[Cryptography] USG v. Apple, Apple Motion to Vacate Decrypt Order

[Jerry Leichter]

>> 
>>> Point taken.  But if encryption software can be Governed as a Weapon
>>> for trade purposes, for example Export Licensing, why wouldn’t it
>>> qualify for ”safe harbour” under the 2nd Amendment?
>> First off, just because something is covered by the same regulations as weapons for trade purposes doesn’t make it a weapon.
> 
> So right off you lead with an Absurdity.  Is that how the rest of your act goes?
Why?  If cars and bicycles are regulated on the road by the same laws, does that make a car a bicycle?  A bicycle a car?

> 
>> Under this definition, cryptography is simply not in the same universe.
> 
> Love you man, but what about the Jefferson cipher machine, aka Bazieres wheels,
> circa 1790 and his encrypted telegraphs were like Hillary’s emails?
People had chamber pots in the 18th century, too.  Members of the militia used them.  Does the Second Amendment thus cover chamber pots?  Does its protection extend to modern toilets?  If so, how are the Feds able to regulate the volume of water per flush?  Inquiring minds want to know!

The issue isn't whether this stuff existed in the 18th century, it's whether it would have been considered "arms" traditionally used by militia members.  Jefferson developed his machines for diplomats, not field soldiers.

> Not to mention the grudgingly Friedman approved M-94. Would that now count as
> a reasonable citizen’s weapon to be in the right of possession of these days?
If it had existed and been used by militias in the 18th century, maybe - though, again ... "used by militia members" is not the same as "arms".

                                                        -- Jerry