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

41–50 of 381 posts

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

#41

Post by ASinclair »

scarmig wrote: post #19

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…

The phone belonged to his employer. The employer gave the FBI authorization to access to the phone.

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

#43

Post by Bud »

GraemeLion wrote: post #24
mikestew wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a huge number of side effects that would have to be dealt with, but this case has made me think that Apple should have the option to say, "changed your mind? Nooo, that ship (which you, the FBI, built and christened) has sailed, buddy, and you're on board. This is going before a judge, like it or not, and we're doing it now."

Except that's not how courts work. Apple is the defendant, the government is the plaintiff. The plaintiff should always have the right to end a case/action. Allowing defendant's to continue cases allows for highly malicious actions to occur.

Oh? It seems to me that in this case, allowing the government to discontinue its trumped-up case is what has allowed the "highly malicious actions".

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

#44

Post by x0x0 »

mtgx wrote: post #14
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #3

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".

They'll find nothing on it.

Farook and wife smashed their personal phones yet left his work iphone untouched.

   Investigators seized Farook’s work iPhone from a black Lexus IS300 parked 
   outside his residence in Redlands, which authorities obtained a warrant to 
   search, and two personal mobile phones were found smashed and discarded in a 
   dumpster behind the residence, court records show.
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20160219/feds-take-on-appl...

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

#45

Post by robg »

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…

You mean, like Lavabit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit

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

#46

Post by nickff »

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.

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

#47

Post by new_acct »

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…

If you force parties to fight cases that are moot, cases where both parties' interests aren't affected, then you're deciding cases based on arguments from people who don't care about winning. That's sort of antithetical to the adversarial system, where a basic premise is that the best way to make a decision is to hear parties on each side of the issue.

If a similar case occurs, then 3rd parties (Apple, ACLU, etc) may be able to submit amicus briefs to help the defendant. Apple might also be able to intervene and become an actual party in the case, if it can convince the court that the case's outcome will harm its interests (see Rule 24 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

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

#48

Post by mikestew »

GraemeLion wrote: post #24
mikestew wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a huge number of side effects that would have to be dealt with, but this case has made me think that Apple should have the option to say, "changed your mind? Nooo, that ship (which you, the FBI, built and christened) has sailed, buddy, and you're on board. This is going before a judge, like it or not, and we're doing it now."

Except that's not how courts work. Apple is the defendant, the government is the plaintiff. The plaintiff should always have the right to end a case/action. Allowing defendant's to continue cases allows for highly malicious actions to occur.

Did I not say that there were side effects? :-) I realize this has problems, and I'm not the one to be providing solutions. However, "nuisance lawsuits" are a thing, and this case is probably the poster child. Only instead of "pay me and I'll go away", it's "we'll keep trying until we feel the tide of public opinion turns against us, then we'll pull out and try again...repeatedly." I don't know, just doesn't seem like the way things should work. You either have a case or not, public opinion be damned.

So fine, defendant doesn't get to push continuing the case. Then how about FBI doesn't get to try again? Of course, problem there is that the next will be ensured to be just different enough to not fall under whatever regulation or law is set up to deal with such a thing.

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

#49

Post by snarkyturtle »

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…

But they needed to get third-party help in order to access the phone, just by suing Apple they seem like they're incompetent at their jobs...

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

#50

Post by Johnny555 »

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.

Post reply on HN