Certainly not if they decide to quit before the actual final ruling. Even after the ruling, they could probably challenge it in court, with the equivalent of the argument of (as the NYT article points out) "you can't force a doctor to administer a lethal injection."
But any such attempt by US courts to get into the entrails of Apple's operations would be a breathtaking intervention by the government in the business of business.
The US government is worried about corporations leaving the country because of tax inversions? Wait till something like this happens: they ain't seen nothin' yet. Some of America's (and the world's) greatest companies will have the incentive to shut shop and leave, or even worse, US companies like Apple and Google simply won't create this kind of IP within its legal shores: it'll move to places like Ireland, India, and Israel.
I don't see how any employees threatening to quit will keep daily corporate fines from being levied. I've read about a case where a company was compelled to comply, because would eventually bankrupt them. No easy answer and the larger issue will be if this new encryption fines law..... goes into effect, will admin be jailed for contempt charges?
Now as to corporations leaving America? Come on do you really think a company the size of Apple would just pick up and leave....... when they are spending billions on new headquarters here? If Donald Trump sticks to his original plan if elected..... presented decades ago, in an expert witness appearance before congress in 1988 or 1991 (not sure but video in on YouTube), he's saying he has a plan to allow corporations to bring back a form of corporate tax shelter (like Beefalo Tax Shelter of 70's to 80's). Basically it would be a Reward System for investing that money in technology advancement, construction projects and things that bring jobs back to America.
So it would seems they'd get a two to five times write off the first year and that write off would then drop incrementally lower there after. Supposed to invigorate our economy. FTZ (foreign trade zones tax incentives) would also be offered to companies based in the USA. While anything produced outside the USA, would incur dramatically higher tariffs at some point.
If America is serious about building our economy, we'd be willing to compete directly with Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Singapore, etc on offering our own tax shelters to foreign based companies too. If you hate Trump now, over his big mouth against Apple, just remember he's a businessman and also former actor like Reagan with a Mensa Level IQ. It's all about the show and dramatic effects. He doesn't really hate Apple and in fact could end up being their best friend! ......but if he can convince voters he does, they'll more easily accept a new corporate tax structure that rewards corporations for bringing their money home and investing it here tax free!!!
In the cases that have been referenced as precedents, the fines were only applied once all possible appeals were exhausted. And fines only make sense if the court actually agrees with the government. It is far from certain that a new law will be passed soon, there seems to be more consensus in the creation of a new commission to study the matter
“Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
There is a rational conversation to be had regarding the balance between security and freedom. However, when the DOJ threatens to take Apple's source code, the conversation is over. Before surrendering a thing to our would-be overlords, I would liquidate, pay off the stockholders and burn anything left to the ground. NO ONE has the right to another's property, intellectual or otherwise.
It's true (as has been suggested) that one can't undo ("decrypt") the damage done by a bullet or a nail-bomb, or reverse the sale of a firearm to a known unstable person - both of which actually ARE, to some extent under the government's control, but which, for 'politically-correct', perhaps even politically-dishonest, or even "cowardly" reasons, are NOT being pursued.
A case could be made that the Federal Government has already put its citizens at huge risk by creating safe haven cities, in which known illegal immigrants, many of whom are known criminals - even convicted murderers - are immune from arrest and deportation; while are still committing crimes...
Similarly, in can be argued that allowing into the country, large numbers of "Syrian refugees", all of whose possible violent intentions, or future susceptibility to radicalisation is unknown, presents a huge risk, as occurrences in the EU have relentlessly shown, is a demonstrable case of Federal Government's neglecting its duty to protect its citizens.
These two examples (and there are many more) should give the government pause in its characterisation of Apple as "supporting terrorism", or somehow being "unpatriotic".
Mr Obama's insane pursuit of his empowerment of a future Nuclear Iran; simultaneously enabling its promotion- and support of unthinkable regional- and international terror, is just one more instance of an irrational move which will destabilise the whole world - not only the US or the Middle East.
Given these examples of unhinged, clearly-"anti-US" decisions; and the revelations of egregious Federal overreach, which Snowden and others have exposed, we should recognise the enormous conscious disconnect in the rationale which Mr Obama's government is applying in its demonisation of Apple and its employees, for "not doing the right thing".
Further to my comment above, what I find distasteful in the government's conduct over many of these security issues, is its open publication of discussions and disagreements with others over how to act in combatting- or preventing the rise in terror-based actions.
For instance, the "viral" publication of the video, in which several top officials - including the president - sit watching the take-down of Bin Laden displayed a level of insensitivity that I found worrying - even sickening. The whole world's being able to witness the President of the United States and other high-profile executives watching the action in a kind of morbid fascination is a sad reflection on how immature our leaders have become; and how ignorant that are of how they would appear to an astonished audience, who would have expected more of its elected government.
Similarly, the sudden rise of "on-the-spot" journalism during recent military actions in the conflict zones, has brought these wars, in the eyes of citizens, down to the level of video games. It seems to have been forgotten that there's almost no restriction of the viewing age for these TV broadcasts; and that even if there were such restrictions, it's unhealthy to the public's psyche to be bombarded several times a day, every day, for months at a time by such violence and on-line analysis by CNN- or RussiaToday staff who are right there in the thick of things. Report on progress by all means, but it's somehow demeaning of all sides, to have such in-your-face reality coupled with egregious justification by people like Cheyney and Rumsfeld; and backed up by smooth-talking (or otherwise) by inane presidents.
