4 ms·

> Even if a cop showed all of the probable cause necessary and obtained a warrant from a judge, he would still be unable to search the device How is that any d

by m4x 12y ago

> Even if a cop showed all of the probable cause necessary and obtained a warrant from a judge, he would still be unable to search the device How is that any different to information I store in my head? I can't be compelled to reveal incriminating information that I hold in my head, and I don't see why I should be compelled to reveal the same information if I chose to store it in an encrypted device. If you decide it's ok for the law to inspect the contents of my encrypted devices, what happens when they get the ability to inspect the contents of my brain? That will happen sooner or later, and if encrypted personal data isn't considered private then I'm confident internal personal data won't be either. > A warrant is required to search cell phones Not if I'm crossing the border or near any Stingray style device > A split key solution would solve that problem I don't think it would. If I have to give physical access to my device, it's as good as compromised

csandreasen 12y ago
> How is that any different to information I store in my head? It's the difference between a 4th Amendment issue and a 5th Amendment issue. Whether or not the police could search your phone used to fall squarely within the bounds of the 4th Amendment. If you encrypted it yourself, it would then be a 5th Amendment issue - you have a right to not self-incriminate. With the new iPhones, someone else (Apple) decided to encrypt your phone for you in such a way as to prevent any searches, regardless of whether or not there's a warrant involved. In doing so, Apple created a class of evidence that cannot be searched. People here tend to frame that in terms of my phone or my data - why should the police be searching me? Most of us will never have a search warrant issued on us - they exist to collect evidence of crimes and we're generally not criminals. If you step back and and look at it from a law enforcement perspective, do you really want companies that manufacture popular devices suddenly deciding that data on their products cannot be used as evidence in a crime? I'll provide my own reductio ad absurdum in response to your brain-scanning argument and ask how you would feel if the cops told you "Sorry, there's nothing we can do. It looks like your spouse was shot with an iGun." A split key solution would definitely stop a border guard - the data is still encrypted and cannot be decrypted without cooperation from all n parties that hold the pieces of the key. No, it won't technically stop them from installing a backdoor on your laptop, but I think you're kind of shifting goalposts with that argument. We're talking about warrants to decrypt data here.
- zaroth 12y ago
  What Apple did was remove itself from the equation. Long before Apple, anyone could encrypt data they felt like encrypting, and trust that short of divulging the key, that data could not be decrypted. The only thing that has changed is the ease of use around applying the encryption. I don't agree that making encryption "too easy to use" should be illegal. Of course with iPhones we are still encrypting the data ourselves. You choose to apply a PIN lock (or not). If you choose to allow a fingerprint to unlock the phone from a cold boot, then the government can collect your fingerprint and decrypt your files (fingerprints are not testimony). If you choose a weak PIN, the government can guess it and decrypt your files. All Apple has done is choose to design a secure encryption library, one where there is no obvious backdoor, and one where they cannot be co-opted into secretly disclosing your personal data to the government through a 3rd-party warrant. The fact is, Apple is not in possession of your data, and they don't want to be in possession of your data. If somehow Congress manages to pass CALEA-type laws requiring Apple to maintain a backdoor into our data, we'll just bypass Apple and keep the data safe ourselves. It might take a few more years for the technology to become equally usable, but the 1st amendment guarantees our right to develop and publish and freely license the software necessary to achieve the end goal, namely, that people have the ability to control access to personal data that they themselves collect and maintain. Thankfully Tim Cook has the experience and unique perspective on these matters to truly understand the value and necessity of being able to keep personal data private. I'm sure the path that brought him to these strongly-held personal beliefs was not easy, but I believe the world actually is a better place because of it. I am also very thankful to live in a country where Tim can help craft a device which upholds his beliefs, and it would be a sad day indeed to see that freedom stifled. You're argument about "an encryption system installed by the manufacturer that the manufacturer itself cannot decrypt" does not make any sense. It sounds like an argument against functional encryption, which is an argument against functional computers. Please try following your thought to its logical conclusion, and consider if it's really a country you would want to live in?
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > In doing so, Apple created a class of evidence that cannot be searched. This seems to be the fatal flaw in your argument, because you aren't recognizing the duality inherent in it. Apple 1) created a class of evidence 2) that cannot be searched. That class of evidence didn't exist in 1776 or 1976 or 1996. The police can solve crimes without it as they've been doing for hundreds of years. > "Sorry, there's nothing we can do. It looks like your spouse was shot with an iGun." Sorry, there's nothing we can do... except interview witnesses and suspects, check alibis, investigate the crime scene, autopsy the body, look for motive, review surveillance footage, etc. etc.

