4 ms·

I think because Apple decided, after the Snowden illegal wiretapping stories, to grandstand for PR purposes. And many tech writers took that bait.

Gustomaximus 11y ago
That's really not a fair summary of the situation. Apple took a stand, rightly in my view, to dig their heels in under the request to make a permanent back door for FBI (and likely other groups) usage. There is a massive difference.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  I respect that view. Here's where I disagree: I think Apple taking a similar stand for the illegal wiretapping makes sense (giant open door, no court oversight), but not for this case (could be clean roomed, court oversight)
  - swyman 11y ago
    Is a company that makes safes legally required to have a master key or to create a master key even when they don't want to? The question is whether or not a 3rd party can be compelled to create something which does not exist in order to aid in the execution of a search warrant. I think it's pretty clear based on prior All Writs Act precedent[1] that Apple should not be required to produce new software code for cases like this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._New_York_Telephone_Co.#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._New_York_Tele...
    - duaneb 11y ago
      I think there's a strong case for first-amendment rights in code signing even in the case of a non-ephemeral signing key. In any case, look at the use of a search warrant with Lavabit—is it clear that the All Writs act was even their strongest legal suit?
- riquito 11y ago
  > That's really not a fair summary of the situation. Apple took a stand, rightly in my view, to dig their heels in under the request to make a permanent back door for FBI (and likely other groups) usage. There is a massive difference This is history rewriting, the request, in his least dangerous form, was to unlock a single phone from inside Apple labs by Apple people
  - mk4p 11y ago
    Incorrect -- they requested an "instrument", which carries with it all sorts of legal requirements beyond creating an in-house tool. Source: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
    - daxfohl 11y ago
      They made both requests. Apple refused both requests.
crocowhile 11y ago
yes, perhaps Apple is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I also think so. However, it's still the right thing and therefore i support them. Even EFF supports them.
- eridius 11y ago
  Why do you think they're doing it for the wrong reason? Apple has demonstrated many times their commitment to user privacy, it's not like this was a PR stunt.

Gustomaximus 11y ago

That's really not a fair summary of the situation. Apple took a stand, rightly in my view, to dig their heels in under the request to make a permanent back door for FBI (and likely other groups) usage. There is a massive difference.

einarvollset 11y ago
I respect that view. Here's where I disagree: I think Apple taking a similar stand for the illegal wiretapping makes sense (giant open door, no court oversight), but not for this case (could be clean roomed, court oversight)
- swyman 11y ago
  Is a company that makes safes legally required to have a master key or to create a master key even when they don't want to? The question is whether or not a 3rd party can be compelled to create something which does not exist in order to aid in the execution of a search warrant. I think it's pretty clear based on prior All Writs Act precedent[1] that Apple should not be required to produce new software code for cases like this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._New_York_Telephone_Co.#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._New_York_Tele...
  - duaneb 11y ago
    I think there's a strong case for first-amendment rights in code signing even in the case of a non-ephemeral signing key. In any case, look at the use of a search warrant with Lavabit—is it clear that the All Writs act was even their strongest legal suit?
riquito 11y ago
> That's really not a fair summary of the situation. Apple took a stand, rightly in my view, to dig their heels in under the request to make a permanent back door for FBI (and likely other groups) usage. There is a massive difference This is history rewriting, the request, in his least dangerous form, was to unlock a single phone from inside Apple labs by Apple people
- mk4p 11y ago
  Incorrect -- they requested an "instrument", which carries with it all sorts of legal requirements beyond creating an in-house tool. Source: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
  - daxfohl 11y ago
    They made both requests. Apple refused both requests.

crocowhile 11y ago

yes, perhaps Apple is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I also think so. However, it's still the right thing and therefore i support them. Even EFF supports them.

eridius 11y ago
Why do you think they're doing it for the wrong reason? Apple has demonstrated many times their commitment to user privacy, it's not like this was a PR stunt.