4 ms·

1) There is no search warrant in the case in question, but an order under the All Writs act. 2) If Apple had designed the phone properly in the first place (ie

by jMyles 11y ago

1) There is no search warrant in the case in question, but an order under the All Writs act. 2) If Apple had designed the phone properly in the first place (ie, impenetrable even with their help), then they would indeed be protected from attacks via search warrant. A sufficiently robust security solution doesn't care whether the attack happens to come from the state.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> 1) There is no search warrant in the case in question, but an order under the All Writs act. I was under the impression that there is a search warrant that the government has secured to search the phone, and an order under the All Writs Act dragooning Apple into writing custom software to support the search authorized by the warrant.
- r00fus 11y ago
  So what Apple is fighting against is the "dragooning"
- jMyles 11y ago
  Right, right. By "the case in question," I meant FBI v. Apple (ie, the case out of which the court order came, whatever it ends up being called).
jhayward 11y ago
There is indeed a warrant. The writ was issued to effectuate the warrant.
- jMyles 11y ago
  Right, sure. I meant that there is no search warrant at issue in FBI v. Apple (or whatever the case ends up being called). Nobody disputes that the FBI properly effected a search warrant against the home of the shooters. But Apple is not a party to that document, and its legitimacy is not in dispute in this case.
malchow 11y ago
This. Apple is going to lose this, and it should, under the law. It should also be free to develop a Secure Enclave that prevents iOS updates in lock, which sounds as though it is already in development.