5 ms·

Shouldn't it be covered under the 4th amendment?

• aspenmayer 5y ago
  There is historical precedent classifying encryption as munitions, so arguably the 2nd amendment would also apply, in addition to the 4th.
  • dane-pgp 5y ago
    There's also historical precedent for classifying encryption software as speech (at least when printed in book form), so the 1st amendment should apply too. Then of course there are 5th amendment issues with requiring people to disclose their encryption keys. While we're at it, the 3rd amendment forbids the quartering of soldiers in homes, which, as others have pointed out, is at least analogous to requiring government-approved spying software on our phones. https://www.rstreet.org/2016/04/12/encryption-balancing-the-needs-of-law-enforcement-and-the-fourth-amendment/ https://www.rstreet.org/2016/04/12/encryption-balancing-the-...
    • aspenmayer 5y ago
      > While we're at it, the 3rd amendment forbids the quartering of soldiers in homes, which, as others have pointed out, is at least analogous to requiring government-approved spying software on our phones. Very great point! Quartering soldiers involved feeding and housing them, and caring for their mounts. Requiring me to run code on my device without compensation seems to fit that bill rather nicely. Thanks for that.