5 ms·

What Baker is trying to express is that companies like Apple could be shooting themselves in the foot with corporate sales if the data sitting on devices they'r

What Baker is trying to express is that companies like Apple could be shooting themselves in the foot with corporate sales if the data sitting on devices they're manufacturing can't be handed over when counsel tells you that there's a valid warrant. If Apple says the data on the phones is completely secure and not even the cops can get to it, then that means IT can't get to it when directed to, either. Management might not like that so much.

Spooky23 12y ago
If as a company, you aren't managing your devices, (trivial to do at low cost via MDM) there is no difference between encrypted/unencrypted -- you're reliant on the custodian of the phone to do the right thing when turning over the device. Baker wants the US to have the same access to data that Saudi Arabian or Indian law requires, except in those countries there is actual law requiring this. NSA/et al prefers "gentleman's agreements" backed by some broadly defined law that is impossible to contest in open court.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  > If as a company, you aren't managing your devices [...] you're reliant on the custodian of the phone to do the right thing when turning over the device. Precisely - and companies aren't going to want to purchase phones that they can't manage. Of course, this might be a moot point; I've never seen a company-issued iPhone before, so maybe Apple doesn't even want to be in that market (I might just be hanging around the wrong people, though). > NSA/et al prefers [...] While encrypting data while it's transiting the internet might have an effect on the NSA, encrypting data stored locally (like with the iPhone encryption debacle) won't affect them at all. When was the last time the NSA had your phone in its possession? It will affect criminal investigations. I think Apple would have stirred up a lot less controversy if they had marketed their encryption as protecting the data on your lost phone from criminals instead of marketing it as protecting it from the cops.
malandrew 12y ago
Apple and Google are merely absolving themselves of being involved in the legal matters of others. The third-party doctrine basically forces third-parties to be legally culpable for discovery. Google and Apple don't want to be legally responsible anymore, so they've pushed the responsibility for complying with counsel to the end-user. i.e. instead of law enforcement going to Google and Apple and saying "I have a legal right to search X. Hand it over.", law enforcement now needs to go up to the person whose papers and effects are being searched and ask the same thing. Had the founding fathers been aware that the notion that one day third parties would become responsible for the papers and effects for millions of citizens, it's reasonable to assume the warrants would have had to be issued in a way where the subject of the warrant would at least have a right to know they were the subject of a warrant. With third-party doctrine, the government got the benefit of issuing warrants to entities unlikely to protest because protecting the rights of others incurs a cost. Third-party doctrine has been a civil liberties disaster because it decoupled the recipient of the warrant from the subject of the warrant. That decoupling has lead to a scenario that deprives millions of people the right to contest a warrant in court because they might not even know such a warrant was ever issued. It's not like Google and Apple are taking away the government's ability to issue warrants. They are just removing themselves as a third-party. The government now needs to go directly to the person who possesses the phone and issue a warrant to that person.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  > i.e. instead of law enforcement going to Google and Apple and saying "I have a legal right to search X. Hand it over.", law enforcement now needs to go up to the person whose papers and effects are being searched and ask the same thing. Which is entirely the wrong way to conduct a criminal investigation. How effective can the police really be when they have to go to suspect and say "We've got enough evidence to suspect you of a crime and get a warrant, but not enough to convict. Can you please hand over all evidence that would further incriminate you?" > It's not like Google and Apple are taking away the government's ability to issue warrants. No, but they're making the warrants useless.
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
Zigurd 12y ago
The US tech industry as a whole has shot itself in the foot by being suspected of complicity with US spy agencies in providing back doors and overt assistance. Any government or enterprise that values autonomy relative to US policies would avoid US tech products.

Spooky23 12y ago

If as a company, you aren't managing your devices, (trivial to do at low cost via MDM) there is no difference between encrypted/unencrypted -- you're reliant on the custodian of the phone to do the right thing when turning over the device. Baker wants the US to have the same access to data that Saudi Arabian or Indian law requires, except in those countries there is actual law requiring this. NSA/et al prefers "gentleman's agreements" backed by some broadly defined law that is impossible to contest in open court.

csandreasen 12y ago
> If as a company, you aren't managing your devices [...] you're reliant on the custodian of the phone to do the right thing when turning over the device. Precisely - and companies aren't going to want to purchase phones that they can't manage. Of course, this might be a moot point; I've never seen a company-issued iPhone before, so maybe Apple doesn't even want to be in that market (I might just be hanging around the wrong people, though). > NSA/et al prefers [...] While encrypting data while it's transiting the internet might have an effect on the NSA, encrypting data stored locally (like with the iPhone encryption debacle) won't affect them at all. When was the last time the NSA had your phone in its possession? It will affect criminal investigations. I think Apple would have stirred up a lot less controversy if they had marketed their encryption as protecting the data on your lost phone from criminals instead of marketing it as protecting it from the cops.

malandrew 12y ago

Apple and Google are merely absolving themselves of being involved in the legal matters of others. The third-party doctrine basically forces third-parties to be legally culpable for discovery. Google and Apple don't want to be legally responsible anymore, so they've pushed the responsibility for complying with counsel to the end-user. i.e. instead of law enforcement going to Google and Apple and saying "I have a legal right to search X. Hand it over.", law enforcement now needs to go up to the person whose papers and effects are being searched and ask the same thing. Had the founding fathers been aware that the notion that one day third parties would become responsible for the papers and effects for millions of citizens, it's reasonable to assume the warrants would have had to be issued in a way where the subject of the warrant would at least have a right to know they were the subject of a warrant. With third-party doctrine, the government got the benefit of issuing warrants to entities unlikely to protest because protecting the rights of others incurs a cost. Third-party doctrine has been a civil liberties disaster because it decoupled the recipient of the warrant from the subject of the warrant. That decoupling has lead to a scenario that deprives millions of people the right to contest a warrant in court because they might not even know such a warrant was ever issued. It's not like Google and Apple are taking away the government's ability to issue warrants. They are just removing themselves as a third-party. The government now needs to go directly to the person who possesses the phone and issue a warrant to that person.

csandreasen 12y ago
> i.e. instead of law enforcement going to Google and Apple and saying "I have a legal right to search X. Hand it over.", law enforcement now needs to go up to the person whose papers and effects are being searched and ask the same thing. Which is entirely the wrong way to conduct a criminal investigation. How effective can the police really be when they have to go to suspect and say "We've got enough evidence to suspect you of a crime and get a warrant, but not enough to convict. Can you please hand over all evidence that would further incriminate you?" > It's not like Google and Apple are taking away the government's ability to issue warrants. No, but they're making the warrants useless.
- mike_hearn 12y ago

Zigurd 12y ago

The US tech industry as a whole has shot itself in the foot by being suspected of complicity with US spy agencies in providing back doors and overt assistance. Any government or enterprise that values autonomy relative to US policies would avoid US tech products.