Critiquing Proposals That Would Compel Decryption of Data Stored On Computer Devices

As you know from this week’s lecture, there is a proposal in the Senate for a statute (Sources 3- Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act) which would require
companies like Apple to comply with court orders which, in turn, requires these companies to provide law enforcement with data in “intelligible form” if “such
data has been made unintelligible by a feature, product or service owned, controlled, created or provided by” the company.
The legislation appears to be designed to address situations where police are authorized to access the contents of particular documents on the phone
because: (1) they have a search warrant backed by probable cause; (2) a court has issued a “decryption order” after a judge has determined that ordering the
suspect to “decrypt” (e.g. unlock the phone) does not violate the suspect’s 5th Amendment rights; (3) the suspect still refuses to unlock despite the judges
order to do so and(4) the phone’s manufacturer (e.g. Apple) says it cannot unlock the phone.
As you probably know, there has been almost universal resistance to efforts by local, state and national law enforcement officials to reach some compromise
on the encryption issue. (e.g Sources “3- “Experts – Hands Off Encryption”)
A “report” from the Manhattan DA in November, 2015 is part of the reading for Week 3. This report says, for instance, that in the period between September
17, 2014 and October 1, 2015, the Manhattan DA’s office “was unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants for smartphones because because
Apple, which had assisted in the past, now says it is literally unable unlock the phones. The warrants command officers to search for evidence of the crimes
of “homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery.” Manhattan DA Report p.9