18th Century Law Dredged Up To Force Decryption of Devices 446
Cognitive Dissident writes The Register has a story about federal prosecutors using a law signed by George Washington to force manufacturers to help law enforcement access encrypted data on devices they manufacture. The All Writs Act is a broad statute simply authorizing courts to issue any order necessary to obtain information within their jurisdiction. Quoting the Register article: "Last month, New York prosecutors successfully persuaded a judge that the ancient law could be used to force an unnamed smartphone manufacturer to help unlock a phone allegedly used in a credit card fraud case. The judge ordered the manufacturer to offer 'reasonable technical assistance' to make the phone's contents available." What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?
5th Admendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
>> authorizing courts to issue any order necessary to obtain information within their jurisdiction.
Isn't this actually contradictory to the 5th admendment?
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Funny)
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Answer: The rooster.
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody downloaded Predestination over the weekend.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The egg. Eggs had existed for millions of years before the first dinosaurs, let alone before the first birds, let alone before the first chickens.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Informative)
And even if you specify chicken eggs, it's *still* the egg. By the process of evolution, the first chicken would have been a mutation from parents that were almost, but not quite, chickens. The almost-but-not-quite-chicken mother would have laid an egg, out of which hatched the first chicken. So the egg came first.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Funny)
The nice man on Sunday told me all the animals were created in one fell swoop, so it's the chicken.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a "chicken egg" an egg that could hatch a chicken? Or an egg laid by a chicken? Is an unfertilized egg laid by a chicken a "chicken egg" - that would seem to favor the second case, in which the chicken came first....
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
This, interestingly, runs into the paradox of the heap. 10 grains of rice are not a heap. 11 grains of rice are not a heap. 12 grains of rice are not a heap... and adding grains of rice one by one is never going to end up in a case where X grains of rice are not a heap but X+1 grains of rice are. But now we have a problem, because 1000 grains of rice clearly are a heap! There must have been a switch somewhere from not-heap to heap, but it's somehow untraceable to any particular instance of rice adding.
The chicken is similar. The archaeopteryx clearly is not a chicken. Slowly, over the millennia, mutation by mutation, we eventually ended up with creatures that clearly are chickens. But when was the first time a non-chicken gave birth to a chicken? Just like in the case of the heap, we can't tell. What's more, not only can't we tell, there may not even be a fact of the matter; that is, it may be fundamentally unknowable.
Re: (Score:3)
Probability doesn't help this issue. A number of grains is either a heap, not a heap, or undefined.
This is nonsense masquerading as philosophy.
Here, you insist on specific definitions, but before you asserted that there is no such specific definition.
But if the definition is vague, then what one person calls a heap to another person is not a heap. (Your example: 1000 grains of rice is actually not very much rice, and *I* would not agree it was a heap.)
Vagueness and then moving the goalposts is not profundity. I was being silly myself earlier in this thread but at least I wasn't pretending it w
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you specify chicken eggs, it's *still* the egg. By the process of evolution, the first chicken would have been a mutation from parents that were almost, but not quite, chickens. The almost-but-not-quite-chicken mother would have laid an egg, out of which hatched the first chicken. So the egg came first.
Your logic is slightly flawed. An egg laid by a not-quite-chicken is still NOT a chicken egg. The embryo inside that egg was a chicken, so the chicken came first.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how mutation works in Akira, but not in real life. The offspring can't be born a not-chicken and then mutate into a chicken. The only way it could work is for a not-chicken to have a mutant chicken offspring.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to egg laying, vivipary is a relatively recent development. Eggs existed long before the first animals that gave live births.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm, no.
Mutations happen all the time in every cellular organism on the planet. There are mechanisms in place to deal with those mutations and squash them in many cases, but not all, this is part of the way evolution works. It does not have to occur only in the initial cellular division or zygote. Even 'identical twins' can have minor cellular differences due to mutations that happen in the process of gestation after the eggs are split into two distinct units.
Cancer is a very specific group of extremely rare of mutations that isn't detected and stopped by the normal methods cells use to protect themselves. It is in fact a mutation that prevents the mechanism which stops out of control cell growth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not when the Feds say it isn't.
You seem to be under the illusion that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. We haven't been a nation of laws since the PATRIOT Act was signed, and many would argue that we've been a nation of men since a long time before that.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:4)
Sticks in my craw.
