[Cryptography] EFF amicus brief in support of Apple

[Jerry Leichter]

> > Clearly Apple and its lawyers think they have a strong Constitutional case - but they're taking the cautious approach of also including the lower-level defenses.
> 
> In fact, just the opposite.  Clearly Apple does NOT think it has a strong constitutional case.  The reason I say that is because Apple has said, both in its brief and in public statements, that there needs to be a public debate and then Congressional action to determine how far companies should be required to go to assist law enforcement....
Meh.  Apple called for a high-level commission to look into the issue.  We all know what high-level commissions do:  They put off taking any action at all.  Meanwhile, Apple is reportedly raising the bar further by modifying the update procedure so as to make it impossible, in future versions, to build the kind of unlocking software they are now being called on to produce.  That wouldn't leave many alternatives for Congress.  In fact, the only once I can think of (that would cover this particular type of issue) would be to extend CALEA to companies like Apple and require them to leave an opening for LE in their software.

Anyway, we're now speculating on (a) what courts might hold; (b) what Apple's lawyer's believe.  Perhaps should move on to something easier, like who might win the 2016 World Series.  :-)

                                                        -- Jerry