It seems also to be the order of the day, to demonstrate how clever we are at catching criminals and other fugitives from the law, by using our superior technology. This stuff should never see the light of day. By proudly demonstrating how we solved serious puzzles, we do more than display our cleverness - we show future perpetrators of these horrendous acts how to avoid unnecessary exposure. Far from being clever, these attempts to puff up our superiority turn out to be displays of our ignorance of the need for secrecy where it really matters.
These comments introduce and explain my reasoning; and bring me back to the point under discussion.
Was it really necessary, for instance, to make such a big thing of how difficult it can be, sifting through technologically-challenging evidence; and in so doing, raising such a stink? A quiet, unpublished, high-level discussion with Apple and other technology organisations might have achieved an unprecedented level of cooperation; and probably quietly resolved the unblocking issue without alerting the world to how it was done - a solution which would NOT have raised an eyebrow; and got everyone's back up into the bargain...
It's for this reason that I brought up my first points. It seems that a mature approach to secrecy - real silence about the methods used - has been lost. Where sense an reason really matters, our government has regressed.
Just as most of the world today seems devoid of real leadership, a proper, professional approach to military action; and to combatting crime and terrorism appears to have fallen by the wayside, in the scramble for point-scoring and puerile demonstrations of superiority which - if we have to point it out - is really no longer there.
Public outbursts, arrogant forcefulness and legal orders seems a wrong-headed way to evoke cooperation. How can it be that citizens recognise this, but our leaders don't?
Comments
A case could be made that the Federal Government has already put its citizens at huge risk by creating safe haven cities, in which known illegal immigrants, many of whom are known criminals - even convicted murderers - are immune from arrest and deportation; while are still committing crimes...
Similarly, in can be argued that allowing into the country, large numbers of "Syrian refugees", all of whose possible violent intentions, or future susceptibility to radicalisation is unknown, presents a huge risk, as occurrences in the EU have relentlessly shown, is a demonstrable case of Federal Government's neglecting its duty to protect its citizens.
These two examples (and there are many more) should give the government pause in its characterisation of Apple as "supporting terrorism", or somehow being "unpatriotic".
Mr Obama's insane pursuit of his empowerment of a future Nuclear Iran; simultaneously enabling its promotion- and support of unthinkable regional- and international terror, is just one more instance of an irrational move which will destabilise the whole world - not only the US or the Middle East.
Given these examples of unhinged, clearly-"anti-US" decisions; and the revelations of egregious Federal overreach, which Snowden and others have exposed, we should recognise the enormous conscious disconnect in the rationale which Mr Obama's government is applying in its demonisation of Apple and its employees, for "not doing the right thing".
For instance, the "viral" publication of the video, in which several top officials - including the president - sit watching the take-down of Bin Laden displayed a level of insensitivity that I found worrying - even sickening. The whole world's being able to witness the President of the United States and other high-profile executives watching the action in a kind of morbid fascination is a sad reflection on how immature our leaders have become; and how ignorant that are of how they would appear to an astonished audience, who would have expected more of its elected government.
Similarly, the sudden rise of "on-the-spot" journalism during recent military actions in the conflict zones, has brought these wars, in the eyes of citizens, down to the level of video games. It seems to have been forgotten that there's almost no restriction of the viewing age for these TV broadcasts; and that even if there were such restrictions, it's unhealthy to the public's psyche to be bombarded several times a day, every day, for months at a time by such violence and on-line analysis by CNN- or RussiaToday staff who are right there in the thick of things. Report on progress by all means, but it's somehow demeaning of all sides, to have such in-your-face reality coupled with egregious justification by people like Cheyney and Rumsfeld; and backed up by smooth-talking (or otherwise) by inane presidents.
It seems also to be the order of the day, to demonstrate how clever we are at catching criminals and other fugitives from the law, by using our superior technology. This stuff should never see the light of day. By proudly demonstrating how we solved serious puzzles, we do more than display our cleverness - we show future perpetrators of these horrendous acts how to avoid unnecessary exposure. Far from being clever, these attempts to puff up our superiority turn out to be displays of our ignorance of the need for secrecy where it really matters.
These comments introduce and explain my reasoning; and bring me back to the point under discussion.
Was it really necessary, for instance, to make such a big thing of how difficult it can be, sifting through technologically-challenging evidence; and in so doing, raising such a stink?
A quiet, unpublished, high-level discussion with Apple and other technology organisations might have achieved an unprecedented level of cooperation; and probably quietly resolved the unblocking issue without alerting the world to how it was done - a solution which would NOT have raised an eyebrow; and got everyone's back up into the bargain...
It's for this reason that I brought up my first points. It seems that a mature approach to secrecy - real silence about the methods used - has been lost. Where sense an reason really matters, our government has regressed.
Just as most of the world today seems devoid of real leadership, a proper, professional approach to military action; and to combatting crime and terrorism appears to have fallen by the wayside, in the scramble for point-scoring and puerile demonstrations of superiority which - if we have to point it out - is really no longer there.
Public outbursts, arrogant forcefulness and legal orders seems a wrong-headed way to evoke cooperation. How can it be that citizens recognise this, but our leaders don't?