Apple vs the FBI

[Berkut]

How hard is it for him to say that right now, and what changes when he does?

Legitimacy of said statement.  Maybe Russia is a bad example, it can create whatever reality it needs anyway, but still.

I actually think that Russia's ability to create their own reality is rather limited in scope. They can sell the Russian people a lot, but only in a very narrow band, and convincing them that Apple is a tool of the Imperialist West might be possible...but to do so they would need to destroy the Apple brand anyway. And in that case, why would Apple care anymore?

In other words, if Putin decided that he wanted to force Apple to hack phones for him, he would FIRST have to destroy their brand. And if he did that, then Apple would probably say "Shrug, don't care - that market is largely dead to us already, so what leverage do you have anymore over us?"

If the US succeeds in forcing Apple to destroy their own security, then that opens the window for countries like China or Russia to go after Apple *without* the need to first destroy their brand as a product. They can simply argue that they are asking Apple to treat them the same way Apple treats the US government - as  an entity that has the power and right to make the complete evaluation of when and under what circumstances the privacy of these devices can be violated, and Apple simply receives those valid requests and acts on them without any deliberative mechanism themselves.

And of course, it also sets that same precedent, both in the US and globally, for any and all other devices. There is no longer any "meager assistance" provision to these requests at all. If "meager" means you can demand the company to actively destroy the security they intentionally built to be unbreakable even by them, then any possible demand is now acceptable, and this will be used as precedent for future demands - I could even easily see it as precedent to file suit against a company like Apple for even creating a product that cannot be broken, in theory. If the State has the power to compel a company to break their own security on demand, then surely it has the power to compel a company to not create security that cannot be broken to begin with - which is the entire point of this charade by the FBI to begin with, I suspect.

I think they were waiting for just such a case.

[Berkut]

The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.

If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.

I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.

[The Brain]

The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.

If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.

I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.

It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate. Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?

I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.

[grumbler]

If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.

I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want about anyone's obligations to follow the law.  I question that this Apple case creates any new quandaries; the issue of the extent of government powers to compel citizens or corporations to undertake what amounts to 'free labor" has always been present.  The PR aspect of Apples decision to market their phones as "so secure even we can't break into them" creates some irony here, but doesn't change the ethics of the situation.

The only new element here, insofar as I can tell, is whether the burden on Apple of actually carrying out the government's directive is unreasonable.  If the court order is affirmed, and Apple does carry out the order, this phone will not be the first, nor the last, to get cracked as part of a law enforcement action.

I don't believe that US legal precedent carries any weight in China, North Korea, or Russia.

[Berkut]

The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.

If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.

I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.

It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate.

Of course - that is largely why Apple went out of their way to create a security scheme they could not break. That way they could not be asked to do so. I don't think there are any countries where it is illegal to not do what cannot be done.

Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?

We aren't talking about Apple ignoring the law, we are talking about how they go about complying with the law, and to what extremes a country can demand that they go in order to serve the interests of the investigative bodies in that country.

It is not black and white, not a matter of Apple simply refusing to abide by the law. It is a matter of them deciding what their obligations are under the relevant laws, and how they should go about meeting them when there are clear conflicts of interest between the powers of the state and the interests of their customers.

I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.

Nobody is talking about Apple going outlaw.

[The Brain]

The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.

If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.

I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.

It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate.

Of course - that is largely why Apple went out of their way to create a security scheme they could not break. That way they could not be asked to do so. I don't think there are any countries where it is illegal to not do what cannot be done.

Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?

We aren't talking about Apple ignoring the law, we are talking about how they go about complying with the law, and to what extremes a country can demand that they go in order to serve the interests of the investigative bodies in that country.

It is not black and white, not a matter of Apple simply refusing to abide by the law. It is a matter of them deciding what their obligations are under the relevant laws, and how they should go about meeting them when there are clear conflicts of interest between the powers of the state and the interests of their customers.

I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.

Nobody is talking about Apple going outlaw.

As I've said, laws don't have to make sense. There is nothing stopping a sovereign country from making laws that are impossible to comply with. In those cases it may be a good idea for the company to get out of that country.

When a company decides whether to operate in a certain country one of the factors typically considered is ethical aspects. There are several contries that all the companies I've worked for would never operate in, for ethical reasons. Apple's decision on how much they want to dance with the devil is its own.

I'm all for Apple (legally) fighting the power and (legally) sticking it to the man. Volkswagen took a huge hit when it became known that they thought the law was optional, if I were Apple I would make sure not to cross that line.

[dps]

But you cannot argue that Apple gets to have a say in evaluation the reasonableness of the demand in some cases, but not in others. If you accept that Putin demanding that Apple crack the iPhone of some political target, and getting the Russian legal apparatus to go along with it and issue some ruling instructing Apple to do so, is something that Apple can and should refuse, then you have to accept that they can and should refuse the FBI making a similar demand.

Why can one not make that argument?  Why should we have to accept that if the must comply with the FBI's demand, then they must comply with similar demands from Russia?

If the FBI does in fact have the power to compel them, then you have to argue that the SVR does as well - that Apple is simply the recipient of such demands and has no right to evaluate their merits themselves.

But it's not about naked power;  it's about legal authority.  The presumption that there are certain legal safeguards in place in the US and other Western countries doesn't seem to me to mean that legal authority in those countries be looked at the same as in countries for which that presumption can't reasonably be made.

[grumbler]

But it's not about naked power;  it's about legal authority.  The presumption that there are certain legal safeguards in place in the US and other Western countries doesn't seem to me to mean that legal authority in those countries be looked at the same as in countries for which that presumption can't reasonably be made.

