[Cryptography] Hope Apple Fights This!

[RB]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Allen <allenpmd at gmail.com> wrote:
> The worst case would probably be:
>
> 1. Apple makes all sorts of "unreasonably burdensome" arguments.
> 2. The arguments are rejected and Apple is forced to hack the phone.
> 3. The burdens never appear, making it look like Apple cried wolf.
> 4. Public sentiment turns in favor of requiring backdoors, since no
> downsides were seen when they were claimed.
> 5. Congress passes a law requiring backdoors.

Where this falls apart is at #3.  The public will never see the
burdens; they don't have to, nor will Apple let them.  Apple will make
it absolutely clear it's a burden, whether by charging $infinite per
case or by making it legally expensive to pursue.  For anyone
(including the state) to prove it is not burdensome would require
lawyer-years of effort, which is seldom considered worth the effort.

> IMO, given that this model iPhone lacks the technological protections to
> prevent hacking, Apple should just quietly comply with the order, and save
> its fight for technological protections, not legal protections.

There is no either-or situation in this case. If they set a precedent
of not fighting for both technical and legal protections, technical
protections will mean nothing.  If lost, this case stands to set a
precedent that the US judicial system will revisit time and time
again, insisting that Apple create increasingly novel bypasses for
technical protections.

Even "perfect" technological protection requires some level of legal
protection.  This is why (at least in most civilized nations) the
police can't simply beat an encryption key out of you.