Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

Post by rmc » Fri, Mar 18, 2016, 8:25 AM UTC

saulrh wrote: post #99

studentrob wrote: post #74

I honestly feel that engineers need not fall on their swords over this. The decision is up to them, of course. But ultimately, shareholders would expect someone to comply with the court order should the DOJ win. Note that Yahoo was threatened with daily fines of $250,000 for failing to comply in a FISA court case in 2008, and we only just learned this in 2014 [1]. I don't think we would live in a forced back door wor…

> I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications. I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd onl…

Post by da1 » Fri, Mar 18, 2016, 8:31 AM UTC

tallanvor wrote: post #222

da1 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually very simple. The state can just harass them into compliance. Tools at the state's disposal include but are not limited to: #Legal: * Judge orders them to comply, if they refuse they can be considered to be in contempt and incarcerated for a de facto arbitrary period of time at the judge's discretion (vide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick incarcerated for contempt for 14 years just bec…

What? Yes, a judge could hold them in contempt and jail them for some time. That's the only legal option. It's possible they could seize some assets as part of the contempt charge, but there are already plenty of legal groups that would jump at the opportunity to represent them pro bono. The other suggestions you offer are, to be blunt, those of a conspiracy nut.

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 18, 2016, 8:36 AM UTC

tajen wrote: post #202

clarkmoody wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd only have to live with pat-downs on every plane flight for so long? That the government would eventually realize that terrorists couldn't hijack planes once passengers knew that the proper response was to storm the cockpit rather than waiting for the usual ransom demand to be acquiesced to? That the terrorists would find other ways to cau…

The TSA is an abomination. I will not set foot in US for fear of them. The most important conferences in my business are in US and a few customers have already requested my consulting, but there's no way I travel to US.

Post by da1 » Fri, Mar 18, 2016, 8:40 AM UTC

junto wrote: post #224

da1 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually very simple. The state can just harass them into compliance. Tools at the state's disposal include but are not limited to: #Legal: * Judge orders them to comply, if they refuse they can be considered to be in contempt and incarcerated for a de facto arbitrary period of time at the judge's discretion (vide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick incarcerated for contempt for 14 years just bec…

This is spot on, and this is why bulk surveillance is so dangerous. It would not surprise me to know that the FBI has already started following/spying, and tasked the NSA to electronically monitor key Apple representatives and their lawyers. If they can find anything shady, they can then use that of individuals to try and use that as leverage. The key point here is that if the USG find a way to force Apple and Apple…

Post by BWStearns » Fri, Mar 18, 2016, 8:42 AM UTC

hysan wrote: post #110

pdkl95 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just mentioned how this could be interpreted as a draft to my mother who grew up watching the Vietnam draft, and she immediately brought up an interesting question: "Can you be a conscientious objector?" Given that nobody is being put in a position where they might have to use deadly force, the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply. While suspect it would be hard to extend the concept to the orders give…

> the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply Unless they are atheist/agnostic and claim that this is a core belief for them. Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs. It would be interesting to force the courts to make a judgement on the differences between the moral tenants atheists/agnostics follow and that of established religions.