5 ms·

It's definitely an over-reach. If they can force a company to change a product for this, then what's to say they can't slowly extend this precedent to all sorts

by halis 11y ago

It's definitely an over-reach. If they can force a company to change a product for this, then what's to say they can't slowly extend this precedent to all sorts of abuses of power.

dogma1138 11y ago
They can draft "Apple" into the military and order it to do it then, there are precedences for this.
- adrianN 11y ago
  And then court-martial and execute Apple for not complying?
  - progressive_dad 11y ago
    And then kidnap and sentence their families to hard labor up to the 3rd generation.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying there are far more extreme options that could be used some of which were used before like drafting doctors and union workers.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Before that happens we might actually get a court test of whether the Executive's interpretation of the terms of whatever vague use-of-force resolutions we are waging a borderless, endless war actually constitute a wartime condition.
  - thrillgore 11y ago
    And then theoretically the engineers could point the gun at themselves and fire?
- SteveNuts 11y ago
  What precedent are you talking about?
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Truman issued an ultimatum to draft coal and railroad workers during the steel strikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike There was a doctor's draft in the 50's, there was a more recent general "health care workers" selective draft but I'm not sure where it exactly stands. Basically what Obama can do is issue a requirement to register with the Selective Services Administration as a threat failure to do so can incur heavy fines on each Apple employee. Once they are registered they can draft any engineer they need into military service and order them to do so, if they refuse they can be court marshalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System This ofcourse will never happen, the most extreme case was under Truman and it was an ultimatum with an apparent executive order drafted but that was enough to bring the steel industry to it's knees and to the table. The funny part is that if anything even remotely extreme happens we might start to see the seeds of the "2nd American Revolution" the one from so many dystopian novels where the world is ruled by corporations Apple, Google, Microsoft and the likes have enough power to seed the "corporate congress" :)
    - charonn0 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure Congress would have to reinstate the draft first.
      - dogma1138 11y ago
        The draft system was replaced by the SSA it's slightly different now basically they can only draft registered individuals but they also compel individuals to register with the SSA. As far as I know there is not requirement for an act of congress to actually draft people under the SSA and for anything else a presidential order is sufficient.
csydas 11y ago
While I definitely share the opinion that the FBI is in the wrong in this instance, I think your position is either poorly worded or misguided on the basis of some semantic points.* To be rather obtusely specific, the FBI has not requested a change in product or even the design of a new product from Apple. I'm sure the FBI was well aware of the subsection of the US code the article is referring to which is why the request was framed as a "one-off tool" to help in an investigation, not a new product, and it's why the FBI itself is not saying it can require Apple, but rather that a court of law is saying Apple has to. Again, this is nitpicking and IANAL, but the limitations section [1] is pretty clear that law enforcement itself cannot impose any requirement as to... [...]require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services; or[...] The request being made isn't really covered by the limitations here. While I have full confidence that the end-game of this case for the US government is to add an exception for the creation of "one-off" tools, I don't think that the FBI's request is actually covered by this limitation. The authority of the request doesn't come from law enforcement, it comes from a court, fulfilling the intended limitation that law enforcement can't dictate the design of communication technology for its own purposes. Likewise, while a product of sorts is being created in the form of a law enforcement tool, the FBI isn't actually asking for this to be implemented in the product itself or requiring that Apple make it the standard either. Furthermore, the entire section is discussing the ability to monitor, capture, and terminate communications, not talking about software or hardware itself, which his shared by the statement released by the FBI. [2] Again, cannot stress that I am not a lawyer, but I think the interpretation on CALEA is fairly sound - it's not applicable as the purpose of the section being referenced is not relevant to the request being made. I do think that the request is still wrong regardless of any reasons put forth by the FBI and that it sets a horrible precedent, but this article (and by extension Apple's lawyers) are arguing a weak point using CALEA. [1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 [2] - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755290/2016-03-10-149-Gov-Reply-ISO-Mot-to-Compel-Opp.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755290/2016-03-1... edited for clarity purposes
- 11y ago

by halis 11y ago

It's definitely an over-reach. If they can force a company to change a product for this, then what's to say they can't slowly extend this precedent to all sorts of abuses of power.