by m4x 12y ago

csandreasen 12y ago

> How is that any different to information I store in my head? It's the difference between a 4th Amendment issue and a 5th Amendment issue. Whether or not the police could search your phone used to fall squarely within the bounds of the 4th Amendment. If you encrypted it yourself, it would then be a 5th Amendment issue - you have a right to not self-incriminate. With the new iPhones, someone else (Apple) decided to encrypt your phone for you in such a way as to prevent any searches, regardless of whether or not there's a warrant involved. In doing so, Apple created a class of evidence that cannot be searched. People here tend to frame that in terms of my phone or my data - why should the police be searching me? Most of us will never have a search warrant issued on us - they exist to collect evidence of crimes and we're generally not criminals. If you step back and and look at it from a law enforcement perspective, do you really want companies that manufacture popular devices suddenly deciding that data on their products cannot be used as evidence in a crime? I'll provide my own reductio ad absurdum in response to your brain-scanning argument and ask how you would feel if the cops told you "Sorry, there's nothing we can do. It looks like your spouse was shot with an iGun." A split key solution would definitely stop a border guard - the data is still encrypted and cannot be decrypted without cooperation from all n parties that hold the pieces of the key. No, it won't technically stop them from installing a backdoor on your laptop, but I think you're kind of shifting goalposts with that argument. We're talking about warrants to decrypt data here.

zaroth 12y ago
What Apple did was remove itself from the equation. Long before Apple, anyone could encrypt data they felt like encrypting, and trust that short of divulging the key, that data could not be decrypted. The only thing that has changed is the ease of use around applying the encryption. I don't agree that making encryption "too easy to use" should be illegal. Of course with iPhones we are still encrypting the data ourselves. You choose to apply a PIN lock (or not). If you choose to allow a fingerprint to unlock the phone from a cold boot, then the government can collect your fingerprint and decrypt your files (fingerprints are not testimony). If you choose a weak PIN, the government can guess it and decrypt your files. All Apple has done is choose to design a secure encryption library, one where there is no obvious backdoor, and one where they cannot be co-opted into secretly disclosing your personal data to the government through a 3rd-party warrant. The fact is, Apple is not in possession of your data, and they don't want to be in possession of your data. If somehow Congress manages to pass CALEA-type laws requiring Apple to maintain a backdoor into our data, we'll just bypass Apple and keep the data safe ourselves. It might take a few more years for the technology to become equally usable, but the 1st amendment guarantees our right to develop and publish and freely license the software necessary to achieve the end goal, namely, that people have the ability to control access to personal data that they themselves collect and maintain. Thankfully Tim Cook has the experience and unique perspective on these matters to truly understand the value and necessity of being able to keep personal data private. I'm sure the path that brought him to these strongly-held personal beliefs was not easy, but I believe the world actually is a better place because of it. I am also very thankful to live in a country where Tim can help craft a device which upholds his beliefs, and it would be a sad day indeed to see that freedom stifled. You're argument about "an encryption system installed by the manufacturer that the manufacturer itself cannot decrypt" does not make any sense. It sounds like an argument against functional encryption, which is an argument against functional computers. Please try following your thought to its logical conclusion, and consider if it's really a country you would want to live in?
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> In doing so, Apple created a class of evidence that cannot be searched. This seems to be the fatal flaw in your argument, because you aren't recognizing the duality inherent in it. Apple 1) created a class of evidence 2) that cannot be searched. That class of evidence didn't exist in 1776 or 1976 or 1996. The police can solve crimes without it as they've been doing for hundreds of years. > "Sorry, there's nothing we can do. It looks like your spouse was shot with an iGun." Sorry, there's nothing we can do... except interview witnesses and suspects, check alibis, investigate the crime scene, autopsy the body, look for motive, review surveillance footage, etc. etc.