Slashdot Mirror
EFF's Cindy Cohn On Why 'Code Is Speech' Is Key To Apple vs. FBI
blottsie writes: In a series of court battles in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Cindy Cohn represented plaintiffs challenging restrictions on DVD copying and the publication of cryptographic code. In all three cases—Bernstein v. United States, Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, and Junger v. Daley—federal courts held that computer code merited protection under the First Amendment.
Cohn, now the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, endorsed Apple's repeated citations of her cases in its fight against a court order to unlock a terrorism suspect's iPhone for the FBI. But she said that the controversial iPhone-unlocking order impinged even further on Apple's free-speech rights than the restrictions in her cases.
“The government is seeking legal precedent here,” she said. “There's nothing about the way the government has argued this case that would limit it to this particular case, that would limit it to terrorism investigations, that would limit it to Apple or limit it to these things. That's not what they're aiming for here. It's very clear from the papers. They’re saying the All Writs Act lets them do this or anything like it.”
http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
It's nice to see people calling bull-shit on the argument that the government isn't seeking a precedent.
You're right. It is not just a few lines of code. It is one bit.
#define ENABLE_SELF_DESTRUCT_INCORRECT_PIN 1
The FBI is asking for the 1 to be changed to a 0.
Assuming, you are not just ignorant or a troll, maybe you should read the court order. They are ordering Apple to create a whole new class of software that RUNS ONLY IN RAM and does not replace or alter the existing firmware or data saved on the phone. This DOES NOT EXIST!!!! It has never existed. It is a whole new class of iphone software that has not been written. It is NOT a matter of changing a few constants and uploading it to the phone. They have to design a new product, test it and sign it.
Aside from the fact that it may be piss poor precedent to forcibly conscript a company to do considerable work which is in opposition to their conscience and business reputation, it is morally repugnant.