Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. If the existing law is interpreted by the courts to apply to digital communications then it does. Congress a has the ability to remove interpretations by specification.
So you disagree with your previous statement? That courts can interpret the law, including the intention of it?
Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
451–460 of 498 posts
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#452I'm Erez Rusovsky, the CEO of Rollout.io Rollout's mission has always been, and will always be about helping developers create and deploy mobile apps quickly and safely. Our current product has been a life saver for hundreds of apps by allowing them to patch bugs in live apps. We were surprised by Apple's actions today. From what we've been able to gather, they seem to be rejecting any app which utilizes a mechanism…
Sorry to be OT, but since you're the CEO I do hope you found out if Rollout supports swift as well :^) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8158046
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under that reasoning, wiretapping laws and privacy laws should not apply to digital communications, because they were not specifically mentioned.
I've noticed a trend where technology-inclined people take a very strict, autistic approach to the law. They tend to view the law as being analogous to source code in that there is no room for interpretation, intent or spirit behind what's codified. I think this has manifested at its peak with Ethereum.
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the United States, creation of law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch. There is no avenue for the Judicial branch to create law.
So it is claimed in civics classes, but that's a rather narrow interpretation of "create law".
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the United States, creation of law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch. There is no avenue for the Judicial branch to create law.
So it is claimed in civics classes, but that's a rather narrow interpretation of "create law".
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is not the purpose of the court to create law In common law systems it is precisely their job to do so.
In the United States, creation of law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch. There is no avenue for the Judicial branch to create law.
The reality in Common Law legal systems is nothing like this, and judge made law through interpretation and application of precedent is a very real thing, even in the USA. As a particularly blunt example, in some parts of the UK such as Scotland, the traditional common law crimes such as murder/theft etc aren't even defined in primary legislation ("laws"), and exist solely as judge made and applied creations through decades of precedent. Even where there exists primary legislation, the scope of judicial interpretation gives a great deal of freedom to judges to establish precedents that the drafters might not have foreseen or intended.
Heck even the definition of the term "Common Law" is normally interpreted to mean "Case Law" as developed by judges.
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#457Understandable, but there is a deeper problem of course - the app store model is broken for apps that need hotfix capabilities (aka enterprise). We've been meeting with Apple on this topic for years and continue to sideload our app as we need to meet SLAs with our customers. They sign the binaries with their dev certificates, which violates Apple's guidelines too. But, alas, once you have critical mass in a vertical…
Isn't that exactly what enterprise distribution does?
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#458Understandable, but there is a deeper problem of course - the app store model is broken for apps that need hotfix capabilities (aka enterprise). We've been meeting with Apple on this topic for years and continue to sideload our app as we need to meet SLAs with our customers. They sign the binaries with their dev certificates, which violates Apple's guidelines too. But, alas, once you have critical mass in a vertical…
'Enterprise' always needs things, and then when these required things are not available enterprise makes do with what is. In this case it isn't required at all though because Apple allows enterprise to sideload apps outside of the review process.
Right now we get the certificates from out customers, sign the individual binaries. Then distribute through our own infrastructure.
We have our own update mechanism (basically hot code push), cannot have the customer's own IT shop be a barrier to deploy the fix. User sync their apps, if there is an upgrade that gets done inbetween the normal data/content sync.
Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#459Re: Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you disagree with your previous statement? That courts can interpret the law, including the intention of it?
My original comment said that courts could interpret law... I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, including intention. US courts do it all the time. It's called the Constitution.
>evolution of the law (which involves creating new portions of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking)
And argue that electronic privacy vis-a-vis wiretapping laws is creating a new portion of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking. We can quibble about definitions, but that strikes me as very much in the area of "evolution".