4 ms·

Sorry, I typed quickly. I was referring to encryption on the iPhone, not on some cloud server. From recent media stories, some people in law enforcement want

by graycat 12y ago

Sorry, I typed quickly. I was referring to encryption on the iPhone, not on some cloud server. From recent media stories, some people in law enforcement want to be able to take a person's mobile device and see what data is on it and also want the right to demand that the owner of the device decrypt the data. My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong. So, the way I read the Constitution, if I have an iPhone and the data on it is encrypted, then I don't have to give the FBI so much as a spit if they don't have one of those warrant thingies. Even if they do have a warrant, do I have to decrypt the data for them? I'd guess and hope not, but that might need a SCOTUS opinion. But, for the cloud, hmm, let's see: I write a very personal diary and store it in a safe deposit box at a bank. Now that diary is no longer part of my "personal papers"? I would hope that that part of the Constitution would continue to apply to my diary, even though it is in bank's box. And if I type my diary into a computer file and store it, encrypted, on a cloud server, again I would think that that file on the cloud server was still my "personal papers and effects". Maybe we need some SCOTUS cases.

GHFigs 12y ago
My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong. You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.
- graycat 12y ago
  > distinction? Yes, in the first paragraph is implicitly assumed that law enforcement didn't have a warrant. But eventually I also wrote "if they don't have one of those warrant thingies. Even if they do have a warrant, do I have to decrypt the data for them?" So, there I was considering the distinction.

by graycat 12y ago

GHFigs 12y ago

My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong. You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.

graycat 12y ago
> distinction? Yes, in the first paragraph is implicitly assumed that law enforcement didn't have a warrant. But eventually I also wrote "if they don't have one of those warrant thingies. Even if they do have a warrant, do I have to decrypt the data for them?" So, there I was considering the distinction.