3 ms·

It seems like many people don't get the concept of evidence preservation. Apple put in a feature, which they may circumvent, that will effectively brick the de

It seems like many people don't get the concept of evidence preservation. Apple put in a feature, which they may circumvent, that will effectively brick the device if it is tampered in certain ways. The lowest risk option for retrieving the data is to get the people who designed the device to implement their circumvention method. That is exactly what the FBI asked for and what the judge agreed to. Why should the FBI have to waste resources reverse engineering Apple's product (and risk destruction of evidence) when Apple is wholly capable of helping out?

grillvogel 11y ago
>Why should the FBI have to waste resources reverse engineering Apple's product (and risk destruction of evidence) when Apple is wholly capable of helping out? so now apple has to pay for engineers to design and implement this change to their product because the government said so? why is apple required to "help out"?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Apple is currently required because there is an outstanding court order. I'm not sure if they have submitted a formal appeal. I do think there are some interesting questions about "forced work" here, but that can be said of any subpoena, and I don't think many would contest the entire concept. From my standpoint: Apple can prove critical in obtaining whatever evidence/information may be on the device. It may certainly be the case that there is nothing valuable there, but such events should be thoroughly investigated. This was a personal computing device of a person who killed many, we need to know what is on it, and we can. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple were already working on the software.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Apple is a $500 billion company that sells hundreds of millions of devices each year and has more credit card-linked accounts than any other company on Earth. If a warrant can force Apple to do this work now, then what is the criteria that would determine when Apple wouldn't have to help out? That is the key legal question. If a warrant can force Apple to do whatever the warrant says would be helpful to the FBI, then that's a pretty huge scope of potential work.

grillvogel 11y ago

>Why should the FBI have to waste resources reverse engineering Apple's product (and risk destruction of evidence) when Apple is wholly capable of helping out? so now apple has to pay for engineers to design and implement this change to their product because the government said so? why is apple required to "help out"?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Apple is currently required because there is an outstanding court order. I'm not sure if they have submitted a formal appeal. I do think there are some interesting questions about "forced work" here, but that can be said of any subpoena, and I don't think many would contest the entire concept. From my standpoint: Apple can prove critical in obtaining whatever evidence/information may be on the device. It may certainly be the case that there is nothing valuable there, but such events should be thoroughly investigated. This was a personal computing device of a person who killed many, we need to know what is on it, and we can. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple were already working on the software.

snowwrestler 11y ago

Apple is a $500 billion company that sells hundreds of millions of devices each year and has more credit card-linked accounts than any other company on Earth. If a warrant can force Apple to do this work now, then what is the criteria that would determine when Apple wouldn't have to help out? That is the key legal question. If a warrant can force Apple to do whatever the warrant says would be helpful to the FBI, then that's a pretty huge scope of potential work.