I Was Cited in a Court Decision

I Was Cited in a Court Decision
I Was Cited in a Court Decision

I Was Cited in a Court Decision

I Was Cited in a Court Decision

An article I co-wrote — my first regulation magazine article — used to be cited by way of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court — the state ultimate court docket — in a case on pressured decryption.

Here’s the primary, in footnote 1:

We perceive the phrase “password” to be synonymous with different phrases that mobile phone customers is also aware of, equivalent to Personal Identification Number or “passcode.” Each time period refers back to the personalised mixture of letters or digits that, when manually entered by way of the consumer, “unlocks” a mobile phone. For simplicity, we use “password” right through. See typically, Kerr & Schneier, Encryption Workarounds, 106 Geo. L.J. 989, 990, 994, 998 (2018).

And this is the second one, in footnote five:

We acknowledge that abnormal mobile phone customers are most likely unfamiliar with the complexities of encryption era. For example, despite the fact that coming into a password “unlocks” a mobile phone, the password itself isn’t the “encryption key” that decrypts the mobile phone’s contents. See Kerr & Schneier, supra at 995. Rather, “entering the [password] decrypts the [encryption] key, enabling the key to be processed and unlocking the phone. This two-stage process is invisible to the casual user.” Id. Because the technical main points of encryption era don’t play a function in our research, they don’t seem to be price belaboring. Accordingly, we deal with the access of a password as successfully decrypting the contents of a mobile phone. For a extra detailed dialogue of encryption era, see typically Kerr & Schneier, supra.

Posted on March 15, 2019 at 2:38 PM

four Comments


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here