Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#31

Post by allsystemsgo »

PascalsMugger wrote: post #23
studentrob wrote: post #2

So, signing the code constitutes Apple saying this code is safe to run. But Apple doesn't think this code is safe to run. The argument will be that forcing them to sign the modified code is compelled speech. Interesting. Is there any reason Apple can't use more than one argument in its defense? According to USA vs. New York Telephone, "unreasonable burdens may not be imposed". I think Apple will bear quite a burden i…

> go against company value I wonder how it would go down if they said it was against their religion, a la Hobby Lobby.

This comment feels a bit underhanded. The free speech argument is pretty good, is it not?

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#32

Post by dsp1234 »

dmm wrote: post #14
pljns wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disable Javascript ;-)

Also when people say "Disable javascript" they don't mean go into Preferences and disable javascript. They probably mean install noscript which allows you to blacklist-by-default and enable js with a button click when needed.

In Chrome you can have javascript disabled by default, then whitelist all of the javascript on individual hosts (it does execute all of the javascript on the page, as compared to noscript).

Then on each host, Chrome starts off with no javascript, and there is an icon in the URL bar to enable it. Thus I can enable all javascript for trusted hosts. And in regular mode, that change is permanent, so I'm not bothered

Additionally, open up an incognito, and allow javascript for a host, and that decision is only valid as long as the incognito window is open.

So the workflow is:

1.) Always surf with javascript disabled

2.) Permanently allow all trusted hosts

3.) When needed, temporarily allow a host via incognito (ex: blogspot sites)

This does not require any additional extensions.

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#33

Post by jasonlaramburu »

Would it be a reasonable compromise for the FBI to turn the phone over to Apple, allow Apple to access the data using whatever method it deems necessary, transfer whatever data is recovered to the FBI and then destroy the phone along with any custom FW Apple had to develop in the process?

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#34

Post by throwaway1756 »

All this is reminding me not a little of the original crypto wars when Zimmerman was up against the feds in the headlines semmingly every other day.

In the end publishing the source code as a literal, printed book and exporting it from the USA as printed material (Free Speech!) then OCRing the contents in whatever country they wanted to get it to only now we already have a precedent for code is speech and those extra steps might not be necessary.

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#35

Post by CocaKoala »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #33

Would it be a reasonable compromise for the FBI to turn the phone over to Apple, allow Apple to access the data using whatever method it deems necessary, transfer whatever data is recovered to the FBI and then destroy the phone along with any custom FW Apple had to develop in the process?

How can the FBI verify that the data they get from Apple is the same data that was on the phone?

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#36

Post by carbocation »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #33

Would it be a reasonable compromise for the FBI to turn the phone over to Apple, allow Apple to access the data using whatever method it deems necessary, transfer whatever data is recovered to the FBI and then destroy the phone along with any custom FW Apple had to develop in the process?

One of the strengths of Apple's arguments is that they do not have software that the government is trying to compel them to provide. The government compelling the creative act of making this software is not something that has occurred under the All Writs Act previously, as far as I am aware, so this would set precedent.

Once the software is already created, it is, at worst, just a question of getting the timing right for the next request in order to make such an order (to provide software to assist in the unlocking of phones) merely ordinary.

Aside from some arcana, what you are proposing is equivalent to the FBI's position, which I think many here disagree with.

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#38

Post by lisper »

While I would love to see this argument succeed, I doubt it will. Free speech already has limits on both the affirmative and negative sides. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not protected, nor is remaining silent if the government decides to label you an "enemy combatant". So I'm not optimistic that Apple's argument will succeed. The fear of drugs, pedophilia and terrorism seems to trump the First Amendment -- and the Fourth, and the Fifth, and the eighth, andthe Forteenth -- pretty reliably nowadays.

Alas.

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#39

Post by zimbatm »

What if Apple was in the business of safes and built a really strong to crack safe. There would be 10 attempts to open it or all the content would catch on fire. Is it unheard of that the government would seek the help of that kind of company in similar cases ?

The argument that the newly-developed technique could be stolen by unwanted adversaries is the same. In both cases the government has to get hold of the physical object to crack the (digital) safe.

Re: Apple May Use a First Amendment Defense in That FBI Case. And It Just Might Work

#40

Post by [deleted] »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #33

Would it be a reasonable compromise for the FBI to turn the phone over to Apple, allow Apple to access the data using whatever method it deems necessary, transfer whatever data is recovered to the FBI and then destroy the phone along with any custom FW Apple had to develop in the process?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN