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.
Because if it were, monkey's couldn't code. And then how would you explain most Microsoft software?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
http://www.phonearena.com/news...
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 find it weird that law should stop people from taking certain actions and newer forbid people from speaking? Really?
You must have been flabbergasted the first time you heard "Sticks and stones may break my bones. But words will never harm me."
For pretty much everyone else, the difference between action and speech is pretty clear and the identification of speech-like actions as one or the other is the only contentious point. Is writing an action? Or speech. And drawing? Painting? ...Coding?
The problem is even harder with coding, as it's easy to identify it as speech but it does cause actions. As code is specifically a language invented to precisely describe action.
The solution, as I personally see it, is to build a computer that interprets speech as code.
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.
"Apple's case, their speech is designed to oppose law enforcement and help criminals."
So you are pretending that both Apple and the the person buying the phone have no benefit and want of encryption to protect their abundance of personal information in a phone. Therefore the only reason it exists is to defy law enforcement and help criminals. Lousy uninformed argument that smells like troll feces.
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
If encryption is 'designed to oppose law enforcement and help criminals' then stop using HTTPS right now. Go ahead and do your online banking and e-commerce in good ol' HTTP. After all, TLS can be used by terrorists, so therefore using TLS makes you a terrorist, right?
Can't imagine why you posted that nonsense as anonymous...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You can most certainly be forced to testify in court, that's what a subpoena is. The 5th Amendment says you cannot be forced to testify against your self, something Apple is not being asked to do.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
One of the biggest lies we tell our children.
For the last time. Our kids do get hurt when hit with rocks and stones, Superman.
While we're at it. Your "Parachute-less skydiving: Learn by example." course was a nasty joke.
“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.
A person or corporation can be compelled to testify about facts they know about. That's quite different than compelling speech which creates new facts.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You cannot be forced to make thinks up when testifying. You cannot be forced to give expert-witness testimony that requires analysis work and conclusions. You can only be forced to describe the truth as it is known to you.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.