4 ms·

Do some people actually think Apple is in the wrong here?

by danielschonfeld 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago
Apparently yes if you believe the polls in the US.
- jonesb6 11y ago
  All Apple, Google, and Facebook, need to do to get public favor is add a loading spinner for 3-5 seconds on every refresh/page load and make it clear the government surveillance is the cause. I for one look forward to the 2nd American Revolution.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Or, every time you go to enter your password, present a click-through disclaimer that the FBI may have access to whatever information you are about to provide. Press "OK" to acknowledge that we cannot protect your privacy, or "Cancel" to go back to safety.
- grandalf 11y ago
  As usual, however, the US Government's side is accompanied by a disinformation campaign to fool the public into supporting the excesses. Even Obama made remarks which included the word "fetishizing", etc.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
marcoperaza 11y ago
I think Apple is legally in the wrong. What the law should be is a different issue, though I also side with the government in this particular case. I don't think the government should be able to force Apple to ship backdoored phones to customers. But I think that the government should be able to require Apple to use its capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order. In other words, Apple should be free to make phones they themselves cannot hack, but not to refuse to help hack a phone that the government has a warrant for.
- caf 11y ago
  But I think that the government should be able to require Apple to use its capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order. That's not the question, though: the question is whether the All Writs Act already grants that power, or whether a new piece of legislation is required. I think that Apple is right that it is more conservative for the courts to construe the existing legislation narrowly, since the Government always has the option to put specific legislation before Congress to remove all doubt.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Legislation shouldn't be construed broadly or narrowly. It should mean what it says. Sometimes that's called 'narrowly', but that's probably in contrast to approaches where the law means whatever you want it to mean. The All Writs Act is a broad law. It grants the courts the broad authority to issue whatever orders are "necessary and appropriate" in order to enforce their judgments, so long as its "agreeable to the usages and principles of law." Congress is free to pass revisions to the All Writs Act if it pleases.
    - caf 11y ago
      It's all very well to say "It should mean what it says.", but this is just begging the question - frequently what it says is imprecise, so the meaning is open to interpretation. In the case of the All Writs Act, for example, the Supreme Court found a three-pronged test in New York Telephone. It's precisely because it is a very broad law that it should be construed narrowly - in this case, that it is intended to be able to compel the co-operation of parties with some real involvement in a case, not to authorise open-ended civil conscription in service of the judicial branch.
- sbov 11y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I found the ruling from New York pretty interesting. At the heart of the matter seems to be: should congress have to explicitly disallow the government from doing anything it wants? There is extensive legislation saying when companies like (or similar to) Apple need to comply with law enforcement. They are relatively new (the 90s). This means congress has considered the issue extensively, and ultimately decided to not force a company like Apple to comply with law enforcement in certain circumstances. The DOJ wants that to mean that they can still force them. However, the Judge is saying that, effectively, since the issue has been debated and congress has not forced companies Apple to help, this is a legislative choice, and thus being able to force Apple to help through the all writs act would violate the separation of powers. Basically, if you believe the DOJ's line of thought, congress could decide not to pass a bill giving the courts the ability to do something, then the courts could still use the all writs act to give themselves that power. Because there is no law outlawing it.
mindslight 11y ago
I think Apple was wrong to have picked to have this battle in such a poorly defended position. The stand would have been better made over a secure device they couldn't unlock. But obviously I have to now root for Apple, hoping that a terrible intermediate precedent does not get set and that they're able to dissuade new laws as well. At least the amended FBI request looks a lot less risky.
- mkhpalm 11y ago
  I'm not sure a device they couldn't unlock really solves the problem. Lets say they did have such a device. Couldn't the government just force them into building a back door even if they themselves can't unlock it? This is the underlying argument to me, and I feel a bit like a conspiracy theorist saying it. But based on the talk about Apple or Whatsapp or the lack of documented evidence for the latest FCC ruling about wifi radios. It feels more like the government is positioning itself to have private back door access to everything. Not to mention the president basically said just that while speaking at SXSW.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Sure, which is why proprietary solutions are ultimately doomed if USG continues down its totalitarian path. But it would have been a tougher legal battle to constrain what types of software can be written in general, compared to just compelling Apple to unlock one specific device of interest using an existing backdoor. And it seems like once the easier precedent has been set, the worse one will be a much shorter leap.
  - SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
    > It feels more like the government is positioning itself to have private back door access to everything That's exactly what it's doing. Total Information Awareness is more than just the name of a "cancelled" program, it's a concept which is inextricably interwoven throughout the entire intelligence community.
- mythz 11y ago
  Apple did not pick this battle, how can you even think they would? the FBI carefully chose this case to break character and go public on despite Apple's request to have the case sealed. This tragedy is being exploited by the FBI in order to set a legal precedent to further their surveillance powers that would compel a Technology company to use their own resources against theirs and their customers best interests.
einarvollset 11y ago
Yes :) See my comments

