Downtime

Right so this made my point on one note and not of another. Apple will sue saying it is unconstitutional and the courts are going to have to decide this one. That is judicial review. Without it the dispute could not be mediated.

As to the encryption two things one if they want my password get a warrant and I’ll have to provide it. Or I’ll be in contempt of court. This is like telling me what kind of locks I can have on my house or what kind of safe I can have. If you put a back door on my data I am less concerned about uncle and sam and far more concerned about hackers stealing my data. You can’t have a back door that only the good guys can use.

Also they currently can get into an Apple product it just expensive and time consuming.

rickair7777

Slight problems.

1. How long is a judge going to hold you in contempt? Life? Probably not. If there was evidence of a serious crime on your device, criminals might just wait it out... a year or three in the local hoosegow is better than a capital felony. The application would be inconsistent, since contempt is in the eye of the judge.
2. The real problem... what if you forgot your password? I probably have old devices in my closet which I'd be hard-pressed to recall or find the password to... and they are very encrypted. Soon enough precedent would be set that you can't hold someone indefinitely in contempt if they forgot their password... burden would be on the government to prove that you remembered it or otherwise had access.

It's also not guaranteed, depends on the security hygiene of the user.

It would also be relatively easy to make that effectively impossible. There's a market for that (criminals and conspiracy theorists), and it wouldn't cost that much more to implement.

Downtime

The FBI has gotten into everyone they wanted to. The short non tech version you clone the hard drive over and over and brute force the passcode until one works. The Pensacola shooter took six months and two million dollars but they got it. They want a back door simple enough that it could be done quickly. The problem is as soon as that weak point exist a hacker is gonna gain access. It will be faster then you think too. I have two friends that are white hat hackers. (ethical and legal hackers for those who don’t know) Point is you don’t want to start creating weak points in encryption. There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Excargodog

punctuation was different back then:

http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-c...e-BOOKEIC2.pdf

it ran more on the style du jour than hard and fast rules.

rickair7777

You can brute force a password easily enough... because you know when you have the right one.

Brute-forcing good encryption is harder (much much harder). Simply apply multiple layers of encryption. When you guess the right password for the first layer... you'll never know because all it shows you is gibberish. You'd have to brute-force multiple layers... if each layer has a gazzilion possibilities you're looking at one gazillion to the gazillionth power just to crack two layers. It is entirely practical to apply encryption today which cannot practically be cracked, your average low-grade self-radical or pedophile doesn't go to the trouble. But it's easily within the capabilities or organized crime or organized terrorists. I could do it right now... I have two layers of encryption, one is good the other is bitlocker. Bitlocker could be cracked by brute-forcing my windows password, leaving one layer which the NSA or FBI could crack after a few years of dedicated super-computer time. But I'm just worried about hackers or computer thieves, not the federal government. If I wanted to make it NSA proof, I'd just get a dedicated data drive and apply several different encryption algorithms (with loooong keys) on top of each other. Maybe that could be cracked by quantum computers 100 years down the road.

The back-door would need to have a rolling key change built in, say every year for 20 years. After that you'd need a new device, or accept more risk that the old keys got loose in the wild. The current key would be distributed to a few federal courts, under two-person (or more) control like KEYMAT. Future keys would be on lock-down at Ft Knox. You could also have a mechanism to force-update the key early, so any participating device could have a current but compromised key automatically updated to the next one on the list.

JamesNoBrakes

However, the context, and the sentence, is referring to a well-regulated militia, not the population, if it was just "the people", that part about the militia would have been left out. And then there's "arms", that means anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb.

I'm not claiming to be a constitutional scholar, I'm just applying plain English. Sonic said it means what it means in the time it was written, so when it was written, the most dangerous weapon was a musket/cannon, so that must be what they are referring to, in the militia of course.

NE_Pilot

It does not say People of the Militia, that is your mental gymnastics inserting words that do not exist. Otherwise, according to you it would say “The people of the Militia being necessary...”

The Militia and the People are two distinct and separate things. The term “the People” is used in multiple places throughout the Constitution, and all in the same way.

You are more than welcome to disagree with the Amendment, but don’t make stuff up to try to get it to say something it does not. When you do that, your reasoning is no better than the judges in the Dred Scott case who claimed the Constitution never intended for black citizens, despite it not being mentioned anywhere.

Edit: Speaking of Dred Scott, part of the decision was based on the 2nd Amendment:


Notice how they are trying to justify why black citizens can’t exist, just as you are trying to justify why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.

METO Guido

Doh!!
Ever wonder how People's Party or Central Committee charters protecting individual freedom becomes toilet paper for those on trial? How Sharia law decrees manipulate the Koran anyway deemed necessary? No reason to believe that can't happen here. Fahrenheit 451, running a tad behind is all. A law & order regime sprouts from the reploughed fields of the present one. Its harvester won't tell jokes, comb-over an idiosyncratic hair doo or wear golf shoes. But he does manage to leg iron judicial discretion and gut 2nd amendment prerogatives. Also spearheads full employment, compulsory government service to facilitate democracy's evolution through a new age of intelligent natural selection. What a hey ride it's going to be. Roll up that sleeve, ace.

JamesNoBrakes

It's amazing how you have now proven the very point you were disagreeing with.

I don't disagree with the right to own weapons, but again, reading that sentence in plain language, I have to assume the context is the people of the militia, not all the people. Again, otherwise, militia would have been left out of the sentence. There's no reason to use it otherwise. Being at the beginning, it sets the context. But hey, that's just using the language it was written in...and you are telling us that it needs no interpretation. You are the one using mental gymnastics to tell us it needs no interpretation.

Seneca Pilot

The context of the passage is: we need a well trained militia to protect the freedom of the people, therefore the people's right to bear arms will not be taken. That passage when read as written cannot mean anything else.