“The FBI and Apple reached a cease-fire last week, but it can’t last, because it leaves unresolved the future of reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment,” Louis Gordon Crovitz writes for The Wall Street Journal. “It would be a public service if both sides started making their arguments forthrightly.”
“Apple should also stop conflating the broader issue of encryption with helping unlock a single iPhone,” Crovitz writes. “Timothy Lee summarized the difference on Vox: ‘The fact that we don’t know how to make an encryption algorithm that can be compromised only by law enforcement doesn’t imply that we don’t know how to make a technology product that can be unlocked only by law enforcement.'”
Crovitz writes, “Thus the first round of FBI vs. Apple has handed the key question to Congress: Either the Fourth Amendment permits reasonable, warranted searches in the digital era or Internet companies can design systems to defeat court orders, putting themselves — and criminals, including terrorists — above the law.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Define “law enforcement” and then tell us how this magic unlock solution stays only with “law enforcement” instead of leaking to other governments and criminals the world over.
Hello, Louie? Mr. Naiveté, Hello?