3 ms·

So basically, the author wants every "secure" software system to have a backdoor. iOS versions prior to 8 all had a backdoor and he's lamenting that Apple has c

by joesmo 12y ago

So basically, the author wants every "secure" software system to have a backdoor. iOS versions prior to 8 all had a backdoor and he's lamenting that Apple has closed this backdoor. Not only that, if this applies to the iPhone, it must apply to any and all encryption software. While it's widely known that the government already has backdoors into a lot of popular software, codifying this in law or expecting that all software be built with backdoors is preposterous. Furthermore, his feeble explanation of why this isn't a 5th Amendment issue doesn't stand up. The courts have so far come down on both sides of the issue, and while he cites one court case, there are others and other decisions that disagree (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-appeals-court-fifth-amendment-protects-suspect-from-having-to-decrypt-hard-drive/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-appeals-court-fifth...). It's obvious that the author believes so strongly in the right of the government to have a backdoor that he ignores significant case law that does not back his viewpoint (I'm sure he's aware of it or he's a piss-poor law professor). Because the author doesn't see this for what it is, a backdoor, he can't even begin to understand other, unforeseen consequences (such as criminals getting ahold of the decryption process) and even brushes off this issue early in the article.

stephen_g 12y ago
> iOS versions prior to 8 all had a backdoor and he's lamenting that Apple has closed this backdoor. iOS versions prior to version 8 didn't have a backdoor - I believe the difference is just that less content was stored encrypted before.
- joesmo 12y ago
  In that case, prior versions are just in-securable. If less content was encrypted, however, why would investigators need Apple's help in getting to the data when the data is stored in unencrypted right on the device?
Bud 12y ago
What I found especially telling is that the author's defense (or lack thereof) of the idea that the 5th Amendment is not applicable here did not even involve any attempt to explain why it should not apply. Like you said, he just feebly pointed at carefully-selected case law. I think that's because any reasonable person can see that in today's society, it's completely obvious that if you force someone to turn over everything in their smartphone, that's likely to be about as incriminating as everything else you could possibly force them to say or turn over, put together. The idea that this is not the case doesn't pass the laugh test.

by joesmo 12y ago

stephen_g 12y ago

> iOS versions prior to 8 all had a backdoor and he's lamenting that Apple has closed this backdoor. iOS versions prior to version 8 didn't have a backdoor - I believe the difference is just that less content was stored encrypted before.

joesmo 12y ago
In that case, prior versions are just in-securable. If less content was encrypted, however, why would investigators need Apple's help in getting to the data when the data is stored in unencrypted right on the device?

Bud 12y ago

What I found especially telling is that the author's defense (or lack thereof) of the idea that the 5th Amendment is not applicable here did not even involve any attempt to explain why it should not apply. Like you said, he just feebly pointed at carefully-selected case law. I think that's because any reasonable person can see that in today's society, it's completely obvious that if you force someone to turn over everything in their smartphone, that's likely to be about as incriminating as everything else you could possibly force them to say or turn over, put together. The idea that this is not the case doesn't pass the laugh test.