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.
You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.
Yes, in the first paragraph is implicitly assumed that law enforcement didn't have a warrant.
But eventually I also wrote "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?"
So, there I was considering the distinction.
Am I handing over information to Moleskine when I write in a notebook I purchased?
If it was a real safe then a) Apple can't prove that the blob doesn't hold a document that a warrant is for, but equally law enforcement can't prove it is there. Unfortunately they can just ask for the whole thing. b) Chain of custody can't be shown by Apple, all they did is take the locked safe from you. I could send a document to the printer and ask you to take it to my boss, what if they received a resignation letter not a weekly report?
It should be legally irrelevant whether I handed someone a photo or sent it to them using an app and a network.