Probably not, but if it points out a downside to the ridiculous EULA business model for tech companies, I say GO TEAM DOJ!
Oh jeez not only IE but compatablity mode even. 
better consult with the fsf, first.
LOL, they are acting like Jedis; you just need to realize they are full of shit and say" āNo.ā.
Hey, the law of unintended consequences is cool, I mean unless you believe in inteligent design itās why weāre all hereā¦
that and the cookies.
2 Likes
Apparently, the iPhone in question, a 5S, was seized before IOS8, and therefore the technical limitations associated with decrypting data stored on the phone do not apply. However, the phone is programmed to destroy its codes once it has learned that it has been reported lost or stolen. The DOJ wants Apple to assist in circumventing this security measureā¦
Encryption is worthless, if the device is programmed to automatically install software updates from an untrusted party (there are a few exceptions involving data at rest).
All this is really saying is that any company subject to your governmentās power is an untrusted party.
ā¦okay, valid point. But, seriously, I would like it if we had a responsible organization with some sense of perspective beyond āThis caseā. Yes, I know that thatās asking too much.
Thereās nothing novel about that argument. It is exactly the same as asking your landlord to let them into your apartment.
This is just the end point of a long history of tech industries trying to āsellā you things that you arenāt allowed to own.
"Itās not the software theyāre being asked to decrypt, but the userās data. "
This.
A reasonable person would should be able to believe that their encrypted data would be kept confidential by a manufacturer of hardware, even if the manufacturer technically could break in. So they could try to claim a confidentiality exemption, but I suspect lawyer types wouldnāt care about that sort of thing.
Breaking and entering into someone elseās private property is a crime though. Can they legally be compelled to commit a crime? Or can they justifiably refuse and leave it up to law-enforcement to break into a suspectās property?
1 Like
The very first sentence of the linked pleading starts āA magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York has issued a warrant to search an Apple iPhone 5sā. Given that the DoJ has a court issued warrant to search the phone, I donāt see the problem here. If I lived in an apartment and the cops showed up with a warrant to search it Iād kinda expect the super to unlock the door for them.
2 Likes
Yes. This is exactly it. The dividing line is what is being decrypted? Not the software. Not the device. The userās DATA.
Thanks, Obama!
ā¦ be rather alarmed if the super unlocked everyoneās door for them.
1 Like
From the ACLU brief
The government has invoked the All Writs Act to compel Apple, Inc. to unlock and make available personal data stored on a private Apple-manufactured mobile device seized by the government. This is an extraordinary and unjustified attempt to compel a third party not accused of wrongdoing to assist the government in obtaining information that the third party neither possesses nor controls. Private parties may not be conscripted into governmental service where the party is simply the manufacturer of a device the government has seized, and where the governmentās request goes beyond asking the party to turn over information within its possession, or to intercept communications passing through a medium it controls.
ā¦
The All Writs Act does not authorize an order allowing the government to compel Apple to unlock, and potentially to decrypt data stored on, private devices seized by the government. This is so for at least two independent reasons. First, an order forcing a third party to decrypt a device does not stem from the courtās authority to issue a warrant. Second, even if the governmentās lack of authority to compel unlocking or decryption is a gap that could be filled by the All Writs Act, Congress has consciously withheld that authority, and it would therefore be inappropriate to supply it through the All Writs Act.
Analogizing Appleās role to that of the userās Landlord does not helpā¦
2 Likes
New EULA: āThis software is legal advice. Buying, downloading, or using this software creates attorney-client privilege between you (hereinafter THE USER) and GoogDobeTronics (hereinafter THE FIRM) ā¦ā
1 Like
Thanks for the links!
Interesting to see that the ACLU says that my landlord example is wrong. Apple would be doing more than just providing access, theyād actively going inside to retrieve stuff. A big part of the ACLUās argument is that Apple is too distant from the situation to be forced to do that as they donāt have possession of either the phone or the data, to which the DoJ to pointed out that technically Apple owns the software running the phone. While thatās a nice rejoinder by the DoJ, Iād agree that itās a bad idea to let companies be dragooned into the governmentās file recovery service.
Corporations are āpeopleā now. The government saw to it.
Now, let the DoJ rot.
I love this lawsuit! Either way the consumer wins. If Apple prevails, we keep our privacy. If DOJ prevails, software companies will (most likely) again let us own our software rather than risk the consequences of being responsible for answering to the govt in perpetuity for what happens with that software. I seriously hope DOJ wins the suit - farmers might once again be able to repair their own tractors.
It depends who you ask - not everybody agrees. Do you?
If by ānowā you mean that this is some recently-implemented goblinment machination, it isnāt. Corporations have legally been āpeopleā (of a sort) for decades, perhaps even a century or more. The recently publicized judgements about this have not changed anything, but they have apparently brought this to the attention of more people.
