4 ms·

AFAIK, the Lavabit case is not legally decided yet: http://www.volokh.com/2013/10/11/lavabit-challenges-contempt-order/ I imagine Apple would put up quite a

AFAIK, the Lavabit case is not legally decided yet: http://www.volokh.com/2013/10/11/lavabit-challenges-contempt-order/ I imagine Apple would put up quite a strong legal fight if they were issued the same order, especially considering their public stance. A NSL can force Apple to not disclose it, but they can't force them to publically lie about it. And lying about that would be ridiculously stupid.

privong 13y ago
> A NSL can force Apple to not disclose it, but they can't force them to publically lie about it. And lying about that would be ridiculously stupid. I'm not sure they'd be put in a position to lie. It would have to be a very direct, specific question to _require_ a lie. Otherwise, dodgy language would suffice.
- anfedorov 13y ago
  They didn't use dodgy language: "conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data." [1]. 1. https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
  - fpgeek 13y ago
    Suppose Apple made the broad, unequivocal claim before they got an iMessage-related NSL. While the NSL can't compel Apple to lie, would Apple choose tone down their language afterwards?
  - privong 13y ago
    I meant using dodgy langugage in future statements. They may not have received a NSL yet, so one doesn't know if their strong language could poentially be tempered by a NSL. I don't think one can conclusively argue this point either way.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    And per the article, that statement can be true at the same time this statement can be true: "Apple can intercept the creation of new conversations between users on iMessage or FaceTime if compelled to do so by a valid court order." English being as fungible as it is, leads to this sort of mess.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
You also misunderstand a bit what happened in Lavabits case (easy to do I know). Basically the government got a court order for one of Lavabits user's email [1]. Lavabits responded they couldn't decrypt the email because they don't have the key. Government responded, ok, give us your SSL key so we can decrypt any traffic we may or may not have between you and your users. They stalled but eventually complied [2]. Court further forced them to give them the key in digital form, which they also did. And then shut down to prevent the Government's possession of that key to give them new data from their users. There wasn't a "case" here, Lavabit was compelled and risked fines, jail time, or both if they did not comply. You get a legal court order you can challenge it in court, but when the court upholds the legality of the order (as it did here) you either comply or go to jail. Apple will comply with any legal court order (although they may object to it first, as Google has done according to court records). [1] Presumed to be Snowden. [2] Printed out in 4pt font (which I thought was brilliant btw)

privong 13y ago

> A NSL can force Apple to not disclose it, but they can't force them to publically lie about it. And lying about that would be ridiculously stupid. I'm not sure they'd be put in a position to lie. It would have to be a very direct, specific question to _require_ a lie. Otherwise, dodgy language would suffice.

anfedorov 13y ago
They didn't use dodgy language: "conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data." [1]. 1. https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
- fpgeek 13y ago
  Suppose Apple made the broad, unequivocal claim before they got an iMessage-related NSL. While the NSL can't compel Apple to lie, would Apple choose tone down their language afterwards?
- privong 13y ago
  I meant using dodgy langugage in future statements. They may not have received a NSL yet, so one doesn't know if their strong language could poentially be tempered by a NSL. I don't think one can conclusively argue this point either way.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  And per the article, that statement can be true at the same time this statement can be true: "Apple can intercept the creation of new conversations between users on iMessage or FaceTime if compelled to do so by a valid court order." English being as fungible as it is, leads to this sort of mess.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

You also misunderstand a bit what happened in Lavabits case (easy to do I know). Basically the government got a court order for one of Lavabits user's email [1]. Lavabits responded they couldn't decrypt the email because they don't have the key. Government responded, ok, give us your SSL key so we can decrypt any traffic we may or may not have between you and your users. They stalled but eventually complied [2]. Court further forced them to give them the key in digital form, which they also did. And then shut down to prevent the Government's possession of that key to give them new data from their users. There wasn't a "case" here, Lavabit was compelled and risked fines, jail time, or both if they did not comply. You get a legal court order you can challenge it in court, but when the court upholds the legality of the order (as it did here) you either comply or go to jail. Apple will comply with any legal court order (although they may object to it first, as Google has done according to court records). [1] Presumed to be Snowden. [2] Printed out in 4pt font (which I thought was brilliant btw)