[Cryptography] EFF amicus brief in support of Apple

Ron Garret ron at flownet.com
Sat Mar 5 11:43:48 EST 2016


On Mar 4, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill at hallambaker.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Allen <allenpmd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sold on the "code is speech" argument.  Building a utilitarian,
>> non-expressive machine is not speech.  Building a utilitarian,
>> non-expressive machine that contains code does not turn either the machine
>> nor the code into speech.  Certainly code can be a form of speech, depending
>> on its content and intent, but not all code is speech.  In this case
>> however, I don't think the non-expressive portions of Apple's OS nor its
>> firmware are speech, nor would unpublished code (such as Apple is being
>> asked to provide) constitute speech, nor would signing unpublished code
>> constitute speech.
> 
> I think it is a weak argument to use in this case.
> 
> The FBI can reply by writing the code itself and then getting a
> warrant forcing Apple to sign it. Code is speech but is adding a
> digital signature? I rather doubt it.

You can’t be serious.  On this line of reasoning, it would be OK for law enforcement to force you to sign a confession as long as they didn’t force you to *write* the confession.  There’s no difference between a digital signature and a regular signature.  Both have the same semantics: endorsement of the content being signed.  If Apple is forced to sign one compromised version of iOS that undermines the trust they have painstakingly built which gives their customers confidence in their product.  If I know that the government has the power to force Apple to sign a compromised iOS, how do I know that the signed version of iOS that I’m about to install on my phone isn’t also compromised?

rg



More information about the cryptography mailing list