4 ms·
That's purely a marketing & power play statement, not one of meaningful decision making.
by white-flame 11y ago
That's purely a marketing & power play statement, not one of meaningful decision making.
- msbarnett 11y agoSure. But this battle between the FBI and Apple is at least as much a PR and Political battle as it is a legal battle. The FBI's proposed interpretation of the AWA's powers is going to be a tough sell to appellate courts, as far as I can see. Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along. And if that doesn't work, they're hoping to provoke enough outrage when Apple wins that congress is nudged into giving them the powers they want.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along. Insofar as there is a political/PR battle, I think its just as likely that they want to lose publicly and use that to reinforce moves under way for getting specific new authority legislated. It's perhaps not coincidental that the various All-Writs Acts cases all came up after discussion of Congress adopting rules regulating provision of consumer end-to-end encryption.
- npunt 11y agoFrom the statements thus far, it seems that the FBI has neither given much thought to unintended consequences such as foreign governments demands for similar access, nor been able to stay on message whether this is 'just for one phone' or for many. If the idea is to lose the case, which it could possibly be, they've executed that plan poorly because its now a PR fiasco. To be clear, I'm assuming when you say 'lose' you mean the case, not lose the PR battle. The latter is of course always a bad idea when you want to get your way.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoSo it's good to undermine that marketing bullshit, right?