3 ms·
I think the important part is the "unreasonable burden." Apple's position is that it's an unreasonable burden to be required to dedicate finite technical resour
by swyman 11y ago
I think the important part is the "unreasonable burden." Apple's position is that it's an unreasonable burden to be required to dedicate finite technical resources to a problem that directly and very publicly counterfeits one of their marketing stances. They can pretty easily draw parallels to US-based cloud companies that have lost European revenue post-Snowden. Maybe it's reasonable to request $50k in engineering time from one of the largest companies in the world, but what about $10 million in lost future sales? $100 million? more?
- Crito 11y agoApple is a very rich company. This is a federal investigation of a mass murderer, with potential national security implications. Where is there sense of civic responsibility? There is no way in hell they'd lose $100 in sales for aiding in this investigation. Being melodramatic doesn't help anybody.
- marak830 11y ago"Apple is a very rich company" I'm sorry, but this strikes me as wrong, if they were not rich, would they not be compelled todo this, or would they not be able to argue against it as visibly? (I personally think the second would be more likely). Civic responsibility? What is next? Agreeing to some idiots religious views and blocking anyone from seeing nudity? I am sorry, but they are a company, not an elected group. If they are not breaking a law, well you can take those arguments of civic responsibilities and shout them at a tree for all that it matters. I am trying to resist the urge to bring up some hyperbolic argument against this, purely as i am so shocked someone on hn would try an argument this rediculous. Its akin so 'someone think of the children', in my mind, and as baseless as that sort of argument.
- tptacek 11y agoThat particular logic is not wrong; relative hardship is something courts routinely take into consideration.