3 ms·

I feel like we're just going back and forth with the exact same points - when the warrant used to produce something, but no longer does it poses an issue for la

I feel like we're just going back and forth with the exact same points - when the warrant used to produce something, but no longer does it poses an issue for law enforcement. In this case, it's not the suspect that made that choice to prevent law enforcement from gaining access. > Encryption on devices with the relevant hardware instructions is basically free; the user receives no practical benefit from not using it. What purpose is there in presenting the user with a choice that every rational user will make the same way? It's not free - encrypting data always comes with the risk that you're going to lose the means to decrypt it. I can think of two people I know who in one case put full disk encryption on their cell phone and in the other case put full disk encryption on their laptop. After rebooting a week or two, both had forgotten the passwords they used and lost all of the data on them. Neither of them encrypt their devices anymore. Encryption can make data recovery a pain in the butt. I've had encrypted e-mails in my mail archives that I've discovered that I no longer have the private key for - it got replaced a year prior, the new key got migrated to a new computer without the old one, and the old computer eventually got wiped and repurposed. Yeah, it was my mistake for not backing up my old GPG key. I'd put a hefty share of the blame on my two friends as well for their encryption woes as well. But that's the point - we make mistakes, and strong encryption isn't very forgiving. It's a trade-off that not everyone is going to make, especially for data they don't consider sensitive; I've lived with people who have to go through password recovery every two weeks or so. Personally, I wouldn't encrypt something that I'm only going to access once every 5 years or so; I'd use some other solution like making an unencrypted backup on some removable media and storing it in a secure place.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> I feel like we're just going back and forth with the exact same points - when the warrant used to produce something, but no longer does it poses an issue for law enforcement. In this case, it's not the suspect that made that choice to prevent law enforcement from gaining access. You keep saying these things but I don't see how they're relevant. Are you saying that if the original iPhone had the same encryption as the current one then there would be no issue for law enforcement, but because it didn't now there is? Why is that? If your logic is to stand, doesn't that mean that all new device manufacturers need to make everything difficult for law enforcement by default or else lose their ability to decide otherwise later? Is that really the incentive you want?
- csandreasen 11y ago
  > doesn't that mean that all new device manufacturers need to make everything difficult for law enforcement by default or else lose their ability to decide otherwise later? I would ask why they're specifically designing their devices to make it impossible for law enforcement to collect evidence. In general, I want to be secure from people who would do me harm, and at the same time I want law enforcement to be able to bring anyone who does do me harm to justice. Preventing the police from lawfully collecting evidence shifts the burden entirely on me to defend myself and allows criminals to act without repercussion. I like to read cyberpunk, but I don't want to live it. It's my firm opinion that it's possible to design systems that adequately secures a user's data from unauthorized access (to include both criminals and law enforcement acting without warrants) but at the same time allows access by law enforcement under lawful conditions (i.e. a warrant). When a major device manufacturer like Apple claims that the inability of law enforcement to access your data is a feature, I think that sets a very dangerous precedent. I want to make sure my data is protected from criminals; I don't want criminal evidence protected from the cops. I'll turn the question around - is it right for a major consumer device manufacturer like Apple to decide that the police should not be able to collect evidence from their customers?

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> I feel like we're just going back and forth with the exact same points - when the warrant used to produce something, but no longer does it poses an issue for law enforcement. In this case, it's not the suspect that made that choice to prevent law enforcement from gaining access. You keep saying these things but I don't see how they're relevant. Are you saying that if the original iPhone had the same encryption as the current one then there would be no issue for law enforcement, but because it didn't now there is? Why is that? If your logic is to stand, doesn't that mean that all new device manufacturers need to make everything difficult for law enforcement by default or else lose their ability to decide otherwise later? Is that really the incentive you want?

csandreasen 11y ago
> doesn't that mean that all new device manufacturers need to make everything difficult for law enforcement by default or else lose their ability to decide otherwise later? I would ask why they're specifically designing their devices to make it impossible for law enforcement to collect evidence. In general, I want to be secure from people who would do me harm, and at the same time I want law enforcement to be able to bring anyone who does do me harm to justice. Preventing the police from lawfully collecting evidence shifts the burden entirely on me to defend myself and allows criminals to act without repercussion. I like to read cyberpunk, but I don't want to live it. It's my firm opinion that it's possible to design systems that adequately secures a user's data from unauthorized access (to include both criminals and law enforcement acting without warrants) but at the same time allows access by law enforcement under lawful conditions (i.e. a warrant). When a major device manufacturer like Apple claims that the inability of law enforcement to access your data is a feature, I think that sets a very dangerous precedent. I want to make sure my data is protected from criminals; I don't want criminal evidence protected from the cops. I'll turn the question around - is it right for a major consumer device manufacturer like Apple to decide that the police should not be able to collect evidence from their customers?