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.

Comments

Re:Even if code is speech doesn't mean it's protec

[gstoddart]

Even if code is speech, things like viruses and ransomware are dangerous speech that must be restricted

There is a huge difference between free speech, and speech you are forced to make.

Neither does the first amendment protect Apple's dangerous speech that opposes law enforcement and is helping terrorists.

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".

Re:Action vs Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Action vs Speech

[gurps_npc]

Then you don't have any idea what coding is.

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.

The goal is clear

[oh_my_080980980]

“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.

Re:Action vs Speech

[fuzznutz]

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.