31–40 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would hope the media follows up with "so what did you find out from it?" and don't just leave it to "trust us, we unlocked it".
They'll just say "can't comment on an active investigation" if they don't find anything to make the whole thing seem worthwhile.
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…
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, but any copyrighted material on their servers, which encompasses the whole web. So they pay $1.6B for a tiny startup and a big lawsuit, and then use their full legal resources to fight (and eventually win) the lawsuit.
(There is possibly an interesting get-rich-quick hack in there: do something in a legal grey area that lots of big companies are doing too, as part of their core business, and then get sued. It is then in the big company's interest to acquire you and fight your legal battles, lest they get put out of business by an unfavorable precedent. You're playing with fire in this case, though, since if the big company doesn't come to your aid you have a multi-hundred-billion dollar lawsuit hanging over you.)
This is a legally naive question, but how does this not run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Particularly, how isn't this some violation of section a2 ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access," the same thing that got Aaron Swartz indicted)? Is it basically, since the feds had a warrant, they can do whatever they want? (And if they don't have a warrant, is it st…
Even though the feds found an exploit that allows 'em to decrypt the current iOS, Apple's response is undoubtedly gonna be much-improved security in the next version.
So in a few years when the feds demand that an iOS 10.x device be decrypted, this whole pageant will start over again.
You could say they dropped it because they accessed the phone. You might also say they dropped it because going to court and losing would greatly narrow the scope of the All Writs act. Then the "maybe illegal" spying coersion becomes "actually illegal"
I would hope the media follows up with "so what did you find out from it?" and don't just leave it to "trust us, we unlocked it".
This is a legally naive question, but how does this not run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Particularly, how isn't this some violation of section a2 ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access," the same thing that got Aaron Swartz indicted)? Is it basically, since the feds had a warrant, they can do whatever they want? (And if they don't have a warrant, is it st…
There are really a few sub-questions: Is it legal, and are the results admissible as evidence?
Whether or not it's legal depends on the circumstances. There are many cases in which the police can search something, e.g., if they believe it's critical to prevent an immediate threat. Whether or not it's admissible is more thorny, and something that's still being fought out in the courts. (google: warrantless cell phone search admissible)
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…
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…
But what if both parties mutually agree, but the courts don't agree? Then we get a precedent set where one side doesn't see any reason to bother to try to win. That's a horrible way to set precedent. And that's how horrible precedents get set.
This is a legally naive question, but how does this not run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Particularly, how isn't this some violation of section a2 ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access," the same thing that got Aaron Swartz indicted)? Is it basically, since the feds had a warrant, they can do whatever they want? (And if they don't have a warrant, is it st…
But in this case, Farook is dead. He never owned the phone. The organization that did own the phone wants the FBI to crack it, for easily understandable reasons. On ownership, at least, the facts are unusually friendly to the FBI.