Many things that wouldn’t normally be considered “speech” are “speech” for legal purposes. For instance, the act of doing something is considered speech. Most people wouldn’t consider an “act” speech, yet, there’s very clear case law on that point.

Well, considering you’ve said nothing of substance, I have nothing to which I can respond.

Yes, I understand they have to update the OS on the iPhone with the new code. Do you know how long that takes? When I flash partitions on my Android phone it takes, maybe, 5 minutes using fastboot.

See, that’s the thing. What you and many other people are saying sounds good, but it’s just not a legal reality.

So, what you’re saying is your too ignorant to understand the law. Got it.

But, if this version got out, since Apple is the only one who has it, it would be Apple’s fault. The FBI has many secrets that we’ll never know about since they are classified. The feds are pretty damn good at keeping secrets. So... the weak link is Apple since the severity of leaking a corporate secret is a bit less…

Ok, I like your example of the conversation aspect comparing it to encryption. But, from a legal perspective, here’s an issue with that.

No, Apple is literally removing code. There’s code in the OS that says something like “if password is incorrect X amount of times, wipe data partition.” Apple could either delete those lines of code, or just put in some gigantic integer that will never get hit, like 1x10^100,000.

So, you didn’t say you want no government but all politicians are corrupt? How to you reconcile the two?

Nope, wrong. The government wants Apple to remove some code that wipes the data partition if there are X incorrect attempts.

Both times you took it? You mean, you failed it once and had to take it again? What the fuck does, “I booked it” mean? That sounds like, “I failed it both times.”

I wasn’t saying I know Stephen Hawking. I was saying that I wouldn’t argue physics with him. The implied part of that was, if I ever got the chance.

The public defenders are not all bad. In fact now, they’ve become better because they’re actually decent jobs since firms haven’t been hiring a lot in the past 5 years.

Every statement you’ve made has involved some sort of “government doesn’t work, it isn’t working, you can’t change it.” That’s not explicitly saying “burn it down” but what else could that mean?

What you’ve cited has literally nothing to do with anything. All it was saying was, you can’t require someone to register as an arms dealer when they’re exporting encryption algorithms.

Based on a quick reading, that doesn’t make encryption illegal. From my quick read, it seems that if you have encrypted data and you are able to decrypt it, then the government can require that pursuant to a valid “notice” which i would assume is the US equivalent of a court order or warrant.

A law degree doesn’t make you an authority, as you have shown. But, it does give evidence of mastery of a subject matter.

I see you agree.

That thing is huge and I’m not going to read through it. Can you point me directly to where it makes encryption illegal?

Absolutely incorrect.