But there's no law
like an old law,
And there's no whore
Like an old whore
Who defiles the Constitution
It's legal prostitution.
This overbroad law is a real overreach
But challenging it will be a real beach.
Even torture like waterboarding now is okay
'Cuz "any means" means whatever they say.
Burma Shave
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Informative)
Assumming that you're talking about the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on compelled self-incriminaton, no. If you're suspected of a crime, *you* can't be compelled to incriminate yourself. But third parties that aren't protected by a privilege (spousal, attorney-client, doctor-patient, etc.) can be compelled to produce evidence, testify against you, and definitely to provide technical manuals and expertise. Third parties can be compensated for the cost of complying with subpoenas in cases that they are not party to.
The protection against self-incrimination isn't well-defined either. There's conflicting case-law as to whether you can be compelled to hand over encryption keys.
Re: 5th Admendment? (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. The 5th Amendment only means you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Well, some other stuff too, but that is the relevant part.
You're really looking for the 4th Amendment anyway. It provides for protection from unreasonable search and seizure, not prohibiting all search and seizure.
Re: (Score:2)
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law
The words necessary, appropriate, agreeable are supposed to limit the law to reasonable search and seizure.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:4, Informative)
I would say no. They aren't forcing anyone to incriminate themselves. It is forcing a 3rd party (the phone manufacturer) to help extract the information. Unless the phone manufacturer was the suspect of the crime, then its not a 5th amendment issue.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
This just goes to show that "shredding the Constitution" has been going on for a very long time. The feds pretty much started as soon as they possibly could.
There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
And you're thinking that George Washington was one of those idiots who thought a little tyranny would work out well? I don't see how this law contradicts the Constitution. It doesn't say what jurisdiction a court has, just that a court is allowed to issue orders to obtain information that is already within its jurisdiction.
...which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
Which part of that is "the feds" "shredding the Constitution"?
Re: (Score:3)
George Washington the aristocratic slaveholder who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion
You have to be joking.
President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation. Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army.
Yeah, sounds pretty tyrannical to me.
Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On 4 August 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion. On 7 August, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.
Look at all that tyranny, what with the due process and everything.
In early August 1794, Washington dispatched three commissioners, all of them Pennsylvanians, to the west: Attorney General William Bradford, Justice Jasper Yeates of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Senator James Ross. Beginning on 21 August, the commissioners met with a committee of westerners that included Brackenridge and Gallatin. The government commissioners told the committee that it must unanimously agree to renounce violence and submit to U.S. laws, and that a popular referendum must be held to determine if the local people supported the decision. Those who agreed to these terms would be given amnesty from further prosecution.
Because nothing says "tyranny" like "popular referendum".
The total human cost of the "crushing" of the Whiskey Rebellion? 3 or 4 deaths (literally), which occurred in the years prior to Washington getting involved, along with 2 civilians who were killed when the militia was being raised. What did the tyrant Washington do about the civilian deaths? He probably held them up as examp
Re: (Score:2)
This just goes to show that "shredding the Constitution" has been going on for a very long time. The feds pretty much started as soon as they possibly could.
There's always some idiot that thinks a small dose of tyranny will be OK.
Except the OP & article misquoted the law (for click bait? Maybe, IANAL). But I have a feeling the rest of the sentence people are misquoting is relevant as well:
The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
Emphasis mine.
If another law or the Constitution does not allow the action, it cannot be granted via this law. The court order being discussed even specifically states the obvious and adjudicated limitations of the law:
t]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute
You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. Apple and every other phone manufacturer however, is not you, and can be
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. The 5th Amendment applies to the Accused. The court can't order the accused to crack the encryption on a device, but they sure can request the manufacturer (or an expert) to try to do so. People are over-thinking this. This is is like getting a handwriting expert to analyze handwriting, getting a tire manufacturer to testify about your tires, or getting a code-breaker to decipher the mob's coded cooked books. Just because this is "tech" doesn't mean it somehow gets a free pass on the law.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Informative)
The 5th says that you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. It doesn't say the courts can't drag 3rd parties into being witnesses against you even if they don't want to. There is no conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
The 5th amendment would naturally limit the law to orders issued to others. You still can't be compelled to testify against yourself.
