3 ms·

Yeah, like trespassing

jncfhnb 3y ago
Siding with the hypothetical entity of whom all you know is that they illegally built barriers is a strange choice to me
- freejazz 3y ago
  This is the equivalent of a "When did you stop beating your wife" type of question. It puts words in my mouth. There's nothing remotely illegal about Apple operating iMessage. It takes even greater leaps to jump from that to then it somehow legally justifying the trespass...
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      >If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? >Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo. I didn't accuse you of anything. You seem a bit confused so try to follow here: I'm literally just explaining to you that when someone goes and uses another other person's property without permission, its prima facie trespass. You can make a defense that it was "just", but that's an affirmative defense.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        > Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? There’s no ambiguity over what Apple did. The question is whether it violates the law. Acknowledging that there is legal theory to suggest it’s illegal has nothing to do with “guilty before proven innocent” and it is a complete straw man to suggest that anyone is discussing throwing out the need for trials altogether
        freejazz 3y ago
        There's many legal theories for many things, whether or not they have merit is something entirely different. I wouldn't call a random congressperson's grandstanding a legal theory, but I am a lawyer.
- Grustaf 3y ago
  Which illegal barrier are you talking about? The App Store may be illegal, but on what grounds would there be anything illegal about preventing other companies from using your servers? And note that they are not even discouraging third-party chat apps, on the contrary, they actively promote the likes of whatsapp, signal, telegram etc.

Siding with the hypothetical entity of whom all you know is that they illegally built barriers is a strange choice to me

freejazz 3y ago
This is the equivalent of a "When did you stop beating your wife" type of question. It puts words in my mouth. There's nothing remotely illegal about Apple operating iMessage. It takes even greater leaps to jump from that to then it somehow legally justifying the trespass...
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >If there were nothing remotely illegal about this then there would not be the current situation. Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? >Your premise of wife beating is unfounded and closer to what you’re accusing ironically imo. I didn't accuse you of anything. You seem a bit confused so try to follow here: I'm literally just explaining to you that when someone goes and uses another other person's property without permission, its prima facie trespass. You can make a defense that it was "just", but that's an affirmative defense.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      > Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? There’s no ambiguity over what Apple did. The question is whether it violates the law. Acknowledging that there is legal theory to suggest it’s illegal has nothing to do with “guilty before proven innocent” and it is a complete straw man to suggest that anyone is discussing throwing out the need for trials altogether
      - freejazz 3y ago
        There's many legal theories for many things, whether or not they have merit is something entirely different. I wouldn't call a random congressperson's grandstanding a legal theory, but I am a lawyer.
Grustaf 3y ago
Which illegal barrier are you talking about? The App Store may be illegal, but on what grounds would there be anything illegal about preventing other companies from using your servers? And note that they are not even discouraging third-party chat apps, on the contrary, they actively promote the likes of whatsapp, signal, telegram etc.