dogma1138 11y ago

They can draft "Apple" into the military and order it to do it then, there are precedences for this.

adrianN 11y ago
And then court-martial and execute Apple for not complying?
- progressive_dad 11y ago
  And then kidnap and sentence their families to hard labor up to the 3rd generation.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying there are far more extreme options that could be used some of which were used before like drafting doctors and union workers.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Before that happens we might actually get a court test of whether the Executive's interpretation of the terms of whatever vague use-of-force resolutions we are waging a borderless, endless war actually constitute a wartime condition.
- thrillgore 11y ago
  And then theoretically the engineers could point the gun at themselves and fire?
SteveNuts 11y ago
What precedent are you talking about?
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Truman issued an ultimatum to draft coal and railroad workers during the steel strikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike There was a doctor's draft in the 50's, there was a more recent general "health care workers" selective draft but I'm not sure where it exactly stands. Basically what Obama can do is issue a requirement to register with the Selective Services Administration as a threat failure to do so can incur heavy fines on each Apple employee. Once they are registered they can draft any engineer they need into military service and order them to do so, if they refuse they can be court marshalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System This ofcourse will never happen, the most extreme case was under Truman and it was an ultimatum with an apparent executive order drafted but that was enough to bring the steel industry to it's knees and to the table. The funny part is that if anything even remotely extreme happens we might start to see the seeds of the "2nd American Revolution" the one from so many dystopian novels where the world is ruled by corporations Apple, Google, Microsoft and the likes have enough power to seed the "corporate congress" :)
  - charonn0 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure Congress would have to reinstate the draft first.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      The draft system was replaced by the SSA it's slightly different now basically they can only draft registered individuals but they also compel individuals to register with the SSA. As far as I know there is not requirement for an act of congress to actually draft people under the SSA and for anything else a presidential order is sufficient.

csydas 11y ago

While I definitely share the opinion that the FBI is in the wrong in this instance, I think your position is either poorly worded or misguided on the basis of some semantic points.* To be rather obtusely specific, the FBI has not requested a change in product or even the design of a new product from Apple. I'm sure the FBI was well aware of the subsection of the US code the article is referring to which is why the request was framed as a "one-off tool" to help in an investigation, not a new product, and it's why the FBI itself is not saying it can require Apple, but rather that a court of law is saying Apple has to. Again, this is nitpicking and IANAL, but the limitations section [1] is pretty clear that law enforcement itself cannot impose any requirement as to... [...]require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services; or[...] The request being made isn't really covered by the limitations here. While I have full confidence that the end-game of this case for the US government is to add an exception for the creation of "one-off" tools, I don't think that the FBI's request is actually covered by this limitation. The authority of the request doesn't come from law enforcement, it comes from a court, fulfilling the intended limitation that law enforcement can't dictate the design of communication technology for its own purposes. Likewise, while a product of sorts is being created in the form of a law enforcement tool, the FBI isn't actually asking for this to be implemented in the product itself or requiring that Apple make it the standard either. Furthermore, the entire section is discussing the ability to monitor, capture, and terminate communications, not talking about software or hardware itself, which his shared by the statement released by the FBI. [2] Again, cannot stress that I am not a lawyer, but I think the interpretation on CALEA is fairly sound - it's not applicable as the purpose of the section being referenced is not relevant to the request being made. I do think that the request is still wrong regardless of any reasons put forth by the FBI and that it sets a horrible precedent, but this article (and by extension Apple's lawyers) are arguing a weak point using CALEA. [1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1002 [2] - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755290/2016-03-10-149-Gov-Reply-ISO-Mot-to-Compel-Opp.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755290/2016-03-1... edited for clarity purposes

11y ago