They could be found in contempt of court, FBI could raid Apple's US locations and confiscate all their computers. Farfetched but not completely out of the realm of possibility.
Apple should relocate all software development outside of US immediately, and it needs to be to a country that is not a US puppet and can stand up to pressure. That makes at the most two, neither of which could probably ultimately withstand US sanctions and none of Apple's software engineers are going to want to live there.
Great idea chasing the single largest taxpayer out of the country.
Do you think they can afford to raid and consficate Apple's? BS!
I can see it now. At the event next Apple announces this is their last town hall for the old Apple campus. Also WWDC will be in Ireland this year for reasons. IOS is likely to be delayed for reasons of moving the core OS team out of the country.
The FBI's actions are a repeat of the McCarthyism era - coercion, intimidation and deceit.
McCarthy was a national hero.
Uh, sure...if you think attacking military heroes in the 1953 Army-McCarthy hearings, which caused a massive public backlash against McCarthy and turned up not a single communist spy, and a subsequent bipartisan 67 to 22 Senate vote of condemnation for "conduct unbecoming" makes him a "national hero". McCarthy's Gallup Poll approval ratings went from 50% to 34% by June of that year. Maybe you have some internal definition of hero that no one else shares.
Uh, sure…if you think attacking military heroes in the 1953 Army-McCarthy hearings, which caused a massive public backlash against McCarthy and turned up not a single communist spy…
Yes, I think that the rest of his hearings–which turned up numerous commies and proved the sheer volume of marxists and marxist sympathizers in government, et. al.–certainly override that. Of whom do you speak specifically? I’d like to look this up.
…67 to 22 Senate vote of condemnation… …Gallup Poll approval ratings went from 50% to 34%…
What makes you think that this is an objective statement? My avatar is a hero of the North American indios, despite them vilifying him for decades.
McCarthy was a drunk and a bully who remains a byword for 'demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.' (Wikipedia).
The Venona Intercepts proved that the only thing McCarthy was wrong about was that his list of Soviet spies was too short.
Yeah, we don't need to follow the CONSTITUTIONAL Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure, we're just looking out for you!
This has nothing to do with unreasonable search and seizures. The FBI has gotten a warrant for this search.
I don't think the FBI has issued a warrant to Apple because they do not own the iPhone to be searched or the data/evidence in question. That is why they are using the AWA to conscript Apple's assistance as a third party.
With probable cause you can obtain a warrant for a safety deposit box search served to the bank because they own the box and only rent it to the user, or served to the contents' owner. Apple is more removed from the evidence than a bank or it's client in this respect. They neither own the phone or data, nor do they have access to the data on the phone owned by the San Bernardino county.
This has nothing to do with unreasonable search and seizures. The FBI has gotten a warrant for this search.
I don't think the FBI has issued a warrant to Apple because they do not own the iPhone to be searched or the data/evidence in question. That is why they are using the AWA to conscript Apple's assistance as a third party.
With probable cause you can obtain a warrant for a safety deposit box search served to the bank because they own the box and only rent it to the user, or served to the contents' owner. Apple is more removed from the evidence than a bank or it's client in this respect. They neither own the phone or data, nor do they have access to the data on the phone owned by the San Bernardino county.
Apple is the designer of the phone and does own or license the software in the phone that is preventing the FBI from recovering the data. I suspect that a law could be written that is constitutional that would force Apple to "unlock" or assist the FBI.
I don't think the FBI has issued a warrant to Apple because they do not own the iPhone to be searched or the data/evidence in question. That is why they are using the AWA to conscript Apple's assistance as a third party.
With probable cause you can obtain a warrant for a safety deposit box search served to the bank because they own the box and only rent it to the user, or served to the contents' owner. Apple is more removed from the evidence than a bank or it's client in this respect. They neither own the phone or data, nor do they have access to the data on the phone owned by the San Bernardino county.
Apple is the designer of the phone and does own or license the software in the phone that is preventing the FBI from recovering the data. I suspect that a law could be written that is constitutional that would force Apple to "unlock" or assist the FBI.
Your reply doesn't address my argument about a warrant. The FBI issued a warrant to Apple for the phone's iCloud backup because it resides on their servers (i.e. possession.) The FBI issued the AWA to Apple to conscript their assistance because they do not own or possess the evidence.
It is the passcode/phrase that prevents the FBI from getting the data, not the phone design or software. Without a passcode, the same software would allow access to anyone at any time.
Speculation about some as-yet-to-be-written law may be simple wishful thinking on your part. CALEA rules enacted in Congress may apply here and supersede the AWA, but that is for the Supreme court to decide.
Comments
What makes you think that this is an objective statement? My avatar is a hero of the North American indios, despite them vilifying him for decades.
With probable cause you can obtain a warrant for a safety deposit box search served to the bank because they own the box and only rent it to the user, or served to the contents' owner. Apple is more removed from the evidence than a bank or it's client in this respect. They neither own the phone or data, nor do they have access to the data on the phone owned by the San Bernardino county.
It is the passcode/phrase that prevents the FBI from getting the data, not the phone design or software. Without a passcode, the same software would allow access to anyone at any time.
Speculation about some as-yet-to-be-written law may be simple wishful thinking on your part. CALEA rules enacted in Congress may apply here and supersede the AWA, but that is for the Supreme court to decide.