3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhether 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.