2 ms·

>Where do you draw the line, is everybody legally obligated to comply with such demands? If I have a warrent, I can force you to hand over all information allo

by ikeboy 11y ago

>Where do you draw the line, is everybody legally obligated to comply with such demands? If I have a warrent, I can force you to hand over all information allowed by the warrent. That's how warrents work. They're able to get any data a judge agrees with. I don't think they're able to compel labor. >How about compelling every luckless individual who lives along the subject's morning commute to turn over all video and image files because it might help them in their investigation. If a judge thinks there's probable cause, they can require this, so far as I know. >You can't believe both of those, because compulsion eliminates choice. They have the ability to compel Apple to hand over data. They don't have the ability to compel Apple to perform labor unrelated to producing data. >No, they want on demand access - they don't care about any key. The FBI explicitly asked for the key at one point in the case. Could you explain how your commerce example is in any way precedent?

woodman 11y ago
> If I have a warrent... > If a judge thinks there's probable cause... > They have the ability to compel Apple to hand over data. Warrants aren't golden tickets, if a warrant exceeds the court's authority then it isn't worth anything. That is exactly what was going to be resolved here, a court ordered Apple to do something that Apple thought exceeded the state's authority - thanks to the FBI the question remain unresolved (which the DOJ prefers to a precedent going against them). > I don't think they're able to compel labor. Subpoena to appear immediately comes to mind, NSLs might reach that level as well - they certainly exceed "hand over data". But the point isn't really about court orders during discovery, it is the final interpretation of an existing law that will determine the nature of forced labor. There are plenty of laws that compel labor. > The FBI explicitly asked for the key at one point in the case. No, they presented it as an alternative after they met resistance (aka threatened). > Could you explain how your commerce example is in any way precedent? "historical precedent" (an example, a demonstration of disposition), not a legal precedent. I'm disappointed that you focused on that and overlooked the point - the use of "precrimes", "potential" and "clipper chip" is the hint.

by ikeboy 11y ago

woodman 11y ago

> If I have a warrent... > If a judge thinks there's probable cause... > They have the ability to compel Apple to hand over data. Warrants aren't golden tickets, if a warrant exceeds the court's authority then it isn't worth anything. That is exactly what was going to be resolved here, a court ordered Apple to do something that Apple thought exceeded the state's authority - thanks to the FBI the question remain unresolved (which the DOJ prefers to a precedent going against them). > I don't think they're able to compel labor. Subpoena to appear immediately comes to mind, NSLs might reach that level as well - they certainly exceed "hand over data". But the point isn't really about court orders during discovery, it is the final interpretation of an existing law that will determine the nature of forced labor. There are plenty of laws that compel labor. > The FBI explicitly asked for the key at one point in the case. No, they presented it as an alternative after they met resistance (aka threatened). > Could you explain how your commerce example is in any way precedent? "historical precedent" (an example, a demonstration of disposition), not a legal precedent. I'm disappointed that you focused on that and overlooked the point - the use of "precrimes", "potential" and "clipper chip" is the hint.