3 ms·
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Would it have pleased you more if, oh let's just for the sake of argument say: the government had to get
by einarvollset 11y ago
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Would it have pleased you more if, oh let's just for the sake of argument say: the government had to get some kind of a court order to get the information?
- bhickey 11y agoWell, the grandparent did say "There is no oversight or limitations." So, yeah. I believe it would please 'em more if there was a court order involved.
- einarvollset 11y agoSorry. Sarcasm doesn't come across well: there is a court order, but because Apple decided to not help, they were removed from the oversight chain, hence arguably weakening the oversight.
- marcoperaza 11y agoIf the government gets a search warrant and seizes a safe from your home, they don't need the safe-maker's permission to crack it open.
- teacup50 11y agoThey would if the safe was purely digital, based on vendor-controlled platform DRM that granted the vendor and only the vendor additional access to the safe.
- Avenger42 11y agoNote that the FBI got the court order in a hearing to which Apple was not invited. The court gave Apple an opportunity to respond, and it was in the middle of that process when the FBI found another way in. It's not like the court told Apple "you need to immediately start working on this" and Apple said "no, we refuse".
- bediger4000 11y agoYes, as long as there was a public, adversarial argument about it, not some classified, logic-bending "memo" from a lawyer, or some one-sided star chamber FISA "court" order.