> With the due legal process the police can search property, safety deposit boxes, bank accounts, vehicles, etc. etc. Why should a smartphone be any different just because Apple says it is ?
Because the "master key" alluded to in the letter is ethereal and can be duplicated (as opposed to handed over). This means:
- Since the key can be duplicated, there is no serious way to ensure that only the police (or any other legally entitled organ) can do the search. Anyone who can get it will have police-level access to anything and will be able to offer police-level access to anyone. The "anyone" in question can be a former policeman who hates life, some script kiddie, the Chinese and so on -- and neither of these people are likely to care much about the "due legal process".
- The police can trivially search it without the owner's knowledge and without leaving evidence. The high costs in time and money are a reasonable deterrent for searching property, vehicles etc. without the due legal process. For an electronic device, that cost is practically zero.
Regarding the first point -- for what it's worth, a while ago, army regulations here required that all doors have a physical lock and key, even if they also had an access code, for precisely this reason. The access code or the card swiping were used to log access (i.e. everyone had their own card, access codes could be logged so that you at least knew when someone was entering etc.) but when a door was supposed to be locked for good (e.g. labs not in use during the night), they were locked with real keys and sealed with old-fashioned wax seals. The rationale was that breaking the lock required quite a little time (and maybe even some door banging), increasing the chances that someone who tried to break in would be discovered, and physical evidence of a break-in was fairly hard to erase, as opposed to a purely electronic break-in which was quick to do (just enter the code). I don't know if this is true anymore, nor how common it was outside this part of the world, but it makes some sense.
Because the "master key" alluded to in the letter is ethereal and can be duplicated (as opposed to handed over). This means:
- Since the key can be duplicated, there is no serious way to ensure that only the police (or any other legally entitled organ) can do the search. Anyone who can get it will have police-level access to anything and will be able to offer police-level access to anyone. The "anyone" in question can be a former policeman who hates life, some script kiddie, the Chinese and so on -- and neither of these people are likely to care much about the "due legal process".
- The police can trivially search it without the owner's knowledge and without leaving evidence. The high costs in time and money are a reasonable deterrent for searching property, vehicles etc. without the due legal process. For an electronic device, that cost is practically zero.
Regarding the first point -- for what it's worth, a while ago, army regulations here required that all doors have a physical lock and key, even if they also had an access code, for precisely this reason. The access code or the card swiping were used to log access (i.e. everyone had their own card, access codes could be logged so that you at least knew when someone was entering etc.) but when a door was supposed to be locked for good (e.g. labs not in use during the night), they were locked with real keys and sealed with old-fashioned wax seals. The rationale was that breaking the lock required quite a little time (and maybe even some door banging), increasing the chances that someone who tried to break in would be discovered, and physical evidence of a break-in was fairly hard to erase, as opposed to a purely electronic break-in which was quick to do (just enter the code). I don't know if this is true anymore, nor how common it was outside this part of the world, but it makes some sense.