[phkahler]

I still don't understand. They want to be able to have a court order a device maker to decrypt data, but today they can already get a court to order the device owner to decrypt it. The device owner actually has the password or key. The truth is that they want to do this without the device owner knowing it's being done.

[panzer_wyrm]

Passwords so far are somewhat protected under the fifth. And you have to go trough contempt of court. Firmware signing keys that belong to a third party are not.

[phkahler]

So what's your point?

[panzer_wyrm]

That it is easier to mandate mandatory decryption to the vendors than to power trough the fifth and get password from a defendant.

All writs on steroids.

[defined]

> The device owner actually has the password or key.

The device owner might be dead. Given that the context is law enforcement, that's reasonably likely (I forget - wasn't that the problem with San Bernardino?)