4 ms·
> It says they unconditionally can't do it. This isn't correct. More precisely, it does not address obtaining court orders. > If CALEA said the FBI could or
by jessriedel 11y ago
> It says they unconditionally can't do it.
This isn't correct. More precisely, it does not address obtaining court orders.
> If CALEA said the FBI could order Apple to build the back door, the FBI still couldn't just throw Tim Cook in prison without trial if he refuses. They would still have to go to the court.
If the EPA tells you that you can't dump in the river, and you dump in a river, then they can prosecute you and send you to jail. But this is very different then getting a court order to do something as part of an investigation.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> This isn't correct. More precisely, it does not address obtaining court orders. Please explain how the FBI could legally compel Apple to do something without a court order. If it's the only way it can happen then it's kind of implied. > If the EPA tells you that you can't dump in the river, and you dump in a river, then they can prosecute you and send you to jail. But this is very different then getting a court order to do something as part of an investigation. The primary difference apparently being that in that case there is something the law says you can't do, whereas in this case there is something the law says the government can't do.