Due process would need to be followed in order to comply with the 4th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "within their jurisdiction". That means that the court has ordered (in compliance with your rights) that certain data be discovered or turned over. Seriously, folks: the police do get to investigate crimes. If they need to look at your car (or, in 18th century terms, your horse), they get to.
Re: 5th Admendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still having faith in the constitution? That same one that gets raped on a daily basis? I think you need a new strategy.
The constitution? Actually, yes.
The way it's currently being followed? Not so much.
The constitution isn't going to climb out from under that bullet proof glass in Washington and right wrongs like Batman. It takes diligence and sometimes sacrifice on the behalf of citizens to keep the country in line with the principles on which it was founded. We get the government we deserve, through out inaction, or through voting for free stuff rather than principles.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point though, its interpretation is actually what matters. The document itself is no more valid than someone's New Years Resolutions if it's not interpreted and adhered to.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a heck of a lot easier to run the country if you didn't have to worry about votes or other branches of the government. People keep pointing to this quote as though it actually means something.
Likewise
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." George W. Bush
Name one president where this wouldn't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that no one can really tell the difference.
Re:5th Admendment? (Score:5, Informative)
I found the following related to the above quotes. The first one I couldn't find anything in context, only that Bush supposedly said it, and the second one is part of the the Constitution being just a piece of paper quote which was false. As to the rest. . .
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." George W. Bush - Link [msnbc.com]
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush - Link [slate.com]
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." - George W. Bush - Link [google.com]
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." - George W. Bush - Link [cbsnews.com]
Then demanding decryption will not be "reasonable" (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, as long as only "reasonable technical assistance" is required, there is no danger. Good encryption is designed to be (practically) unbreakable unless the key is known, hence expecting somebody to break it without the key is not "reasonable" at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it reasonable for Google to push an update to the phone in question that decrypts the phone the next time the password is entered?
Re: (Score:2)
From a business point of view, nope. Any corporation would drop Androids like they're penny stocks.
Re: (Score:3)
From a business point of view, nope. Any corporation would drop Androids like they're penny stocks.
Tell me about how Windows suffered by having the NSA Key embedded.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh, the kiddies have never heard of that.
Re: (Score:2)
http://wolfstreet.com/2013/08/... [wolfstreet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They cannot even "push" updates for normal use...
Re: (Score:2)
Really, as long as only "reasonable technical assistance" is required, there is no danger. Good encryption is designed to be (practically) unbreakable unless the key is known, hence expecting somebody to break it without the key is not "reasonable" at all.
From a legal standpoint, the moment you assume to understand how the definition of "reasonable" will be upheld in court now or in the future is the moment you find yourself dead wrong.
Reasonable all depends on the people and money involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it does not matter, because whatever perversions the legal profession has created here, Apple or Google cannot help them. Of course, most people in that field are disconnected from reality, but even they have to bow to hard facts eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it does not matter, because whatever perversions the legal profession has created here, Apple or Google cannot help them. Of course, most people in that field are disconnected from reality, but even they have to bow to hard facts eventually.
I fully expect whatever illusions Google and Apple have about creating this "perfect" secrecy to protect the consumer will be overridden by the "need" for governments to combat terrorism.
We've certainly had plenty of our privacy and rights overridden for this "need" in the past, and continue so today.
Speaking of bowing, remember that both Apple and Google are companies that operate and do business within the United States. Like I said, I fully expect.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to quote "terrorism". Because that's the biggest piece of bullshit ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Apple can help them by making the encryption breakable.
Re: (Score:3)
Google and Apple can help them by making the encryption breakable.
Nope, that battle has already been fought. That would constitute compelled speech.
They can compel the company to provide information (such as source code) for their current data. Subpoenas have been doing that for decades.
They can compel the company to help them perform certain research.
They can even use NSLs to compel the company to intercept certain communications.
But at least so far, they cannot compel the company to modify their product to become defective.They still need to do that themselves, comm
Re: (Score:2)
While the courts can be quite silly, they cannot order you to sweep back the tide. If something is technically impossible within a relevant timeframe, the court will be SOL. There are plenty of cryptographers who can testify as to the practicality of breaking a good encryption scheme. Just make sure to use a good one so that a cryptographer can fairly testify to a timeframe in the hundreds of years. Even the craziest court will have to admit that there's little point in decrypting the data after all relevan
Re:Then demanding decryption will not be "reasonab (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, as long as only "reasonable technical assistance" is required, there is no danger. Good encryption
The Justice Department feels that having an embedded back door into the devices' crypto is very "reasonable" and has been pushing for just that. Now they need a judge to rule on their version of the word and the corporations will fall in line.
