3 ms·

I sure hope that you're right. Are there precedents in which risk of harm from disclosure has successfully served as an unreasonable burden? (I am obviously n

I sure hope that you're right. Are there precedents in which risk of harm from disclosure has successfully served as an unreasonable burden? (I am obviously not a lawyer.)

pvg 11y ago
I'm no lawyer either so probably should not have talked out of my ass about whether this makes anything easier or harder for Apple. On the other hand, a big part of the justice system adjudicating the conflicting rights and duties of various parties. More importantly, as actual lawyers here and all over the internet always remind us, the law does not work in terms of nerd technicalities. I'm harmlessly changing numbers on a computer as I type. If I were changing numbers on a computer that keeps track of your bank account, I could go to prison.
- sbov 11y ago
  Not a lawyer either, but AFAIK the main difference is you are not exceeding your authorization when using your own computer. You could break into a bank computer, harmlessly write a post on here, and probably still go to prison.
- studentrob 11y ago
  I've been reading some court decisions regarding technology lately and they're not impossible to follow. It's not all legal speak. There's some reason in judgements and magistrates are generally verbose in their statements. I'm not a lawyer either but I think any reasonable person could see that forcing Apple to give away its source code and signing key would present Apple with some significant security burdens. It's very similar to what Apple was previously arguing, except the DOJ just made Apple's case stronger because there's the added element of risk that the FBI could now be the ones to let the modified signed software get out into the wild. In the former situation, Apple was in charge of security of the back door, so there was only one escape hatch, so to speak, and they're the experts (which the FBI Director has noted many times). If Apple were to hand over the source code, the FBI's systems become another target of attack by hackers. It was a really dumb statement by the DOJ. They intended to sound commanding, but they just weakened their case and helped Apple.

I sure hope that you're right. Are there precedents in which risk of harm from disclosure has successfully served as an unreasonable burden? (I am obviously not a lawyer.)

pvg 11y ago

I'm no lawyer either so probably should not have talked out of my ass about whether this makes anything easier or harder for Apple. On the other hand, a big part of the justice system adjudicating the conflicting rights and duties of various parties. More importantly, as actual lawyers here and all over the internet always remind us, the law does not work in terms of nerd technicalities. I'm harmlessly changing numbers on a computer as I type. If I were changing numbers on a computer that keeps track of your bank account, I could go to prison.

sbov 11y ago
Not a lawyer either, but AFAIK the main difference is you are not exceeding your authorization when using your own computer. You could break into a bank computer, harmlessly write a post on here, and probably still go to prison.
studentrob 11y ago
I've been reading some court decisions regarding technology lately and they're not impossible to follow. It's not all legal speak. There's some reason in judgements and magistrates are generally verbose in their statements. I'm not a lawyer either but I think any reasonable person could see that forcing Apple to give away its source code and signing key would present Apple with some significant security burdens. It's very similar to what Apple was previously arguing, except the DOJ just made Apple's case stronger because there's the added element of risk that the FBI could now be the ones to let the modified signed software get out into the wild. In the former situation, Apple was in charge of security of the back door, so there was only one escape hatch, so to speak, and they're the experts (which the FBI Director has noted many times). If Apple were to hand over the source code, the FBI's systems become another target of attack by hackers. It was a really dumb statement by the DOJ. They intended to sound commanding, but they just weakened their case and helped Apple.