judgment. There's no judge, no jury, no prosecutorial discretion. It appears that, without a bit of hands on experience with technology, legally minded folks have a hard time really internalizing how constraining that fact is on what's actually possible.
- mjevans 9y agoA better way of wording this is: If there is a way of bypassing technology then it should be assumed it will be bypassed, most particularly by those whom that technology's presence would be used to defend against. Golden keys will be stolen or otherwise recovered (eventually). Only by making the cost of that effort more than any possible reward will security be maintained. Just the same as physically defending a physical location.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago> Only by making the cost of that effort more than any possible reward will security be maintained. And for golden keys, the reward is enormous.