7 ms·
Interesting parallel with Lavabit pointed out at the end of the article. Would the DOJ be willing to risk shutting down the biggest and most profitable corpora
by moioci 11y ago
Interesting parallel with Lavabit pointed out at the end of the article. Would the DOJ be willing to risk shutting down the biggest and most profitable corporation on earth over this?
- orik 11y agoI believe when the government twisted Yahoo's hand and they put up a fight, Yahoo was given a fine that increased exponentially every day they didn't comply. Yahoo would have owed the US gov. a sum equivalent to the GDP by the end of a month.
- giancarlostoro 11y agoIf the engineers got fired or quit their jobs what could be done then I wonder?
- kabdib 11y agoApple HR to security engineer: "You're fired! The color of your hair is all wrong!" (Yes, you can do this in California) Security engineer: "Meep?" HR: "That's right. Oh, and here, since you were such a great employee (up until we noticed your hair, anyway), have this extremely generous dollar amount severance package. Maybe if your hair is a different color someday we'll hire you back." : Apple to FBI: "We have no one with the expertise to work on this. Golly, sorry about that." Is the FBI then going to make a grab for source code, signing keys, and conscript people to do the work?
- plorkyeran 11y ago> Is the FBI then going to make a grab for source code, signing keys, and conscript people to do the work? I think it's become clear that they'd at least try.
- hkmurakami 11y agoInteresting. A draft targeting software engineers to forcibly enlist them in the government's "war on encryption". What kind of dystopia are we living in again?
- ridgeguy 11y agoI don't think this could happen without enabling legislation. The U.S. military draft required passage of the Selective Service Act [1] Something similar would be required before Apple's coders could be forced to carry out court orders directed at Apple, the corporation. Even in these times (so far!) I think this wouldn't happen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917
- frandroid 11y agoNot a draft. As we've seen in Snowden, there are tons of engineers who support the security state and will volunteer to serve.
- deegles 11y agoUnfortunately I'm sure there are at least a few engineers with the expertise necessary who would happily agree to work with the FBI (for whatever reason.)
- giancarlostoro 11y agoMaybe engineers with military history.
- smitherfield 11y agoAt-will employment does not extend to firing people in order to not comply with a court order.
- kabdib 11y agoHR to security engineer: "You're quitting? That's a shame. Um . . . Tim Cook has a beach house he wouldn't mind you using for a while. Can you walk his dog?" My point is, the individuals won't suffer.
- pchristensen 11y ago"You're quitting? And leaving a hard technical division of the most financially successful and popular tech product of its generation? And your only recourse is the Silicon Valley job market? ... ... We'll miss you but I'm sure you'll land on your feet."
- smitherfield 11y agoWhen you get a lawful court order, you comply with it. To do otherwise would result in massive fines and quite possibly executives being criminally charged. If the Apple security engineers want to quit on principle, then it truly would be on principle; there is absolutely no way Apple's legal department would allow them to ever be rehired or offered any compensation/gifts beyond a standard severance package. If engineers did quit, Apple would be forced to (at great expense) temporarily hire other people with comparable expertise in order to comply with the order. That said, Apple security engineers probably would land on their feet.
- kabdib 11y agoBut "great expense" enters into the all-writs test. That would have to be re-examined.
- ridgeguy 11y agoI'm not sure Apple could be fined if its relevant employees took individual decisions that resulted in Apple's inability to comply with the court's order. Apple doesn't have the ability to compel an individual's conduct. The court's order applies to Apple, not to named individuals. Given that, I don't see a legal basis for fines, executive criminal charges, etc. I think there's a lot of power in the hands of a few employees (and potential replacements) here. It'll be interesting to see what they decide to do.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 11y agoIf they have the source, documentation, and signing keys, they don't have to conscript anyone. They can have one of their people do it, or hire a non-Apple engineer with low morals who is willing to do it.
- dagw 11y agoIs the FBI then going to make a grab for source code, signing keys, and conscript people to do the work? No, they're going to grab for source code, signing keys, and _pay_ people to do the work. There are lots of competent engineers out there, and not all of them share your politics (and some that do might be willing to reconsider it for a sufficiently large dollar amount). Hell there are probably engineers working at the NSA right now who would easily do it as part of their day to day job if you just handed them the keys and source code.
- dogecoinbase 11y agoImpossible to know without the actual employment documents, but also curious if the DoJ could be considered a tortfeasor for disrupting an employment contract in that case.
- ridgeguy 11y agoMy guess would be that some stretch of sovereign immunity [1] would shield DoJ. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
- differentView 11y agoAfter those engineers quit, Apple should hire a bunch of terrible engineers with impressive resumes (bonus if they used to work for the FBI) and put them to work on this.
- phire 11y agoI'm not sure this approach will work now that the Government has pushed the fight public.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoCould you provide a reference to this? I don't recall what you're referring to.
- studentrob 11y agohttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
- studentrob 11y agoYes, $250,000 per day [1]. And that was in 2008 in FISA court. We only just learned about it in 2014. Who knows if the FBI's request carries as much as the NSA's. Probably not. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden confirms it was easier for him to get things done than the FBI [2] [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu... [2] https://youtu.be/_ESGBPmf0mc?t=45m9s https://youtu.be/_ESGBPmf0mc?t=45m9s
- zippergz 11y agoMy guess: yes.
- tonydiv 11y agoYeah, they believe they can get whatever they want. They won't care about the implications of their demands.
- jfoutz 11y agoThe DOJ couldn't shut down apple. Apple has $200,000,000,000 in cash and marketable securities. DOJ's budget is only 27 billion. That's a lot of lawyer time. It's a huge waste of money, but there it is. Way less likely, but Apple could move HQ to another country. And take their secret source code and keys with them.
- LAMike 11y agoThe US government would respond by banning all iOS devices
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoAnd most of the US government's phones suddenly turn into expensive bricks. I'm not sure whether a company should be 'too big to govern', but it is on occasion hilarious.
- ohyeshedid 11y agoIt's not that it's too big to govern, it's that they're too big to fail. Publicly traded, employment footprint, market penetration; too big to fail. The impact of any action that would kill Apple here would also destroy the economy. Never happen.
- thirdsun 11y agoWhich is probably a very good way to cause at least minor riots.
- rawnlq 11y agoI wonder if there's any advantage for Apple to form their own sovereign nation to operate out of. They are already richer than many existing countries. Can't they just buy out a Singapore-sized island somewhere?
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoThey could invade Sealand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
- maxerickson 11y agoI don't think Apple shareholders will go along with shuttering the company, nor will they lose all that many customers over the outcome where they produce a bypass. (If Apple can't resist the government request, neither can anyone else, only the crankiest of people will punish them for being the test case.)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ohyeshedid 11y agoNo, because it's a publicly traded company. Apple's size, value, and market penetration are a few of the reasons why the feds didn't go the NSL route. This is one ugly fight, but if they went the NSL route Apple could finally disprove their constitutional validity; DOJ would neeeeeever want to put that on the table.