5 ms·

Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal reque

Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be lowered after this. The FBI shouldn't get a rubber stamp to search information like this, but if they DO have probable cause, of course they should have access. Apple has zero legs to stand on here.

spencefu 11y ago
It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to stand on. It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build something against their will.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  What request for evidence can you imagine that doesn't involve some work? It always involves some, maybe even a lot. They're not trying to get Apple to write a whole new OS despite how Apple is trying to spin it.
mr_luc 11y ago
It's a demand for invention, and the legal precedent it sets is that the government can just tell a private company "we tell you what you have to invent, because the law says you have to turn over all information we need." Except that invention != turning over information. The Justice Department would like to change this, so that complying with the Writs act literally means doing anything they tell you to do. Which is a massive, blatant power grab.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Calling it an invention is a misuse of the term and puts writing software on an undeservedly high pedestal. There is no "invention" here except in the sense that an Apple copyright lawyer might say. That is, trivial obvious changes.
  - mr_luc 11y ago
    That's just silly. The "pedestal," as you call it, that they're defending is a non-insane interpretation of writs. If the government wants to go past that, pass a law, and hope it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution. For instance, there's also a law that compels telecom providers to give the government cooperation in installing monitoring equipment in their pipes. But that's an exceptional situation, which is why they had to pass an additional law: it does not just follow from All Writs. It'd be the same if Apple was building a sewer system: --- FBI: "Hey, company building a sewer system!" Apple: Hi. FBI: "We have an ongoing investigation, and need your cooperation." Apple: Rock on. I'll comply with the law! I have access to the system at all of these points. If you need access to that, just ask. FBI: "No, we need access to a specific toilet bowl in a specific house." Apple: ... I don't have access to that. They haven't flushed it; it's still in their house. FBI: "Yeah, but you designed the system. So to comply with our request for information, we need you to come up with an easy way for us to break the system." Apple: Break it how? Gee, FBI, this sounds a lot more involved than just giving you access to some information. FBI: "No, this is just like turning over some papers. Now, we need your engineers to drop everything and immediately come up with a foolproof way of suddenly, and violently, reversing the flow and pressure of any arbitrary customer's toilet so that we can use it to propel an FBI Fecal Trawler drone into their house." Apple: Whoa. You're asking us to develop, for you, a massive new operational capability. But there's not a law that compels us to suddenly spend our time being FBI contractors! Also, if we develop this the way you are asking us, that means many of our engineers will be working on, and learn how to, turn our toilet connections literally into deadly weapons! That's just ... gross, and immoral! And probably a breach of our duty to our customers! FBI: No. It's law. Turn over our writs. Apple: This is insane. You got laws passed to make telecom companies do this kind of thing -- I'm sorry, but until you get a similar law passed, and have to take it before the public in the way that will entail, I really think this is government overreach! ... Why are you even talking to me about this? Go in through the front door or something. FBI: We threw the key away. --- And yet the reporting on this story continues to be "Oh, Apple, why you can't be like those good nerds on </scorpion> who know how to help their country?"

spencefu 11y ago

It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to stand on. It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build something against their will.

vectorjohn 11y ago
What request for evidence can you imagine that doesn't involve some work? It always involves some, maybe even a lot. They're not trying to get Apple to write a whole new OS despite how Apple is trying to spin it.

mr_luc 11y ago

It's a demand for invention, and the legal precedent it sets is that the government can just tell a private company "we tell you what you have to invent, because the law says you have to turn over all information we need." Except that invention != turning over information. The Justice Department would like to change this, so that complying with the Writs act literally means doing anything they tell you to do. Which is a massive, blatant power grab.

vectorjohn 11y ago
Calling it an invention is a misuse of the term and puts writing software on an undeservedly high pedestal. There is no "invention" here except in the sense that an Apple copyright lawyer might say. That is, trivial obvious changes.
- mr_luc 11y ago
  That's just silly. The "pedestal," as you call it, that they're defending is a non-insane interpretation of writs. If the government wants to go past that, pass a law, and hope it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution. For instance, there's also a law that compels telecom providers to give the government cooperation in installing monitoring equipment in their pipes. But that's an exceptional situation, which is why they had to pass an additional law: it does not just follow from All Writs. It'd be the same if Apple was building a sewer system: --- FBI: "Hey, company building a sewer system!" Apple: Hi. FBI: "We have an ongoing investigation, and need your cooperation." Apple: Rock on. I'll comply with the law! I have access to the system at all of these points. If you need access to that, just ask. FBI: "No, we need access to a specific toilet bowl in a specific house." Apple: ... I don't have access to that. They haven't flushed it; it's still in their house. FBI: "Yeah, but you designed the system. So to comply with our request for information, we need you to come up with an easy way for us to break the system." Apple: Break it how? Gee, FBI, this sounds a lot more involved than just giving you access to some information. FBI: "No, this is just like turning over some papers. Now, we need your engineers to drop everything and immediately come up with a foolproof way of suddenly, and violently, reversing the flow and pressure of any arbitrary customer's toilet so that we can use it to propel an FBI Fecal Trawler drone into their house." Apple: Whoa. You're asking us to develop, for you, a massive new operational capability. But there's not a law that compels us to suddenly spend our time being FBI contractors! Also, if we develop this the way you are asking us, that means many of our engineers will be working on, and learn how to, turn our toilet connections literally into deadly weapons! That's just ... gross, and immoral! And probably a breach of our duty to our customers! FBI: No. It's law. Turn over our writs. Apple: This is insane. You got laws passed to make telecom companies do this kind of thing -- I'm sorry, but until you get a similar law passed, and have to take it before the public in the way that will entail, I really think this is government overreach! ... Why are you even talking to me about this? Go in through the front door or something. FBI: We threw the key away. --- And yet the reporting on this story continues to be "Oh, Apple, why you can't be like those good nerds on </scorpion> who know how to help their country?"