Do some people actually think Apple is in the wrong here?

ekianjo 11y ago

Apparently yes if you believe the polls in the US.

jonesb6 11y ago
All Apple, Google, and Facebook, need to do to get public favor is add a loading spinner for 3-5 seconds on every refresh/page load and make it clear the government surveillance is the cause. I for one look forward to the 2nd American Revolution.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Or, every time you go to enter your password, present a click-through disclaimer that the FBI may have access to whatever information you are about to provide. Press "OK" to acknowledge that we cannot protect your privacy, or "Cancel" to go back to safety.
grandalf 11y ago
As usual, however, the US Government's side is accompanied by a disinformation campaign to fool the public into supporting the excesses. Even Obama made remarks which included the word "fetishizing", etc.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

marcoperaza 11y ago

I think Apple is legally in the wrong. What the law should be is a different issue, though I also side with the government in this particular case. I don't think the government should be able to force Apple to ship backdoored phones to customers. But I think that the government should be able to require Apple to use its capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order. In other words, Apple should be free to make phones they themselves cannot hack, but not to refuse to help hack a phone that the government has a warrant for.

caf 11y ago
But I think that the government should be able to require Apple to use its capabilities to hack particular devices with a court order. That's not the question, though: the question is whether the All Writs Act already grants that power, or whether a new piece of legislation is required. I think that Apple is right that it is more conservative for the courts to construe the existing legislation narrowly, since the Government always has the option to put specific legislation before Congress to remove all doubt.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Legislation shouldn't be construed broadly or narrowly. It should mean what it says. Sometimes that's called 'narrowly', but that's probably in contrast to approaches where the law means whatever you want it to mean. The All Writs Act is a broad law. It grants the courts the broad authority to issue whatever orders are "necessary and appropriate" in order to enforce their judgments, so long as its "agreeable to the usages and principles of law." Congress is free to pass revisions to the All Writs Act if it pleases.
  - caf 11y ago
    It's all very well to say "It should mean what it says.", but this is just begging the question - frequently what it says is imprecise, so the meaning is open to interpretation. In the case of the All Writs Act, for example, the Supreme Court found a three-pronged test in New York Telephone. It's precisely because it is a very broad law that it should be construed narrowly - in this case, that it is intended to be able to compel the co-operation of parties with some real involvement in a case, not to authorise open-ended civil conscription in service of the judicial branch.
sbov 11y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I found the ruling from New York pretty interesting. At the heart of the matter seems to be: should congress have to explicitly disallow the government from doing anything it wants? There is extensive legislation saying when companies like (or similar to) Apple need to comply with law enforcement. They are relatively new (the 90s). This means congress has considered the issue extensively, and ultimately decided to not force a company like Apple to comply with law enforcement in certain circumstances. The DOJ wants that to mean that they can still force them. However, the Judge is saying that, effectively, since the issue has been debated and congress has not forced companies Apple to help, this is a legislative choice, and thus being able to force Apple to help through the all writs act would violate the separation of powers. Basically, if you believe the DOJ's line of thought, congress could decide not to pass a bill giving the courts the ability to do something, then the courts could still use the all writs act to give themselves that power. Because there is no law outlawing it.

mindslight 11y ago

I think Apple was wrong to have picked to have this battle in such a poorly defended position. The stand would have been better made over a secure device they couldn't unlock. But obviously I have to now root for Apple, hoping that a terrible intermediate precedent does not get set and that they're able to dissuade new laws as well. At least the amended FBI request looks a lot less risky.

mkhpalm 11y ago
I'm not sure a device they couldn't unlock really solves the problem. Lets say they did have such a device. Couldn't the government just force them into building a back door even if they themselves can't unlock it? This is the underlying argument to me, and I feel a bit like a conspiracy theorist saying it. But based on the talk about Apple or Whatsapp or the lack of documented evidence for the latest FCC ruling about wifi radios. It feels more like the government is positioning itself to have private back door access to everything. Not to mention the president basically said just that while speaking at SXSW.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Sure, which is why proprietary solutions are ultimately doomed if USG continues down its totalitarian path. But it would have been a tougher legal battle to constrain what types of software can be written in general, compared to just compelling Apple to unlock one specific device of interest using an existing backdoor. And it seems like once the easier precedent has been set, the worse one will be a much shorter leap.
- SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
  > It feels more like the government is positioning itself to have private back door access to everything That's exactly what it's doing. Total Information Awareness is more than just the name of a "cancelled" program, it's a concept which is inextricably interwoven throughout the entire intelligence community.
mythz 11y ago
Apple did not pick this battle, how can you even think they would? the FBI carefully chose this case to break character and go public on despite Apple's request to have the case sealed. This tragedy is being exploited by the FBI in order to set a legal precedent to further their surveillance powers that would compel a Technology company to use their own resources against theirs and their customers best interests.

einarvollset 11y ago

Yes :) See my comments