3 ms·

That's true, but a bit off topic. The question here is whether or not the law says the DoJ can compel Apple to hand over these items. We do not need to allow

That's true, but a bit off topic. The question here is whether or not the law says the DoJ can compel Apple to hand over these items. We do not need to allow the DoJ to win in order to get to a point where Apple and others provide us with self-controlled data security. We can both fight the DoJ's position and demand better security from Apple. Let's focus on the DoJ for now because that is the immediate threat. This case should be discussed in Congress, not the courts, and the American people should have a say in the matter. I was heartened to see the video of Senator Lindsey Graham's questioning of US Attorney General Loretta Lynch today on this topic [1]. His delivery and conclusion was perfect. Mike Lee also did a good job [2]. Feinstein was scary to watch (51:00 in the C-Span full video). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4hYAwCdhU [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOZLEhTlr6E [3] http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-testimony-justice-department-operations http://www.c-span.org/video/?406201-1/attorney-general-loret...

matwood 11y ago
Good videos. Graham summed up a lot of the layman's evolving thoughts on the topic. The first days of the PR war had the FBI winning, but their hubris caused them to underestimate Apple's PR machine. As the public learned more about the case, they have definitely turned against the FBI. It also helps that Apple is on the right side of this issue, but thinking about the (children|terrorists|guns|drugs|boogyman) has unfortunately worked before in similar situations.
briffle 11y ago
Pretty sure Lavabit tried to fight this exact same type of ruling, and lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit While i'm not a legal expert, it seems the major difference is the size and name recognition of the companies.
- pmontra 11y ago
  Yes, and it makes a hell of difference in lobbying fire power. I'm not really a Apple fan but I hope they win on this. Lavabit eventually decided to close instead of giving access to the data of their customers. Apple won't close but I wonder if they would go as far as leaving the USA, both the country and the market. That would be more than extreme but if they lose it would be the only alternative to caving in. My very safe bet: it's not going to happen (leaving the USA).
  - dheera 11y ago
    I'm not sure if that would really work, with extradition agreements and all. A lot of other countries' governments will actually agree with the FBI's position, not the position of the American people. In other news, Apple has been complying all along with Chinese authority requests, including placing Chinese user data on Chinese servers and hand over relevant data when asked. In China if they made a fit over this they'd be thrown out and blocked along with Google and Facebook. For them, complying with Chinese authorities is a revenue-driven business decision. In the absolute worst case outcome of the FBI case, I imagine they would end up complying with US authorities as well, as a business decision.
    - manicdee 11y ago
      Apple could take the Galt Gulch option: buy a small country and move there where there sre no extradition treaties to bother with.
      - techdragon 11y ago
        I always wonder how hard it would be and just how effective it would be if it was done. Sovereignty is a funny topic... If Apple "buys" a country with a land border the "abdication of existing government" could be considered by their neighbours over the border as grounds to consider the territory "vacant" ... If Apple "bought" an island nation or a country comprising multiple islands, then they would have to "defend" their new home from the newfound "enemy" of the USA ( and I hear the Navy is quite formidable ;-) ) who might be a little bit pissed off, or may just decide like to "consider" that Apple purchasing the country makes it not a country and they don't have to listen to Apple when they ask nicely not to enter their territory with aircraft carriers, or say ... submarines that tap into undersea cables... Right now Apple has a fair amount of protection by virtue of being an American company, an American company that is also considered an American person with rights under the constitution, such as not being "compelled to speak", which is why we're hearing about this sort of possible change in tactics. The FBI can't force them to talk so they ask for the script so they can talk for them.

matwood 11y ago

Good videos. Graham summed up a lot of the layman's evolving thoughts on the topic. The first days of the PR war had the FBI winning, but their hubris caused them to underestimate Apple's PR machine. As the public learned more about the case, they have definitely turned against the FBI. It also helps that Apple is on the right side of this issue, but thinking about the (children|terrorists|guns|drugs|boogyman) has unfortunately worked before in similar situations.

briffle 11y ago

Pretty sure Lavabit tried to fight this exact same type of ruling, and lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit While i'm not a legal expert, it seems the major difference is the size and name recognition of the companies.

pmontra 11y ago
Yes, and it makes a hell of difference in lobbying fire power. I'm not really a Apple fan but I hope they win on this. Lavabit eventually decided to close instead of giving access to the data of their customers. Apple won't close but I wonder if they would go as far as leaving the USA, both the country and the market. That would be more than extreme but if they lose it would be the only alternative to caving in. My very safe bet: it's not going to happen (leaving the USA).
- dheera 11y ago
  I'm not sure if that would really work, with extradition agreements and all. A lot of other countries' governments will actually agree with the FBI's position, not the position of the American people. In other news, Apple has been complying all along with Chinese authority requests, including placing Chinese user data on Chinese servers and hand over relevant data when asked. In China if they made a fit over this they'd be thrown out and blocked along with Google and Facebook. For them, complying with Chinese authorities is a revenue-driven business decision. In the absolute worst case outcome of the FBI case, I imagine they would end up complying with US authorities as well, as a business decision.
  - manicdee 11y ago
    Apple could take the Galt Gulch option: buy a small country and move there where there sre no extradition treaties to bother with.
    - techdragon 11y ago
      I always wonder how hard it would be and just how effective it would be if it was done. Sovereignty is a funny topic... If Apple "buys" a country with a land border the "abdication of existing government" could be considered by their neighbours over the border as grounds to consider the territory "vacant" ... If Apple "bought" an island nation or a country comprising multiple islands, then they would have to "defend" their new home from the newfound "enemy" of the USA ( and I hear the Navy is quite formidable ;-) ) who might be a little bit pissed off, or may just decide like to "consider" that Apple purchasing the country makes it not a country and they don't have to listen to Apple when they ask nicely not to enter their territory with aircraft carriers, or say ... submarines that tap into undersea cables... Right now Apple has a fair amount of protection by virtue of being an American company, an American company that is also considered an American person with rights under the constitution, such as not being "compelled to speak", which is why we're hearing about this sort of possible change in tactics. The FBI can't force them to talk so they ask for the script so they can talk for them.