Re:Jan Koum: “I couldn't agree more with everything [Apple] ...
by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @06:01PM
(#11122262)
> What is suspicious about this Cook's statement is that he was able to publish it.
No, its not.
> I believe this kind of government requests
Its not a request.
> is usually made with a strong non-disclosure agreement
An agreement requires someone to agree. You probably mean a gag order, not a non-disclosure agreement. In any case, whatever you believe is normal is irrelevant: this is a public order, which was widely reported on before Cook's statement.
> So, either the consequences were not that bad or Apple has chosen to ignore them for the good cause.
Its clearly the first: there were no consequences for disclosing the order, since there was no secrecy provision attached to it and, in fact, it had been published and widely reported prior to Cook's response.
No, its not.
> I believe this kind of government requests
Its not a request.
> is usually made with a strong non-disclosure agreement
An agreement requires someone to agree. You probably mean a gag order, not a non-disclosure agreement. In any case, whatever you believe is normal is irrelevant: this is a public order, which was widely reported on before Cook's statement.
> So, either the consequences were not that bad or Apple has chosen to ignore them for the good cause.
Its clearly the first: there were no consequences for disclosing the order, since there was no secrecy provision attached to it and, in fact, it had been published and widely reported prior to Cook's response.