Sorry, I typed quickly. I was referring to
encryption on the iPhone, not on some
cloud server. From recent media stories,
some people in law enforcement want to
be able to take a person's mobile device
and see what data is on it and also want
the right to demand that the owner of the
device decrypt the data. My view of this
part of the Constitution is that the person
and their device are protected and law
enforcement is wrong.
So, the way I read the Constitution,
if I have an iPhone
and the data on it is encrypted, then I
don't have to give the FBI so much as
a spit if they don't have one of those
warrant thingies. Even if they do have
a warrant, do I have to decrypt the
data for them? I'd guess and hope not,
but that might need a SCOTUS opinion.
But, for the cloud,
hmm, let's see: I write a very personal
diary and store it in a safe deposit box
at a bank. Now that diary is no longer part of
my "personal papers"? I would hope that
that part of the Constitution would continue
to apply to my diary, even though it is in
bank's box.
And if I type my diary into a computer file
and store it, encrypted, on a cloud server,
again I would think that that file on the
cloud server was still my "personal papers
and effects".
Maybe we need some SCOTUS cases.
So, the way I read the Constitution, if I have an iPhone and the data on it is encrypted, then I don't have to give the FBI so much as a spit if they don't have one of those warrant thingies. Even if they do have a warrant, do I have to decrypt the data for them? I'd guess and hope not, but that might need a SCOTUS opinion.
But, for the cloud, hmm, let's see: I write a very personal diary and store it in a safe deposit box at a bank. Now that diary is no longer part of my "personal papers"? I would hope that that part of the Constitution would continue to apply to my diary, even though it is in bank's box.
And if I type my diary into a computer file and store it, encrypted, on a cloud server, again I would think that that file on the cloud server was still my "personal papers and effects".
Maybe we need some SCOTUS cases.