3 ms·

Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their

by andreyf 17y ago

Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Do you have any sources backing up that REACT is "corporate sponsored"? While I saw that Apple was on "a steering committee", where did you hear that they were a "high level advisor"? While "steering committee" sure sounds impressive, that doesn't tell us much about how they could have influenced the process for issuing and executing a (allegedly) illegal search warrant.

drusenko 17y ago
Well, it depends on if the allegation is that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding, or that Apple could influence a police force to execute a warrant at their bidding. I don't find the second one particularly objectionable.
kragen 17y ago
> that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Wait a minute — is there some question about whether this has just happened? I thought it was clear that: 1. A police force just executed a warrant. 2. The warrant was illegal. 3. They executed it at Apple's request. (Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.) So I don't see how that's an "enormous accusation". It sounds like a simple reporting of the known facts. Do you dispute one of those bullet points?
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  The warrant was illegal. Correction: EFF asserts that the warrant should not, in this form, have been issued. EFF's certainly entitled to its opinion, but EFF is not the final arbiter, and is pushing an interpretation of shield laws which has a number of large drawbacks.
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  Yeah -- #3. Where are you getting this from? And what does your parenthetical "(Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.)" even mean? It's true that the warrant was executed as part of the investigation into a crime involving Apple, but that doesn't imply that Apple has the level of control over the investigation that you're claiming they do.
  - kragen 17y ago
    Sorry, I didn't realize that was unclear. I meant that if the folks at Apple who had reported the crime had thought it was unjustified to seize the "reporter's" equipment, they could certainly have issued a press release saying that they regretted that the police had seized all his stuff, and hoped that the guy would get it back immediately. They might additionally have behind-the-scenes channels to make requests like that — as Adobe did in the Sklyarov case — but that hypothesis isn't necessary for my #3.
gbhn 17y ago
Here's Yahoo News on the situation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1816 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1816 Money quote: "In a statement, the Santa Clara County DA confirmed our report yesterday that Apple sits on the steering committee of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force, a coalition of 17 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies created in 1997 to combat high-tech crimes (the Santa Clara County DA's office is the task force's lead agency)." And: "Apple Inc. has provided "advice, recommendations, strategic input, and direction"..." That can mean a lot of things, but "high level advisor" is certainly among the most obvious interpretations here.

by andreyf 17y ago

drusenko 17y ago

Well, it depends on if the allegation is that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding, or that Apple could influence a police force to execute a warrant at their bidding. I don't find the second one particularly objectionable.

kragen 17y ago

> that's an enormous accusation you're wielding - that Apple could influence a police force to execute an illegal warrant at their bidding? Wait a minute — is there some question about whether this has just happened? I thought it was clear that: 1. A police force just executed a warrant. 2. The warrant was illegal. 3. They executed it at Apple's request. (Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.) So I don't see how that's an "enormous accusation". It sounds like a simple reporting of the known facts. Do you dispute one of those bullet points?

ubernostrum 17y ago
The warrant was illegal. Correction: EFF asserts that the warrant should not, in this form, have been issued. EFF's certainly entitled to its opinion, but EFF is not the final arbiter, and is pushing an interpretation of shield laws which has a number of large drawbacks.
Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
Yeah -- #3. Where are you getting this from? And what does your parenthetical "(Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.)" even mean? It's true that the warrant was executed as part of the investigation into a crime involving Apple, but that doesn't imply that Apple has the level of control over the investigation that you're claiming they do.
- kragen 17y ago
  Sorry, I didn't realize that was unclear. I meant that if the folks at Apple who had reported the crime had thought it was unjustified to seize the "reporter's" equipment, they could certainly have issued a press release saying that they regretted that the police had seized all his stuff, and hoped that the guy would get it back immediately. They might additionally have behind-the-scenes channels to make requests like that — as Adobe did in the Sklyarov case — but that hypothesis isn't necessary for my #3.

gbhn 17y ago

Here's Yahoo News on the situation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1816 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1816 Money quote: "In a statement, the Santa Clara County DA confirmed our report yesterday that Apple sits on the steering committee of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force, a coalition of 17 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies created in 1997 to combat high-tech crimes (the Santa Clara County DA's office is the task force's lead agency)." And: "Apple Inc. has provided "advice, recommendations, strategic input, and direction"..." That can mean a lot of things, but "high level advisor" is certainly among the most obvious interpretations here.