Throw in a Patriot Act gag order and some import/export barriers vis-a-vis patent wars, and let's make a bet about how many 2015 backdoors will be discovered in 2018.
This is the kind of government the voters support.
Re: (Score:2)
What brand?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?
That is answered by the former quote:
The judge ordered the manufacturer to offer 'reasonable technical assistance' to make the phone's contents available.
Breaking encryption that is not breakable does not fall under any sense of the word "reasonable".
Re:Well, obviously (Score:5, Interesting)
And now try to word that in a way that a judge can understand that doesn't make him feel stupid (because judges don't like to feel stupid and will side with the other guy if they do) and doesn't make him think you're trying to bullshit him (which is actually not that far away from the other limitation).
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this, "Encryption relies on knowing the solution to a math problem that cannot be solved. We, Apple, can't solve it, the FBI can't solve it, the NSA can't solve it. You cannot order us to solve it anymore than you can order us to change the speed of light. It is not a question of law it is a question of math."
Re: (Score:3)
That makes you look like you're lecturing the judge. He won't side with you.
Re: (Score:3)
OK then what does he do? That's now part of the record. The person he is about to sanction has argued they cannot comply. He now has to give reason why they can comply. He has to prove willful failure to comply, that's his burden now. There are laws / policies even for judges.
Re: (Score:3)
And now try to word that in a way that a judge can understand
OK, start with an analogy of a company that manufactures locks without keys.
Re:Well, obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
First tell him it will take hundreds of years as far as anyone can guess (not at all a lie if you did it right) without outright refusing. If he demands it sooner, suggest that with help from the NSA you may be able to speed it up. Then it's on the NSA for refusing to cooperate.
Re: (Score:3)
That's where the experts come in. Even the kookiest judge can't stand against the entire field's experts when dealing with someone with significant wealth.
Re: (Score:3)
"Prove it"
What? You think judges won't make impossible requests?
Re: (Score:2)
They should just write a program that checks all possible passwords. Getting the hardware that can support that is the state's obligation. Hopefully it will find the password before the sun explodes.
The law is valid (Score:5, Insightful)
The law was not sunset-ed, the law was not stricken down by another law, the law itself was not repelled on its own, the law was not stricken down by the supreme court.
So what is the problem ? Until a repell/strick down , ALL those law are still valid. Cue the shooting down welsh with a bow, but this is the basis of our judiciary process. just because a law is old does not make it invalid.
Re:The law is valid (Score:5, Interesting)
"New York prosecutors successfully persuaded a judge that the ancient law could be used" The law was not sunset-ed, the law was not stricken down by another law, the law itself was not repelled on its own, the law was not stricken down by the supreme court. So what is the problem ? Until a repell/strick down , ALL those law are still valid. Cue the shooting down welsh with a bow, but this is the basis of our judiciary process. just because a law is old does not make it invalid.
Correct, until it is repealed (unlikely) or struck down by the Supreme Court it is still the law. This could be a good case to take to the Supreme Court since it highlights the impact of changing technology on the law and could clarify what is required when presented with such a writ.
Re: (Score:2)
>Cue the shooting down welsh with a bow
What?
Re:The law is valid (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it would be a good idea if laws were only valid for a set period of time and then they need to undergo review. And I mean a serious review with a definite "why do we still need this law to exist" statement to it. Not only would this allow us to clean up ridiculously outdated legal code (google stupid laws for a laugh, you'll find some rather insane shit), it would also allow us to actually force our legislators to REMOVE laws from time to time instead of just piling more useless legal mumbo jumbo o
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it would be a good idea if laws were only valid for a set period of time and then they need to undergo review.
