881–890 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but how is it a subpoena if it doesn't originate from the judiciary?
I guess you can argue semantics, but it's an order accompanied by a credible threat of violence if the order is not obeyed.
I'd maybe call the bluff, and take my political stand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A deposition in the American judicial system is a legal proceeding in which a witness provides testimony to the courts. The witness may be examined by members of either sides legal team. This is a routine proceeding in civil cases. [0] Interestingly, people usually don't want to be deposed when they have something to hide. [0] http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/what-is-a-dep...
> Interestingly, people usually don't want to be deposed when they have something to hide. You know who really talks a lot about their rights? Terrorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but how is it a subpoena if it doesn't originate from the judiciary?
Nicholas Merrill famously fought a 11 year legal battle (and finally won) the right to reveal all aspects of a National Security Letter (NSL) served to him. Almost all such letters are accompanied by a complete gag order. https://www.calyxinstitute.org/news/federal-court-invalidate... EDITED / CORRECTIONS - Thanks commenters - The battle was won by Nicholas Merrill not Ladar Levison of Lavabit fame as I originally po…
LavaBit's Lamar Levinson is assumed to be under a gag order from some request he was given by the US government, of which he declined by way of folding his company and claiming that he could not comply moving forward if he was no longer the middleman of some form of communications.
The court order gives Apple an out: "To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to this Court for relief".
Now, imagine if this was court ordering a company to engage in unethical medical procedures, rather than unethical software development. The professional medical community would sanction doctors that cooperated and support those that stood by their ethical principles and refused to cooperate. If there was a similar professional organization for software development, Apple could reasonably rebut that telling their engineers to work on this would be unreasonably expensive (since they'd expect to fire people or have them resign over it).
This is another avenue for fighting the order - have a good chunk of Apple's engineering department sign an open letter saying that they'd resign before working on that project. The incentives seem like they'd work for making it a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you can argue semantics, but it's an order accompanied by a credible threat of violence if the order is not obeyed.
I know it requires Tim Cook to be willing to martyr himself, but do we really see Obama whisking the CEO of Apple Computer off to Guantanamo or some supermax prison? I'd maybe call the bluff, and take my political stand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
".. what this means is that even Apple can't break into an iPhone with a secure passphrase (10+ characters) and disabled Touch ID - which is hackable with a bit of effort to get your fingerprint." That is not exactly true. They wrote the OS, they designed the phone, they know where the JTAG connectors are. Cracking the phone apart and putting is logic board up on a debugger would likely enable them to bypass security…
>>> I am really glad that one of the most valuable companies in the world is drawing a bright line in the sand. So I really support Tim's position on this one. Tim's position today might not be apple's position tomorrow. Apple is a large publicly traded company. They owe a duty only to shareholders. Fighting this fight will probably impact the bottom line. Tim's continuation may turn on the outcome. Cooperation may s…
As in, improve it.
Tim Cook is probably more popular than Obama (and surely is WRT this issue.) Apple is about a thousand times more popular than the NSA and blessed with almost infinitely deep pockets and a very, very good marketing team.
Not to mention the fact that most of the people who use computers and phones don't even live in the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I don't want to be deposed" I'm not familiar with that phrase. What does it mean in this context?
A deposition in the American judicial system is a legal proceeding in which a witness provides testimony to the courts. The witness may be examined by members of either sides legal team. This is a routine proceeding in civil cases. [0] Interestingly, people usually don't want to be deposed when they have something to hide. [0] http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/what-is-a-dep...
[0] http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You and OP are both wrong: "Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession." Apple's argument isn't about a deluge of one-o…
Here's the exact text of the court order: "Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on t…
You're wrong because any image that can be installed on the SUBJECT DEVICE can be modified to be installed on OTHER DEVICES.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like you, I appreciate the sentiment - happy to hear Apple speaking up. However this shouldn't change how we use Apple products. I operate under the implication that the device is compromised from the factory. Closed source software cannot be trusted, good faith is not enough.
Considering how many massive, gaping security flaws have been found in Open Source software in the last year or so alone that have been in place for years or decades, I think we can say that open source software cannot be trusted either.