Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 381 posts

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#111

Post by discordance »

eric_h wrote: post #79
Johnny555 wrote: post #50

I wish Apple would be able to recoup their legal costs from the DoJ -- the government shouldn't be allowed to force a company to spend money on defending their rights (using our "unlimited" tax dollars to do so), only to drop the case at the last minute making the entire case moot. Apple should be able to recover their legal costs.

While I agree, the counterargument will likely be that all of Apple's lawyers are on salary and as such Apple's legal costs would be no different with or without the court proceedings.

I don't think this is a question particularly about Apple, but more so around the system. If it were another entity without the same financial backing how would they be able to handle it?

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#112

Post by fergbrain »

curryhowardiso wrote: post #86
nickff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.

Yes, absolutely - and another reason is that it forms a sort of "de facto precedent". Even though there isn't a USSC judgment, in future people will (hopefully) refer to "the time the DoJ tried to do X" and the theory is this is citation enough.

This was District Court, not SCOTUS.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#113

Post by geggam »

nickff wrote: post #46
chii wrote: post #11

I feel like cases shouldn't be droppable unless both parties mutually agree, and the courts also must first agree.the courts should not agree if it's a case that could set a precedent that can have far reaching implications. What if next time, a smaller player than Apple was caught in this sort of case, and they can't fight back as easily? Then it'd be easier to setup a precedent favourable to one party. This seems l…

One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.

I lost interest in a speeding ticket case.... guess what happened ?

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#114

Post by SeoxyS »

Someone wrote: post #109
downandout wrote: post #15

I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost (probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise, they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or care that this happens to be an old…

As to the possible lying, English isn't my native tongue, but I found the use of the phrase "without compromising any information on the phone" in this statement: “Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,” Eileen Decker, the U.S. attorney in Los Angele…

I think they meant compromising as in potentially triggering deletion or corruption of the data.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#115

Post by panarky »

snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

> Well, welcome to life in a democracy.

The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people.

A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed.

A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more corporate cash into the machine.

A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was installed instead [3].

People overwhelmingly disapprove using public funds to bail out reckless bankers [4], but somehow it happens anyway.

There was a global uproar over SOPA and PIPA which shut down this draconian legislation. But you can't kill the zombie, and it keeps coming back, now in secret trade agreements like TPP and TTIP that citizens aren't even allowed to read.

The Total Information Awareness program was suspended in 2003 [5] after a public outcry over warrantless mass surveillance. Naturally it was all reincarnated into secret NSA programs.

We'll see the same thing with devices and personal encryption. This is only a temporary setback for the powers that be, they'll be back with another sensational, emotional case soon enough.

The current system does not represent the will of the people. It's an oligarchy supported by a security apparatus run amok.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-liberties.aspx

[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-28/bloomb...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/106114/six-oppose-wall-street-bai...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#116

Post by Aleman360 »

panarky wrote: post #115
snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people. A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more…

The US isn't based on majority rule. No one wants that.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#117

Post by nickff »

snowwrestler wrote: post #101

I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try again at some point. Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we cherish today--for good or ill. We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is no legal impediment to that. That we don't do that is a re…

One of the problems that many people have with what the federal government has done in the course of the 20th and 21st centuries is how they have completely ignored the 10th Amendment. I am not sure that the Constitution is an effective protection for civil liberties (or other rights), and I do not know what recourse the citizenry has when the government does ot abide by its own rules.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#118

Post by hexagonc »

blademan88 wrote: post #68
nostrademons wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big companies can still buy little companies to take on their lawsuits, or they can provide funding & resources to fight a legal battle as part of an investment. I suspect that Google bought YouTube in part to avoid precisely this situation. If Viacom had won their lawsuit against YouTube, it would have endangered Google's core business: they would become liable not just for copyrighted material that they know about,…

You wouldn't get-rich-quick... you'd agree to a buyout with horrible terms since you'd have zero bargaining power given the circumstances.

Also, big companies won't necessarily be your ally in this case either. Instead of being sued, large companies may be able to come to an agreement with the plaintiff where they pay some fee to continue doing what they are doing. The size of this fee or the risk of a lawsuit may be enough to discourage small startups from entering a market while just being another cost of business for the established large players. This could hurt competition in the long run as well as allowing the status quo, which perhaps should be challenged, to persist.

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#119

Post by geggam »

geggam wrote: post #113
nickff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.

I lost interest in a speeding ticket case.... guess what happened ?

Really ... a down vote for humor ? ... y'all need to get the stick out of your ass

Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone

#120

Post by GraemeLion »

downandout wrote: post #104
Bluestrike2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hearing was before a federal magistrate judge and was largely administrative. Binding precedent wouldn't have been set until the case hit a higher court on appeal (which would have been inevitable regardless of who won as both sides had significant incentives for appeal). The DOJ could have dropped the case at any point before then to avoid an undesirable precedent. Until that point, a negative ruling wouldn't ha…

>a negative ruling wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem It was setting them up for a precedent-setting legal decision in a higher court that may very well have not gone the government's way. >they couldn't proceed without lying to the court You're assuming that this mysterious third party that showed up the day before the initial hearing with a method to crack the phone actually exists, and that this method w…

There were rumblings about a company that could do this weeks ago. Snowden brought up it was possible, and likely even hit upon the method.

I think the "mysterious third party" absolutely exists. I just think that the plan all along was to compel apple to do this, and then fall back on this if Apple pushed.

Post reply on HN