Are you truly on the side of complete government inaction? Not that this is a bad thing, you should just be aware that you're promoting that with this opinion. The congress would be so swamped reviewing laws that they'd never be able to do anything else. That's certainly true if you "mean a serious review with a definite "why do we still need this law to exist" statement to it.""
it would also allow us to actually force our legislators to REMOVE laws from time to time
No, what it would probably result in is the same kind of legislating that we've seen recently: an omnibus review bill written by
Re:The law is valid (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't force any level of review. It can always be turned into people signing stuff without looking at it. What the UK is currently doing is getting a buch of lawyers to go through and dig out all the laws that don't do anything any more. Every few years they pass a big omnibus repeal bill removing them. 2013 version can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... [legislation.gov.uk]
Baity question (Score:3)
If the encryption is real (aka, a third party isn't holding the key,or a copy of YOUR key), then they may as well deliver the order to a donkey.
So there's no threat about Apple and Google "deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break", because that just means they can't help the government when they ask, much as, for instance, my dog could not help them out.
But there's a lot wrong with that sentence. They aren't creating encryption, they are writing crypto code using existing crypto algos- arguably the same thing, but still. Also, YOU, the user, will be the one encrypting it, much like you can't sue a knife manufacturer for making a sharp knife. And encryption that is "breakable" isn't really encryption by any decent standard.
The real concern isn't some ancient law trying to force the hand of companies- this will only force them further along the path of making sure that it's not THEIR data, because they lack keys, it's the USER data, go bug him. That's the logical place for them to be anyway- no one spends hundreds of dollars for a phone and then encrypts it without expecting that the encryption is actually a thing- while it's wise to supposed that government level attackers have ways to get keys, it is obviously NOT WHAT YOU WANT WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT. I mean, so there's that.
Anyway, the real concern will be NEW laws that force the companies to do this. And they wouldn't have to be federal laws- if California made some law about how you can't blah blah offer real encryption unless X, and Washington was like no real encryption unless Y, and New York was like no real encryption unless Z, then you would be pushing the companies out of too many markets, and then all the federal courts have to do is drag their feet and the feds get another full decade of Total Access To Your Own Papers And Possessions.
Re: (Score:2)
That was tried under Clinton, it failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Baity question (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course they can. Google and Apple absolutely have ways in. Anyone believing otherwise is a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the exact ways into an encryption released in open source Android, where the key is offered in TNO security, which Google never sees? I get the hypothetical, but what back door do they have if the OS is compiled from source by the end user?
Old laws are still laws (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bill of Rights is comparably ancient. So what? Old does not mean "wrong" (unless you are a teenager in the rebellious phase)...
Makes sense to me. In fact, seems like a good — forward-compatible — law indeed...
Setting aside that old Constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
America's modern left often argues that portions of the US Constitution can be safely ignored because it's old and was written by white dudes. Here's a (fairly calm) piece that explores that argument. (Also look up "constitution living document".)
"Is the Constitution Still Relevant?"
http://consortiumnews.com/2013... [consortiumnews.com]
Unfortunately, this isn't just a fringe belief: in 2010 a USA Today poll showed that 1 in 4 people no longer though the Constitution was "relevant"
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
people no longer though the Constitution was "relevant"
I find this belief correlates with people who have no idea what the constitution says or does. They don't even realize that it says basic things like that there will be a president, or that senators serve 6 year terms, or that the president is commander-in-chief of the military. These are simple concrete things people can understand, and they can then realize how relevant it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the Constitution is literally true and still relevant today. Even though it was written by many different authors, it is all inspired by one nation. Yes, there are some groups that try to push their own interpretation of the Constitution, but they are not true believers. Still others believe that the latter Acts supercede the Bill of Rights, while I believe that the Bill of Rights is never invalidated. Even among the believers, many still do not vote more than maybe once every 4 years.
The
Jefferson (Score:5, Insightful)
America's modern left often argues that portions of the US Constitution can be safely ignored because it's old and was written by white dudes. Here's a (fairly calm) piece that explores that argument. (Also look up "constitution living document".)
Thomas Jefferson was concerned greatly about the "Tyranny of the Dead" -- that the laws and debts of dead elder generations will inhibit progress in younger generations that are facing entirely new types of problems not envisioned by the older generations. He wanted the Constitution (or at least federal law) to be effectively completely rewritten every generation -- every 18-20 years or so. You can read about it in his letters.
I would say that probably the results of that poll are not people being "stupid" and "forgetting" that the Constitution is important, but rather, evidence of a yearning that the current system is not entirely working and it needs modification. Just like we have done so 27 times in the history of the US (i.e., the Amendments). It's not relevant today, but we Amend it to be more relevant. For example, the move to get a 28th amendment that strikes down the Citizens United ruling and makes more free and fair elections (see any number of organizations: Move to Amend, WolfPAC, etc.). We know there's money in politics, and here's one proposed solution to it. Not by ignoring the constitution or laws, but actually, working the way the constitution is supposed to work! The people can call for an amendment if our national leaders do not.
