[Cryptography] USG v. Apple, Apple Motion to Vacate Decrypt Order

[Erik Berls]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Jerry Leichter <leichter at lrw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Point taken.  But if encryption software can be Governed as a Weapon
>>>> for trade purposes, for example Export Licensing, why wouldn’t it
>>>> qualify for ”safe harbour” under the 2nd Amendment?
>>> First off, just because something is covered by the same regulations as weapons for trade purposes doesn’t make it a weapon.
>>
>> So right off you lead with an Absurdity.  Is that how the rest of your act goes?
> Why?  If cars and bicycles are regulated on the road by the same laws, does that make a car a bicycle?  A bicycle a car?
>
>>
>>> Under this definition, cryptography is simply not in the same universe.
>>
>> Love you man, but what about the Jefferson cipher machine, aka Bazieres wheels,
>> circa 1790 and his encrypted telegraphs were like Hillary’s emails?
> People had chamber pots in the 18th century, too.  Members of the militia used them.  Does the Second Amendment thus cover chamber pots?  Does its protection extend to modern toilets?  If so, how are the Feds able to regulate the volume of water per flush?  Inquiring minds want to know!
>
> The issue isn't whether this stuff existed in the 18th century, it's whether it would have been considered "arms" traditionally used by militia members.  Jefferson developed his machines for diplomats, not field soldiers.
>

In context, the "Arms" that are protected are "Those that a current
military would be using." and not constrained to a particular point in
time. One could argue that various communications technologies would
fall under that. After all, a General has to communicate his orders to
his troops. Given the way the US Gov treats these various
technologies, it would seem to fall in line. My dad was in the Air
Force during Viet Nam. He set up, operated, and maintained microwave
communications networks. They undertook mechanisms to reduce the
chance of communications interception.

As for the canon comment earlier, privately owned canons were on the
list of items to be seized at the battle of Concorde/Lexington, which
was the impetus for the Second Amendment. Constitutionally speaking,
it protects any arms necessary to serve Letters of Marque, the power
of which to grant is enumerated in the Constitution. This power shows
intent as to the level of weaponry the Founders expected to be in the
hands of private individuals.

Additionally, it was always an individual right, it just wasn't
contested until more recently. The analysis shows the intent, that
intent didn't just spring into being in 1960. SCOTUS affirms what is,
it doesn't create things.

>> Not to mention the grudgingly Friedman approved M-94. Would that now count as
>> a reasonable citizen’s weapon to be in the right of possession of these days?
> If it had existed and been used by militias in the 18th century, maybe - though, again ... "used by militia members" is not the same as "arms".
>
>                                                         -- Jerry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The cryptography mailing list
> cryptography at metzdowd.com
> http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography



-- 
"Exactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11:
reinforcement of cockpit doors, and passengers who now know that they
may have to fight back. Everything else ... is security theater."
--Bruce Schneier