4 ms·

>It does if you've told your customers that you can't. Not really. First of all, a suit is unlikely when the person who'd bring a lawsuit is someone that commi

by ikeboy 7y ago

>It does if you've told your customers that you can't. Not really. First of all, a suit is unlikely when the person who'd bring a lawsuit is someone that committed a crime with probable cause. Second, damages from having your illegal actions uncovered aren't recoverable when there's a valid warrant, it would be clearly against public policy. They wouldn't be liable at all; if somehow there was a theory of liability it would be capped at the cost of the phone, which is negligible. It doesn't add up as a motivation for Apple.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> committed a crime with probable cause Your error is that you don't know the difference between committing a crime and probable cause.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  That was clumsily worded. I mean someone who a judge has decided there is probable cause that they committed a crime.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. > Second, damages from having your illegal actions uncovered aren't recoverable when there's a valid warrant, it would be clearly against public policy. As I said, some of them are innocent and don't have any illegal actions to uncover. > if somehow there was a theory of liability it would be capped at the cost of the phone, which is negligible. They can sue for additional damages due to loss of privacy. > It doesn't add up as a motivation for Apple. The direct cost of the lawsuits includes not just the damages but the legal costs. On top of this, the press that Apple would get from the lawsuits would possibly do more than completely reverse the free press from its initial lie.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      I'd think public policy prevents liability from complying with a valid court order in any event. In the counterfactual world where Apple made the software, I doubt there'd be any suits against Apple for it, and it likely wouldn't even be public. Remember, the only times they would get a warrant is when they already have the phone in their possession, and there'd be no reason to let the suspect know they cracked the phone unless it actually goes to trial and they need to disclose where they got the evidence from. Plus, if your theory of liability is correct, shouldn't Apple be equally as liabile for making phones that the police can crack, even if they don't use Apple to crack them? Which happened quite often, yet we've seen no lawsuits related to that.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > I'd think public policy prevents liability from complying with a valid court order in any event. Which public policy? > shouldn't Apple be equally as liabile for making phones that the police can crack, even if they don't use Apple to crack them? An enterprising lawyer can certainly find clients and file this lawsuit. Are there any alternative explanations? Why do you think Apple fought the case? The owners of the device wanted the data extracted, but Apple refused. The FBI told Apple that Apple could keep the build that allows brute-forcing the pin code and never give it to anyone else, so it would be secured just as much as the key used to sign the system image. Apple was about to get huge egg on its face, and it simply distracted everybody by refusing to comply with a completely reasonable request while quietly changing their Privacy page. A company that truly cared about privacy would admit their slip up and offer a way for their customers to get a device that actually gave them the security that Apple had told them the devices they bought had.
        ikeboy 7y ago
        >Which public policy? Courts can and do rule based on what they perceive is in the public interest in the absence of any particular statute saying so. Imposing liability for complying with a court order seems unlikely to be considered in the public interest. >Are there any alternative explanations? Apple correctly thought they'd get a lot of positive PR with little downside. >A company that truly cared about privacy would admit their slip up and offer a way for their customers to get a device that actually gave them the security that Apple had told them the devices they bought had They basically did this with Secure Enclave. There's no PR benefit to admitting they could technically do something that they've never done, so its not surprising they didn't announce that.

by ikeboy 7y ago

lern_too_spel 7y ago

> committed a crime with probable cause Your error is that you don't know the difference between committing a crime and probable cause.

ikeboy 7y ago
That was clumsily worded. I mean someone who a judge has decided there is probable cause that they committed a crime.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. > Second, damages from having your illegal actions uncovered aren't recoverable when there's a valid warrant, it would be clearly against public policy. As I said, some of them are innocent and don't have any illegal actions to uncover. > if somehow there was a theory of liability it would be capped at the cost of the phone, which is negligible. They can sue for additional damages due to loss of privacy. > It doesn't add up as a motivation for Apple. The direct cost of the lawsuits includes not just the damages but the legal costs. On top of this, the press that Apple would get from the lawsuits would possibly do more than completely reverse the free press from its initial lie.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    I'd think public policy prevents liability from complying with a valid court order in any event. In the counterfactual world where Apple made the software, I doubt there'd be any suits against Apple for it, and it likely wouldn't even be public. Remember, the only times they would get a warrant is when they already have the phone in their possession, and there'd be no reason to let the suspect know they cracked the phone unless it actually goes to trial and they need to disclose where they got the evidence from. Plus, if your theory of liability is correct, shouldn't Apple be equally as liabile for making phones that the police can crack, even if they don't use Apple to crack them? Which happened quite often, yet we've seen no lawsuits related to that.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > I'd think public policy prevents liability from complying with a valid court order in any event. Which public policy? > shouldn't Apple be equally as liabile for making phones that the police can crack, even if they don't use Apple to crack them? An enterprising lawyer can certainly find clients and file this lawsuit. Are there any alternative explanations? Why do you think Apple fought the case? The owners of the device wanted the data extracted, but Apple refused. The FBI told Apple that Apple could keep the build that allows brute-forcing the pin code and never give it to anyone else, so it would be secured just as much as the key used to sign the system image. Apple was about to get huge egg on its face, and it simply distracted everybody by refusing to comply with a completely reasonable request while quietly changing their Privacy page. A company that truly cared about privacy would admit their slip up and offer a way for their customers to get a device that actually gave them the security that Apple had told them the devices they bought had.
      - ikeboy 7y ago
        >Which public policy? Courts can and do rule based on what they perceive is in the public interest in the absence of any particular statute saying so. Imposing liability for complying with a court order seems unlikely to be considered in the public interest. >Are there any alternative explanations? Apple correctly thought they'd get a lot of positive PR with little downside. >A company that truly cared about privacy would admit their slip up and offer a way for their customers to get a device that actually gave them the security that Apple had told them the devices they bought had They basically did this with Secure Enclave. There's no PR benefit to admitting they could technically do something that they've never done, so its not surprising they didn't announce that.