I don't think I've heard anyone make the argument that they can ignore laws because old white dudes wrote them. I *have* heard that we need to change laws because they are stupid and we want to make a more perfect union, though. Don't let people like the ones that wrote the article in your link trick you into think their opinion is public opinion (its easy to spot because of the use of words like "The Left thinks blah" and "The Right does blah" -- there is no Left and Right as one huge bloc, but a spectrum of smaller groups with differing opinions, and even if it was one big bloc, who is this author to be able to speak for half the country? I've never heard of him.).
I'm not that worried. I think when our current leaders that have been in office for 30+ years finally retire or are voted out as the younger generation comes up, we will see laws and constitutional amendments that fix problems. Not ignored, fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The only thing "clear" in the 2nd Amendment is that keeping and bearing arms is a right. There is not a word there about "army" (standing or otherwise), much less "navy".
And, yes, both parties tend to treat that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) as a mere privilege (which may be granted and withdrawn by the Executive on a whim).
But only the Lef
ROT-13 (Score:2)
"1st century cipher used by Caesar dredged up to force decryption of devices."
Re: (Score:2)
If the Romans had a 26-letter alphabet, that's exactly what he may have used. They didn't.
Define "reasonable" (Score:3)
The judge ordered the manufacturer to offer 'reasonable technical assistance' to make the phone's contents available." What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?
Then the vendors won't be able to offer "reasonable technical assistance". What's so hard to understand able that? The existence of the law doesn't prevent them from creating said, unbreakable, encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they can provide reasonable technical assistance.
1. How to use the decryption key when discovered
2. How to craft a brute-force attack
3. Wish them luck.
Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
This tells us that the cryptography is working and that they're only able to access data with legal power rather than some unknown height of technical prowess.
What's wrong about the 18th century (Score:3)
What will happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing. The law requires people to give reasonable assistance to law enforcement. It does not require them to architect systems so that such reasonable assistance is fruitful. Safe manufacturers are not required to know the combinations to their devices.
That's easy to solve (Score:2)
authorizing courts to issue any order necessary to obtain information within their jurisdiction.
...
What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?
They can just write an order demanding the NSA help them break the encryption or provide them a dump of the in-transit data they've collected. In the words of Bart Simpson, 'The system works.'
Obviously, this is witchcraft (Score:2)
The State has the right to compel the company to break its evil spell.
Data is data (Score:2)
product differentiation (Score:3)
I'm watching this carefully, because the hardware vendors and carriers who actively resist are going to be the ones I do business with.
Ancient? (Score:2)
Constitutional Irrelevancy (Score:3)
One thing I learned with going through the federal process (see my bio at The Market is not Random [tminr.com]), is that the constitution is irrelevant and that the use of it becomes pure interpretation and loophole. I doubt that the current legal structure was anything close to the forefathers imagined, but never doubt that the governmental employees will utilize any and every loophole at its disposal to justify its actions. The oxymoron of united states government.
What? Nothing... (Score:2)
What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?
Nothing much. They'll provide as much assistance as they can: they'll instruct the judge that the extent of assistance available is "Sorry, it can't be done. By anyone."
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the reason I prefer Android devices. You can install a firmware that is compiled from the open source you trust. There is still the possibility of hardware level backdoors, but there are a 100 different manufactures of Android devices, many of them have little to no presence in the USA. Google doesn't have to be involved with your device at all.
Versus Apple, Microsoft, etc who are easy targets for US courts orders.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The corporate build of Apple OSX that's used by employees has a "corporate key" for filevault.
Yes, and every computer I deploy at my company has a Institutional Recovery Key for its FileVault encryption (we do a combined Institutional/Personal deployment). This is a key I generated on-site, and is only stored locally (in a very secure manner)
If an employee is walking around with a company-issued machine, and storing company-owned data, of course the company is going to use tools to make sure it can access a
Re: (Score:2)
Android isn't sold. It is open source. There is no sale of the OS which occurs. PGP already fought the battle about legal distribution of a means of encryption.