Posts

Posted on

A Post-Encryption World

Apple may very well lose this thing. What will that look like for us?

Encryption[footnote]It isn’t Strong Encryption if your vendor can still get to your data. This includes Apple, who have admitted they can do what the FBI wants them to do.[/footnote] is all around you. If you have ever used a credit card, online or off, you’ve benefitted from encryption. Does the FBI really want to compromise all commerce? Of course not.

Is the FBI staffed by idiots and buffoons? Probably not. But they also know what the legislation will look like when this is done. If they win this case, they will ask Congress to adopt the court’s decision as part of Federal law. If they lose, they’ll ask Congress to overturn the court with a new Federal law. Either way, that’s the end-game. This case is all about softening up the public with The Terraists.

I expect that new law will carve out an exception for certain activities. These will need to be licensed by the government, ignoring the gross anti-federalist overreach that will stretch the Commerce Clause to its theoretical limit.

Banks will be licensed for strong encryption. Friendly telecoms probably will. But end users? No way. The rest of us will get the broken version we currently have, or a Pro version where you have to agree to store your master key in a government-run escrow. In that case, see Footnote 1, above.

Using Strong Encryption will become a new Federal crime. It’ll be up there with Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Get arrested for something and happen to have an iPhone with unlicensed/unregistered Strong Encryption? That’s a paddlin’.[footnote][/footnote]

More thoughts later when I have time (including why Apple has to argue under the 1st Amendment and not the 4th).

Posted on

I finally named my blog

I’ve only owned jpmiller.net for a little over a decade (17. July 2001). It had been called “Justin’s Journal” for the longest time. Then most recently “My Other Site.” But today I realized the name had presented itself the other day on Facebook, where I wrote a short sketch from the impromptuly named “Bored Lawyer Theater.”

Posted on

Iowa predictions, anyone?

My predictions for the 2016 Iowa Caucuses:[footnote]It should be noted that I have previously predicted that Trump would max his support at 20% of the GOP and fade by the first votes. I seem to have been wrong. But so was everyone else.[/footnote]

GOP

I have the GOP, in descending order, as Trump, Cruz, Paul, and Rubio. I am unsure about Rubio, but I think he becomes the Establishment default choice.
Rationale: Paul has a solid ground game, an effective PAC, and under-polled youth on his side. I think that will be tonight’s surprise story. Trump and Cruz will get the lion’s share, and Paul will be a distant – but noticeable – third.
Trump is a disorganized mess. Organization beats enthusiasm in Iowa. If you get both (see: Obama, 2008), you do really well. Trump enthusiasm will carry him over the line, but only just.
 

Democrats

I have the DEM picks as Clinton and Sanders. O’Malley is knocked out in the first round.
Rationale: If Sanders pulls it off, it’ll be super close. Clinton has been laying the groundwork for this since 2006ish. Her team have had a decade to develop a plan. The tipping point? The app the campaign developed for their precinct captains to throw support to O’Malley to keep Sanders from winning close precincts.