5 ms·
> in the absence of a law that compels us to write software, which is unconstitutional btw In their 2016 dispute with the FBI, the gist of Apple's 1A and 5A ar
by runlevel1 4y ago
> in the absence of a law that compels us to write software, which is unconstitutional btw
In their 2016 dispute with the FBI, the gist of Apple's 1A and 5A arguments were:
Writing software is a form of speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Forcing Apple to create software would therefore be compelled speech and so the order to do so must be narrowly tailored to obtain a compelling state interest (see: "strict scrutiny").
The FBI has a legitimate interest in investigating and prosecuting terrorists, but their request does not pass strict scrutiny:
1. The government was only vaguely speculating that there might be something useful on the iPhone, but what was requested would have far reaching adverse consequences beyond just that single device.
2. Apple publicly values privacy and data security. Forcing Apple to create software (i.e. compel speech) that runs contrary to their values is a form of viewpoint discrimination.
3. Apple is a private party in the matter, far removed from the crime itself and the request is a lot of work. So conscripting Apple to assist the government in the matter would constitute an undue burden and therefore be a violation of Apple's substantive due process rights.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoI would really like the defence to be based on our rights as human beings, rather than 'placing undue burdain on a corporation'. Suppose next time NSA writes the code for Apple and Apple just has to sign it, will the defence stand uo in court?
- andrewnicolalde 4y agoPresumably yes, for both of the same reasons, or at least the first one.
- helen___keller 4y agoDue process and speech are among our rights so that’s literally what this is If NSA has a way to break into a device without violating any parties’ rights, they would do so. Even if NSA wrote the code you might argue the [Apple just has to sign it] step violates Apple’s rights.
- ReptileMan 4y agoFrankly the FBI should have just requested the bootloader signing keys, bootloader documentation and just write it themselves. The only protection then is the 5A - and apple can't take it because it is them on the stand.
- _boffin_ 4y agoMy belief is that the Feds already had the tools they needed to get the information they needed off the phone, but wanted to use the situation to create a new standard of practice as it was too juicy to pass up—never let a horrific event go to waste. Luckily, it didn’t work in the way they hoped or at least to my knowledge, it didn’t.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]