Re:FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor
by einarvollset on Thursday March 31, 2016 @12:53AM
(#11395069)
I respect that view. Here's where I disagree: I think Apple taking a similar stand for the illegal wiretapping makes sense (giant open door, no court oversight), but not for this case (could be clean roomed, court oversight)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor
by swyman on Thursday March 31, 2016 @01:06AM
(#11395106)
Is a company that makes safes legally required to have a master key or to create a master key even when they don't want to? The question is whether or not a 3rd party can be compelled to create something which does not exist in order to aid in the execution of a search warrant. I think it's pretty clear based on prior All Writs Act precedent[1] that Apple should not be required to produce new software code for cases like this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._New_York_Tele...
Re:FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor
by duaneb on Thursday March 31, 2016 @01:59AM
(#11395269)
I think there's a strong case for first-amendment rights in code signing even in the case of a non-ephemeral signing key. In any case, look at the use of a search warrant with Lavabit—is it clear that the All Writs act was even their strongest legal suit?