> Somehow Apple has managed to keep its signing key from getting out into the wild. Only Apple knows the systems required to keep that safe.
> The same cannot be said of signed copies of software.
Presumably, you could employ the same systems for both pieces of data, since it should all stay within Apple.
> What's the difference to you whether they fight now or later?
Because they should respond to the request that was made on its merits, not on "what might happen".
I'm just pointing out the kinds of arguments that reasonable, non technical people are making.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty technical, and all these arguments in Apple's favor seem a lot like arguments for why law enforcement is generally untrustworthy, warrants are meaningless, and everyone should resist every search under every circumstance because what will they ask for next?
Aside from the fact that's all probably actually true, that is not the case Cook is making. Cook is, in fact, trying to pretend like this represents a cryptographic back door, when it plainly absolutely does not.
> Cook is, in fact, trying to pretend like this represents a cryptographic back door, when it plainly absolutely does not.
He's not saying that. He's saying, yes there's a back door, and no we don't want to open it for you because once we do, everyone will have a chance to open the door, including possibly your neighbor or a foreign government who wants to snoop on US embassy employees.
What politicians do not understand is you can't outlaw encryption. You can't tell math to stop working. It just does. If they did understand that they would not pursue using the AWA with Apple. They would instead have more open discussions with Apple.
But our politicians keep thinking there must be some way around this, and there isn't. The sooner they get it into their heads that terrorists will simply choose a new device, the better, because
(1) In their attempt to shore up technology, the current administration is going to do more damage to the US tech industry. They already helped destroy Yahoo
and
(2) Law enforcement needs to find a way to keep people safe other than relying on back doors to seemingly secure devices. There are no doubt terrorists using secure communications now that the NSA cannot access, and no amount of begging or pleading from the DOJ is going to change the fact that math is not governable by humans.
Presumably, you could employ the same systems for both pieces of data, since it should all stay within Apple.
> What's the difference to you whether they fight now or later?
Because they should respond to the request that was made on its merits, not on "what might happen".
I'm just pointing out the kinds of arguments that reasonable, non technical people are making.