Elspeth

Sir_Turkey said:

Like anyone is going to quit and if they do they'll regret it. Do they wear monkey suits over at Apple ? 

I imagine quite a few of them are likely to quit. Maybe after a wink and a nod, but these people are incredibly employable, so quitting is a decent option. (Like Google wouldn't hire the lot in a heartbeat.)

JeffA2 said:

radster360 said:

Though I hope that there is no GovtOS, would these employees be charged with "Contempt of Court"? 

No, no individuals are named in the court order. Apple is named and therefore Apple would be cited as in contempt. It's up to them to manage their employees. 

Apple cannot be cited for contempt if the thing becomes impossible...but that would probably require more than a handful of people quiting. Now if Apple fires them all you'd have yourself some juicy contempt. 

netrox said:

The government CANNOT compel companies to do something that they did not commit. Apple did not commit a crime.

The government can and does...all the time. It's called a subpoena. Those are issued all the time against people who have done no wrong but have information the government needs(either in documentary form or in their heads...a subpoena compels you to turn over documents and things or compels you to testify or both)

What the government cannot do is make someone a slave or indentured servant...which is what an order against the employees would amount to (and yes, the draft is involuntarily compelled service, as is jury duty, but both are identified in the constitution). The government cannot simply hold a gun to your head and order you to code (well some of the thugs making up government could, but it would be unlawful).

radster360 said:

Though I hope that there is no GovtOS, would these employees be charged with "Contempt of Court"? 

The court order is against Apple. The court presently has no jurisdiction over individual employees.  That could be established, but then the USDOJ would be fighting the case on multiple fronts because the individuals have rights in addition to those pled by Apple (namely the constitutional ban against slavery and indentured servitude). Further, once they are no longer employees it would violate U.S. law for the coders to unilaterally use trade secret information without consent of the owner of that trade secret (and a court could not lawfully order otherwise because the prohibition is a statutory one that Congress would have to override first.)

that the feebs are finally saying "well then give us the source code and keys" indicates that someone on their legal team finally understands the All Writs Act. Apple can only be compelled to turn over that which it has. It has the original source code and security authenticate codes. Apparently, the feebs don't employ or contract with any hackers who can reverse engineer the source code which would moot the first part but not the second part.