3 ms·

Ultimately the point is that if we allow the government to compel companies to perform work, where's the line? If the AWA is upheld by all the courts, how do we

by delinka 11y ago

Ultimately the point is that if we allow the government to compel companies to perform work, where's the line? If the AWA is upheld by all the courts, how do we prevent the government from just dictating to companies continuously the work they must perform on the government's behalf?

quinnchr 11y ago
I'm struggling to a think of a subpoena that wouldn't involve being compelled to work. Subpoenaing unencrypted customer data still requires work on the company's part. When does a subpoena become a burdensome amount of work? Furthermore the government already forces companies to preform work. For example, paying taxes, providing insurance for employees, complying with industry regulations.
- delinka 11y ago
  "When does a subpoena become a burdensome amount of work?" This is certainly an important part of the question. I don't have a well-formed opinion on how to define limits. "Furthermore the government already forces companies to preform work. For example, paying taxes, providing insurance for employees, complying with industry regulations." These are well-defined items with known elements about how to implement them. At this point, everyone knows that when they start a company, taxes, insurance, and regulations are part of the game. But when law enforcement shows up making random demands, or convinces a court to issue an order for random demands, there must be limits. If there are no limits, there will be no end to random government requests.
vectorjohn 11y ago
The government already does compel companies to perform work. Every other thing Apple already did to comply with the order was work. You think it was free? There are myriad examples of companies being compelled to do work to help an investigation. If Apple could make the case that the change would be so burdensome that they can't feasibly do it without harming the company, they have a case to resist. I don't believe it, but they have to make that case.

by delinka 11y ago

quinnchr 11y ago

I'm struggling to a think of a subpoena that wouldn't involve being compelled to work. Subpoenaing unencrypted customer data still requires work on the company's part. When does a subpoena become a burdensome amount of work? Furthermore the government already forces companies to preform work. For example, paying taxes, providing insurance for employees, complying with industry regulations.

delinka 11y ago
"When does a subpoena become a burdensome amount of work?" This is certainly an important part of the question. I don't have a well-formed opinion on how to define limits. "Furthermore the government already forces companies to preform work. For example, paying taxes, providing insurance for employees, complying with industry regulations." These are well-defined items with known elements about how to implement them. At this point, everyone knows that when they start a company, taxes, insurance, and regulations are part of the game. But when law enforcement shows up making random demands, or convinces a court to issue an order for random demands, there must be limits. If there are no limits, there will be no end to random government requests.

vectorjohn 11y ago

The government already does compel companies to perform work. Every other thing Apple already did to comply with the order was work. You think it was free? There are myriad examples of companies being compelled to do work to help an investigation. If Apple could make the case that the change would be so burdensome that they can't feasibly do it without harming the company, they have a case to resist. I don't believe it, but they have to make that case.