3 ms·
Three points. > I'm also arguing (which you didn't counter) that this case lays the groundwork for the FBI to request _new_ products from companies. I don't r
by ikeboy 11y ago
Three points.
> I'm also arguing (which you didn't counter) that this case lays the groundwork for the FBI to request _new_ products from companies.
I don't really have an opinion on that. I haven't commented much on whether they should have that power.
I think in this case, Apple would prefer to make it themself than be forced to hand over the code and keys to let the FBI make it. If Apple says "this is too hard for us", it's plausible that they'll need to do that instead. I have seen this point made elsewhere, but I'm not sure of its validity.
>Consider that the FBI could have simply requested Apple provide the data on the phone instead of specifying the mechanism and thereby creating precedent that they can compel a company to create something new.
My understanding was that the FBI asked for the data, Apple said "we can't do it", FBI countered with "Do X, Y, and Z, it is technically possible". Is my understanding incorrect? It sounded like the order needed to specify exactly what was to be done.
About the precedent point:
I think the proper response is to argue against specific details of the actual case (which you have with the point about forcing them to make a product). If you don't have specific objections against the actual case, but worry about precedent, then make explicit the difference between the specific case and the general one, and try to get that acknowledged by the judge. Introduce those arguments in briefs to the court, and try to make it very clear to a future court what the limits of the precedent set should be.
If you haven't imagined what could go wrong, then don't reject something because of unknown dangers. It seems to be born of a lack of trust in future courts, but there's no particular reason to distrust future courts over current ones.
(If you happen to know any philosophy of law articles that discuss this topic, I'd love to see them.)
- schismsubv 11y agoThanks for working with me, I understand your point about distrusting future courts over current ones. I don't think it's too hard for Apple to do this; they could probably turn out the request in very short order. However, as soon as they let this go and do that very thing, their legal obligations skyrocket as thousands of cases pour in; in truth, my cynical conjecture is that this is the very reason Apple is fighting this fight. Not for the consumer, but to minimize the very real cost associated with satisfying this kind of request. The Secure Enclave is likely as much a legal defense for Apple as it is a technological one for the consumer. Whatever the motivation, in this case the consumer seems to win. I must admit I don't disagree with the specific details of the actual case. What I draw exception to is the specificity of the ruling (dictating how Apple does business) and the precedent it sets of enabling courts to force a company to create. That exception is exacerbated by this case's proximity to the FBI's very recent and very real behavior regarding cryptographic systems.