[Cryptography] Hope Apple Fights This!

[RB]

I waited for a while to respond to this in order to hopefully observe
further posts from you on the subject so as to better understand your
viewpoint.  Fortunately you've obliged; I don't wish to dampen your
enthusiasm, but wish to point out some necessary points of contact
with realism.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Allen <allenpmd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Issue A: If a device is hackable, to what extent can a court compel a
> company to help hack it?
>
> Issue B: If a device is unhackable, to what extent can a court compel a
> company to modify a specific targeted device to make it hackable, for
> example, can a company be forced to modify one user's device to install
> spyware or make it easier to install spyware?

No device (or more importantly, system) is unhackable.  Ciphers may be
resistant to all but brute-force but their weak point is their key,
because no cipher lives in a vacuum.  Suggesting the world can make an
unhackable device is silly, full stop.  Even if only The People came
up with both firmware and software on a phone, all hardware were
constructed in "open" fabs, all under open scrutiny, and manufacturers
were reduced to the supremely unprofitable hardware-only sector of the
market, there would be weak links that courts can compel.  Meat is
messy.

> If a case is not contested or fought, it does not set a precedent.

I think you (and many others) perhaps misunderstand stare decisis.
This core (perhaps _the_) governing doctrine of the US legal system
stipulates that _any_ court decision is used as the guiding priciple
for any future similar cases, no matter whether it was contested.
That can be fought, of course, but the vast majority of US legal
education and wranglings is spent researching and proposing that a
given case falls within a certain prior decision.  Unless the
prosecution/petitioner dismisses the case completely _before_ the
court makes a decision, stare decisis kicks in even if the
defendant/opposition doesn't contest the ruling.

If you think the FBI did not want this case to be decided by the
courts (whatever Comey's statement to the contrary), you've completely
missed the months of posturing leading up to now, replete with
congressional hearings filled with the FBI's continual protestations
that terrorists are "going dark", technology companies need to
cooperate with them, and that secure-but-insecure systems are possible
if they're created "at the design level".

Make no mistake, this is clearly just another battle in the FBI's War
on Cryptography.  I speak from no more knowledge than any other
spectator, but it's absolutely clear that the FBI's plan has played
out as planned thus far.

Source: I am a forensic practitioner.  This is my dayjob.