[Cryptography] EFF amicus brief in support of Apple

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Allen <allenpmd at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sold on the "code is speech" argument.  Building a utilitarian,
> non-expressive machine is not speech.  Building a utilitarian,
> non-expressive machine that contains code does not turn either the machine
> nor the code into speech.  Certainly code can be a form of speech, depending
> on its content and intent, but not all code is speech.  In this case
> however, I don't think the non-expressive portions of Apple's OS nor its
> firmware are speech, nor would unpublished code (such as Apple is being
> asked to provide) constitute speech, nor would signing unpublished code
> constitute speech.

I think it is a weak argument to use in this case.

The FBI can reply by writing the code itself and then getting a
warrant forcing Apple to sign it. Code is speech but is adding a
digital signature? I rather doubt it.

One of the reasons that we backed the Google Certificate Transparency
effort was the concern that someone might coerce one of our affiliates
into a mis-issue. CT does not provide an access control but it does
add audit and accountability. The FBI is very unlikely to try to get a
mis-issued certificate if the fact is going to become public.

Put your trust in crypto, not the courts or the willingness of
corporations to defy them.