3 ms·
I disagree. There's a reason that evidence obtained illegally by the police can't be admitted in court, even if it proves some horrible crime. IMO the fair use
by identity0 7y ago
I disagree. There's a reason that evidence obtained illegally by the police can't be admitted in court, even if it proves some horrible crime. IMO the fair use of the law for the whole population is far more important than stopping one criminal.
- Iv 7y ago"by the police" In this case it is not the police who obtained it. I think in some countries, not reporting crimes you know about could count as complicity.
- apetrov 7y agounless you’re a lawyer and have a client-attorney privilege. same thing might apply here.
- hermitdev 7y agoObligatory not a lawyer, but third party doctrine likely applies in the US, meaning that it would not be illegal for police to use such evidence if supplied by Apple. Not sure where the line is drawn if Apple itself violated it's own EULA, or violated local wire tapping laws, or if a service like Siri falls under such laws. I know California and Illinois are 2 party consent states. Not positive if it's only for phone calls or all voice recordings.