Indeed.  The irony of Berkut's position is that he is arguing that Apple should refuse to obey US law in order to give it the precedent it needs to defy the laws of Russia, China, and North Korea - precisely the countries that don't give a damn about precedents and international norms.

If he were arguing that Apple should refuse to obey distasteful US laws so that it would have the precedent to disobey distasteful Danish laws, he might have an argument.  Denmark's politicians would consider the state of international opinion on the topic as part of their cost-benefit analyses.

[11B4V]

The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.

If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.

I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.

It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate.

Of course - that is largely why Apple went out of their way to create a security scheme they could not break. That way they could not be asked to do so. I don't think there are any countries where it is illegal to not do what cannot be done.

Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?

We aren't talking about Apple ignoring the law, we are talking about how they go about complying with the law, and to what extremes a country can demand that they go in order to serve the interests of the investigative bodies in that country.

It is not black and white, not a matter of Apple simply refusing to abide by the law. It is a matter of them deciding what their obligations are under the relevant laws, and how they should go about meeting them when there are clear conflicts of interest between the powers of the state and the interests of their customers.

I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.

Nobody is talking about Apple going outlaw.

As I've said, laws don't have to make sense. There is nothing stopping a sovereign country from making laws that are impossible to comply with. In those cases it may be a good idea for the company to get out of that country.

When a company decides whether to operate in a certain country one of the factors typically considered is ethical aspects. There are several contries that all the companies I've worked for would never operate in, for ethical reasons. Apple's decision on how much they want to dance with the devil is its own.

I'm all for Apple (legally) fighting the power and (legally) sticking it to the man. Volkswagen took a huge hit when it became known that they thought the law was optional, if I were Apple I would make sure not to cross that line.

That's right FTM

[Berkut]

But you cannot argue that Apple gets to have a say in evaluation the reasonableness of the demand in some cases, but not in others. If you accept that Putin demanding that Apple crack the iPhone of some political target, and getting the Russian legal apparatus to go along with it and issue some ruling instructing Apple to do so, is something that Apple can and should refuse, then you have to accept that they can and should refuse the FBI making a similar demand.

Why can one not make that argument?  Why should we have to accept that if the must comply with the FBI's demand, then they must comply with similar demands from Russia?

Because if you say that they can evaluate the demand from Russia, then you have to say they can evaluate the demand from the FBI as well. You are saying that they have the right to make a decision on their own about who they should or should not cooperate with - and if that is the case, then they have the right to refuse the FBI. Whether they should or not is another issue, of course.

If the FBI does in fact have the power to compel them, then you have to argue that the SVR does as well - that Apple is simply the recipient of such demands and has no right to evaluate their merits themselves.

But it's not about naked power;  it's about legal authority.  The presumption that there are certain legal safeguards in place in the US and other Western countries doesn't seem to me to mean that legal authority in those countries be looked at the same as in countries for which that presumption can't reasonably be made.

True - but you are saying that Apple has the right to make that evaluation. They *must* have that right if you are arguing that they can exercise it in the case of countries without adequate legal safeguards - the very term itself implies an evaluation being done by Apple.

If so, they have the right to make that evaluation in regards to the FBI as well, and potentially decide that they should not cooperate.

[Berkut]

Indeed.  The irony of Berkut's position is that he is arguing that Apple should refuse to obey US law in order to give it the precedent it needs to defy the laws of Russia, China, and North Korea - precisely the countries that don't give a damn about precedents and international norms.

Not exactly.


I am not saying that they should defy US law, I am saying that US citizens should support putting pressure on the US judicial system, or the US legislature if needed, to make it unnecessary for Apple to defy US law, because the cost will be too high. At the end of the day, I don't think Apple defying US law is even an option. If they exhaust their legal recourse, and the end decision of the US judicial system is that they must comply, I don't think there is any doubt that they will do so.


And the reason I am giving for this is that if the US forces Apple to break their own security, other countries will have much greater leverage to demand that Apple do the same, for possibly much worse reasons, and further, that it will weaken Apple's own reasons to resist such efforts.

If he were arguing that Apple should refuse to obey distasteful US laws so that it would have the precedent to disobey distasteful Danish laws, he might have an argument.  Denmark's politicians would consider the state of international opinion on the topic as part of their cost-benefit analyses.

Even Russia and China have to consider that in their cost-benefit analysis as well.


As does Apple.

[Admiral Yi]

Because if you say that they can evaluate the demand from Russia, then you have to say they can evaluate the demand from the FBI as well. You are saying that they have the right to make a decision on their own about who they should or should not cooperate with - and if that is the case, then they have the right to refuse the FBI. Whether they should or not is another issue, of course.

They do have the right to evaluate the demand from the FBI and come to the conclusion that it so inherently evil that they can no longer in good conscience continue to conduct business in the US.

[CountDeMoney]

This issue would be even more interesting if only Steve Jobs were alive to deal with it.  He would probably throw something at a flunkie.

The colossal egoism of Steve Jobs versus the self-perpetuating arrogance of the Famous But Incompetent?  Now that would've been fun to watch.  Jobsless Apple is boring.

[Martinus]

This issue would be even more interesting if only Steve Jobs were alive to deal with it.  He would probably throw something at a flunkie.

The colossal egoism of Steve Jobs versus the self-perpetuating arrogance of the Famous But Incompetent?  Now that would've been fun to watch.  Jobsless Apple is boring.

I think Steve Jobs was more of an egotist than an egoist.

[CountDeMoney]

I think Steve Jobs was more of an egotist than an egoist.

I was on the shitter with my iDevice of iPain.  So ea me.