Another Thought on Encryption

Apple’s Tim Cook had one [emphasis added].

On your iPhone, there’s likely health information, there’s financial information. There are intimate conversations with your family or your co-workers. There’s probably business secrets, and you should have the ability to protect it. And the only way we know how to do that is to encrypt it. Why is that? It’s because, if there’s a way to get in, then somebody will find the way in. There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is, if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys.

The Democrat District Attorney for Manhattan Cyrus Vance thinks Government should be in our pockets; he thinks Apple, et al., are undermining Government power.

IPhones are now the first consumer products in American history that are beyond the reach of lawful warrants. The result is crimes go unsolved and victims are left beyond the protection of law. Because Apple is unwilling to help solve this problem, the time for a national, legislative solution is now.

Here’s what our Constitution’s 3rd Amendment says:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner….

Vance just wants to skirt this by quartering virtual policemen in our cell phones. No. Government just needs to go back to doing actual police work, and not rely on such quartering.

Undermining? If anyone is undermining anything, it’s the New York Democrat, who’s undermining individual liberty. This is a clear and present demonstration of why Government cannot be trusted with such a weapon.

One thought on “Another Thought on Encryption


    Note the similarities …

    “On Sunday, China’s parliament adopted a new counterterrorism law that state media have said will, among other things, restrict the right of media to report on details of terror attacks and the government’s response to them.

    “Details of the law have yet to be published, but early drafts were criticized by the U.S. government because they required technology firms to install “backdoors” in products or turn over encryption keys to Chinese authorities. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman denied last week that the law would threaten intellectual property rights or freedom of expression online.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *