3 ms·
That's not blaming anyone. It's objectively the circumstance under which a precedent would be created. My understanding of your point was that Apple shouldn't c
by jfoster 11y ago
That's not blaming anyone. It's objectively the circumstance under which a precedent would be created. My understanding of your point was that Apple shouldn't comply in this case because it would set precedent. My point is that choosing to comply was actually one of the ways they could've avoided setting precedent.
- woodman 11y ago> It would only have come to that if Apple continued to decline the FBI's request. > That's not blaming anyone. I guess I misunderstood you because you left out the other potential scenarios, like instead of "Apple continued" the "FBI ceased" - or the "DOJ never attempted to compel Apple under the All Writs act in the first place". Apple had no control over the situation outside appeasing the FBI, the state controlled every other aspect. > My understanding of your point... You think it wouldn't come up further down the road as the FBI demands more and more, after they've already built the tools to meet prior demands?