[Cryptography] EFF amicus brief in support of Apple

[Allen]

>
> Can the court demand you put your name and signature on a check making a
> payment
> to a criminal?
>
> Can the court demand you as citizens put your name and signature on a box
> of ballots to be taken to be counted for the next presidential election
> when you
> are well aware that the contents of the box do not represent the wishes of
> the citizens casting a ballot?
>
> Can the court demand you to say something in writing repugnant and contrary
> to your primary business and source of income and then sign it?
>

In all these examples, you are asking if the court can order you to sign
something that is published.  In this case, Apple is being asked to "sign"
code that will not be published and is not speech.  That is a huge
distinction.  Second, the court can order you to provide your signature if
they need a signature sample to validate a document.  Your signature in
that case is not considered an endorsement under the law, nor would it be
in this case.  Third, the "signature" that Apple would have to apply acts
like a lock that opens a safe.  In other words, the "signature" is a
technological control.  So the question is, can the court order you to
unlock a safe?  The answer is yes.  If we renamed "sign" to "unlock", would
that make you feel better about it?  Because that in reality is what is
happening.  Apple is being ask to unlock the device so the code will run on
it.  It should be noted that the computer industry created this new use for
the existing words "sign" and "signature".  Just because we call it "sign"
and "signature" does not make it the same a a legal signature. i.e., a
personal endorsement or form of speech, nor should the courts recognize
them as such in every case.  Whether it is a legal signature, an
endorsement or speech depends on the specific context and facts of the
case.  In this case, Apple is not in fact being asked to provide a legal
signature, they are just being asked to unlock the device.  I'm in favor of
Apple's position, but the free speech arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.
Let's not turn this into something it isn't.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20160305/1b72722e/attachment.html>