5 ms·
One way around that is for Apple to make it extremely costly for courts to issue many of such orders, because after all Apple are free to charge whatever they l
by roddux 11y ago
One way around that is for Apple to make it extremely costly for courts to issue many of such orders, because after all Apple are free to charge whatever they like for doing this service.
- tobylane 11y agoThey could charge a million for this one time, but after that it's just the edit of that if statement. It's not justified to charge a million each time.
- nindalf 11y agoOnly a reasonable amount though. They could charge $100k or even $1m the first time, but they'd have a hard time justifying similar fees if only an if condition needs to be changed. Worse, they would lose the moral high ground if they even tried it. They'd go from being a good corporation standing up for the Constitutional rights of its users to a scumbag organisation trying to bleed taxpayer money for helping criminal investigations.
- CaptSpify 11y agoThe the court says "lol, make it default then". It doesn't matter how much they charge, when courts can override the decision. What apple needs to do is invalidate any way for this to happen.
- FireBeyond 11y agoThe court can't make an order that a third party is not allowed to recover (valid) expenses in complying with a court order (if it gets to the point that this becomes so ordered).
- dba7dba 11y agoI think US govt would be kinda ok with that idea if Apple didn't park their profit overseas to avoid paying tax...
- purplethrowaway 11y agoWhat are you talking about? Why should should apple have to contribute anything to the safety or wellbeing of the peasant American society? /sarcasm