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.
There is a huge difference between free speech, and speech you are forced to make.
You don't understand the concept, apparently. Apples "dangerous speech" is an inaction of not making speech, compelling Apple to do something is the exact opposite of free speech.
There is no rational scenario in which you compare forcing Apple to do something with restricted free speech. And if you think there is, you're an idiot.
In your analogy, giving a public endorsement to something under duress restricting their "dangerous speech".
You're a fucking moron if you think forcing something to do something is in any way related to restricting "dangerous speech".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You should do a better job of trolling next time. There's nothing clever or interesting about your attempt at trolling.
Religion does have a special place in the law. Perhaps you should read the first amendment again, which includes freedom of religion. Nobody can be compelled to speak in a manner that's offensive to them. That's illegal. If I run a bakery and someone wants me to bake a cake with an offensive message, I have a legal right to refuse. No reasonable person would expect a bakery run by black people to bake a cake with a KKK message. Likewise, a bakery run by Christians who oppose same sex marriage don't have to bake a cake with a pro-SSM message.
If code is speech, Apple can't be compelled to speak (code) in a manner that's offensive to them. Apple has indicated they support privacy and the strongest possible encryption to protect their users. The government is essentially trying to force them to speak in a manner that they find offensive. That should be as illegal as any of the examples in the previous paragraph.
You don't see a difference between being ordered to hand over existing information and being court ordered to create a new and patentable, never before existing technology? When did anyone ever say that a few lines of code is all it would take?
How about subpoenaing a new invention by the builders of a safe deposit box to force open their vault? The design, engineering, manufacturing, testing, and delivery of the equipment - yeah, that's something you can subpoena.
Try harder.
First, it's not a few lines of code, it's an entire application that does not exist. If it were a few lines of code, then they would do it themselves.
Second, it's not just a code, it's specific, propriety code involving extreme company secrets. It's the kind of stuff that if it got out, would make their existing product worthless. It's the equivalent of asking Coca Cola for their secret formula. No, actually, that formula is mostly hype. Say, it's the equivalent of asking Marvel to give out an uncut edition of Dead Pool to the Pirate Bay a week before it opens in theaters.
Also note, the feds can still do this themselves, without Apple's help - it will just cost a load of money. Maybe $10 million. So they are trying to destroy Apple's reputation - worth a lot more than $10 million, just to save themselves $10 million.
Finally, it's not just Apple's Reputation on the line, nor is it just their business. It's international law and precedent. What the US can do to Apple, other countries can do to all other companies. I.E. If we let the feds force Apple to create an entirely new security destroying product, then China can force any company that wants to manufacture or sell in China to do the same.
It's a bad idea to make Apple do this, and the only people that think making Apple do it have not thought through all the obvious and clear consequences.
Mainly because a bunch of people in the federal government fed you a bunch of obvious lies (it's only ONE phone and we can't do it by ourselves).
The phone should definitely be cracked open - by the NSA without any assistance from Apple.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com