3 ms·
This does appear to undermine Apple's argument that the Order could have wider security implications. As such Apple is allowed to do what is necessary to retrie
by macmac 11y ago
This does appear to undermine Apple's argument that the Order could have wider security implications. As such Apple is allowed to do what is necessary to retrieve the passcode in-house, and destroy all software/hardware related to the process thereafter. It of course sets a unwelcome precedent, but that appears to be it.
- jameshart 11y agoSounds like if that process were followed a defense attorney would be free to argue that there was no way to prove any evidence produced from the decryption had not been completely invented in the process.
- macmac 11y agoWhy would that be? If they are handed the passcode, the device could be decrypted in the presence of the defence, and verified by their experts.
- spdustin 11y agoWho exactly is "the defense" right now?
- macmac 11y agoGood point. The defence would be the defence for anyone implicated by the recovered information. The government would be prudent to undertake the decryption in a way that would not permit such a defence to question its authenticity.
- mcphage 11y agoThe precedent is a wider security implication.
- macmac 11y agoI agree, but quite different from the technology actually being in the hands of three letter agencies.
- MaysonL 11y agoSo that next time they'll just have to do it all over again.