4 ms·

Of course the FBI will ask again and again. And Apple could be compelled to comply each and every time. The slippery slope argument being applied here is that

by rtpg 11y ago

Of course the FBI will ask again and again. And Apple could be compelled to comply each and every time. The slippery slope argument being applied here is that FBI search warrants will now work on phones less than the iPhone 5S from now on (until Apple closes the iOS update backdoor I guess). This is far from "China will be able to mass-hack into iPhones from now on"-style comments I've seen from others. The fact is that Apple left a backdoor in their phones and are now being told to exploit it. An argument against having the backdoor in the first place.

schismsubv 11y ago
Apple _will_ be compelled. You either don't understand the US legal doctrine of stare decisis or are being intentionally obtuse. Furthermore, the US legal system encourages elaboration on stare decisis, applying prior case law to novel cases rather than hashing out new decisions. This means that creative applications of this ruling ("give me an uncontrolled backdoor") are simply a question of time once the landmark case is made.
- rtpg 11y ago
  considering that the single-use nature of this exploit is a fundamental part of the ruling (and of the validity of the search warrant itself), you would not be able to use precedent to just get an uncontrolled backdoor.
  - schismsubv 11y ago
    Whether the exploit is single-use, about a phone, Apple, the 5c, or any other specific parameters is fundamentally irrelevant. What this case is doing is setting precedent that the courts can compel a company to _create_, no matter how trivial one may think that creation may be today. _That_ is the precedent so many draw exception to, because stare decisis is also a doctrine of incrementalism, of gradual expansion of interpretations. Today Apple is compelled to create a very controlled firmware; who's to say in the figurative tomorrow that Samsung won't be compelled to create and send a firmware update to a specific Blu-Ray player that creates an air microphone out of the laser? Where does it stop? To be complete (as was pointed out in another sibling thread) incrementalism may be curtailed if implications are carefully argued and acknowledged by the judge. I am skeptical of the value of that approach, but have no hard argument against it.

by rtpg 11y ago

schismsubv 11y ago

Apple _will_ be compelled. You either don't understand the US legal doctrine of stare decisis or are being intentionally obtuse. Furthermore, the US legal system encourages elaboration on stare decisis, applying prior case law to novel cases rather than hashing out new decisions. This means that creative applications of this ruling ("give me an uncontrolled backdoor") are simply a question of time once the landmark case is made.

rtpg 11y ago
considering that the single-use nature of this exploit is a fundamental part of the ruling (and of the validity of the search warrant itself), you would not be able to use precedent to just get an uncontrolled backdoor.
- schismsubv 11y ago
  Whether the exploit is single-use, about a phone, Apple, the 5c, or any other specific parameters is fundamentally irrelevant. What this case is doing is setting precedent that the courts can compel a company to _create_, no matter how trivial one may think that creation may be today. _That_ is the precedent so many draw exception to, because stare decisis is also a doctrine of incrementalism, of gradual expansion of interpretations. Today Apple is compelled to create a very controlled firmware; who's to say in the figurative tomorrow that Samsung won't be compelled to create and send a firmware update to a specific Blu-Ray player that creates an air microphone out of the laser? Where does it stop? To be complete (as was pointed out in another sibling thread) incrementalism may be curtailed if implications are carefully argued and acknowledged by the judge. I am skeptical of the value of that approach, but have no hard argument against it.