Re:FBI argues it can force Apple to turn over iPhone source ...
by spaceheeder on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @09:01AM
(#11289244)
The argument that Apple is too-big-to-compel is in the same spirit as arguing that they're too-rich-to-compel. So my closing question stands: if Apple prevails, how likely are courts to treat this as a precedent if and when the government goes after a small fry again?
Re:FBI argues it can force Apple to turn over iPhone source ...
by oddevan on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @09:47AM
(#11289538)
I would think so. My understanding of the Lavabit case was that it was upheld on procedural grounds and thus not precedent-setting. Apple has the money and the will to fight this so that it is precedent-setting* and thus usable by the not-as-expensive lawyer protecting the next Lavabit.
* By which I mean I could see Apple purposefully fighting this to the Supreme Court, even if it means "appealing" a case they've already won so that it goes to a higher court.
Re:FBI argues it can force Apple to turn over iPhone source ...
by ogsharkman on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @09:35AM
(#11289461)
I'm not sure if it's a matter of precedent for the small frys. By that I mean, even if there is precedent you still need a tremendous amount of money/legal power to fight.
If Apple were ordered to close in an instant, there would be mass upheaval, unrest, protests, and huge economic losses just because of the sheer number of people that depend on their products on a daily basis for mission-critical things. Violence would break out. We might even end up facing nothing short of a civil war, and the federal government probably wouldn't want to risk that.