3 ms·
>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
by 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.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago> Courts can and do rule based on what they perceive is in the public interest in the absence of any particular statute saying so. This would be a civil case with a jury trial. Moreover, some of the victims could even be non-citizens of the countries that request Apple to extract the data, who would sue in their own countries. > 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. There is a security benefit to warning users that what they were promised was not what they were delivered.