101–110 of 113 posts
The article asks: > How is the public interest served by a policy that only thwarts lawful search warrants? Perhaps the answer is that judges act as rubber stamps now, authorizing way too many search warrants. The author assumes that the judges are fairly applying the 4th amendment.
I feel nauseated by the higher than thou attitude of Apple. While Apple is pointing fingers at Google about collecting user data, let's see what kinds of business Apple and Google are in. Apple's main strength is designing product, farm them out to contractors for assembly, market the products and sell them. When it comes to child labor or near slavery like working condition that the Chinese assembly line workers lab…
Kerr's argument sounds silly when you use analogies with conventional devices. Nobody would argue that a highly secure safe should have a backdoor that can be used by the manufacturer to open it.
If you get possesion of a safe, you can physically cut it open (given enough money, expertise and time).
For a moment I thought I was reading a Xinhua article.
Apple has customers and suers across the globe. Any portection or lack thereof they put into their OS affects all of them, not just the ones in the US. Their policy has to serve all of those people equally. User protections in iOS8 protect users in these countries just as much as they portect user data in the US. Weaknesses and gaps in that portection expose user data in those countries just as much as they expose them in the US.
Orin Kerr is clearly a lawyer. He argues not for what is right but for what is permissible given the existing body of law. Where the existing body of law is wrong, his writings have no sympathy for the damage inflicted on its victims nor any sense that resisting such wrongs is noble. If the government never abused its authority, I would be much more sympathetic to Kerr's position. Given the facts of prosecutorial abu…
Their sense of ENTITLEMENT is ENORMOUS.
"We are ENTITLED to YOUR PRIVATE DATA."
The civil libertarian tradition of American privacy law,
enshrined in the Fourth Amendment, has been to see the
warrant protection as the Gold Standard of privacy
protections. ... the government must go to a neutral
magistrate and make that case before it conducts the
search. ... But when the government does make that
showing, on the other hand, the public interest in
solving crime outweighs the privacy interest. That’s
the basic balance of the Fourth AmendmentSo basically, the author wants every "secure" software system to have a backdoor. iOS versions prior to 8 all had a backdoor and he's lamenting that Apple has closed this backdoor. Not only that, if this applies to the iPhone, it must apply to any and all encryption software. While it's widely known that the government already has backdoors into a lot of popular software, codifying this in law or expecting that all s…
> iOS versions prior to 8 all had a backdoor and he's lamenting that Apple has closed this backdoor. iOS versions prior to version 8 didn't have a backdoor - I believe the difference is just that less content was stored encrypted before.
Orin Kerr is clearly a lawyer. He argues not for what is right but for what is permissible given the existing body of law. Where the existing body of law is wrong, his writings have no sympathy for the damage inflicted on its victims nor any sense that resisting such wrongs is noble. If the government never abused its authority, I would be much more sympathetic to Kerr's position. Given the facts of prosecutorial abu…
Orin Kerr is definitely a lawyer, and has been working and writing on digital crime and civil rights for years. For example, he was part of the defense team during weev's appeal of his conviction. I do think he thinks beyond the technicalities of the law. And I think he's correct that there are legitimate reasons to pierce device encryption. If a victim is murdered, and their phone is locked, it sure would be nice to…
No, Kerr either doesn't know the case law or is completely ignoring a huge chunk of it to make his point. I prefer the latter, but regardless, his point about the 5th Amendment is completely wrong as this is far from a settled issue and other courts have ruled differently:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-appeals-court-fifth...
I know these "blow-by-blow" comments can seem petty, but there are just so many things wrong with this post. It's sad, because I have a lot of respect for Kerr (besides being a very intelligent guy, he participated in weev's legal defense pro bono). > That’s hugely important. And under Apple’s old operating system, cryptography protects iPhones from rogue police officers, too. Kerr is a lawyer, not a techie, and it r…