4 ms·
They'd likely argue that forcing them to sign non-Apple software as if it was their own is compelled speech.
by HelloMcFly 11y ago
They'd likely argue that forcing them to sign non-Apple software as if it was their own is compelled speech.
- joering2 11y agoHowever looking at Lavabit example they could do the same with Apple - ask them for the key (in digital form so Apple won't print it with font size 4) and then sign their trojan software themselves using it! If there were true rule of the law and everyone would have been treated equally in US, then either both Lavabit and Apple should give out signing keys, or none at all. Lavabit was forced and had no choice. As far as my reading and understanding goes, the Gov created some sort of loophole where Lavabit was denied a hearing and because of lack of hearing he was... found guilty (catch 22). I'm sure others can shed more light...
- XorNot 11y agoLavabit did it to themselves. They initially subpoenaed just the account they were interested in. Lavabit claimed it was not possible to comply, so the next request was for master keys. At this point, Lavabit could've complied by just handing over the original data, but instead decided to get cute. "Contempt of court" is an aptly named crime.
- GigabyteCoin 11y ago>forcing them to sign non-Apple software as if it was their own is compelled speech. That may be. However, simply forcing them to hand over the key wouldn't imho.
- ghayes 11y agoTo be fair, Lavabit was out of compliance with legal government orders (they had access to accounts but was withholding on moral grounds). Forcing Apple to hand over "the keys to the kingdom" so as to forge software on their behalf might still lie outside of established governmental powers.
- baddox 11y agoIf Apple isn't allowed to publicize that their private key is compromised, then using their private key to sign something is effectively compelled speech.