#govos

I finally draw my very first OTP.

The take I’ve been waiting for. I’d been waiting to post a link about the FBI / Apple situation until I was able to link to a Nilay Patel article. He’s the most qualified IMO as a lawyer and Editor-in-Chief of The Verge.

So let’s pull it apart and see what’s going on here. While the PR machines on both sides are operating at full tilt, the actual substantive issue in this case is pretty simple: Does the government have the authority to order Apple to help unlock the phone based on statute or precedent? That’s the only question anyone’s trying to answer, since almost all the other facts in the case break decisively in the government’s favor: the government owned the phone, there’s a warrant, the guy was a terrorist asshole, etc., etc., etc. Apple doesn’t even really bring any of that up. The entire brief is focused on whether the government has the power to make Apple help law enforcement.

Nilay does a great job of breaking down the real arguments Apple has against the FBI, but also looks at some of the ... let’s say far reaching points.

Okay. That's the real stuff. Now, onto the crazy part: Apple saying the First and Fifth Amendment don't allow the government to force it to do anything.

Crazytown: the First Amendment (and, sort of, the Fifth)

Here's the outline of the First Amendment argument:

Code is speech.

Speech is free.

The FBI wants to compel Apple to write some code and sign it so it runs on this phone.

Apple doesn't want to, and says how much it loves encryption all the time.

That means the FBI wants to compel speech from Apple that is specifically against Apple's viewpoint.

FIRST AMENDMENT ERROR