News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by GraemeLion on Monday March 28, 2016 @06:42PM (#11378048)
Somewhat agree, but Apple DID have a court order they were fighting. They did choose to fight this legally adjudicated and issued order. The owner of the phone and the law enforcement both wanted the phone decrypted.

FWIW, I agree that privacy is ignored and should be respected, but apple chose this fight. I'm glad they did, but they knew it would cost them.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by Johnny555 on Monday March 28, 2016 @06:48PM (#11378092)
And the DoJ stopped fighting.

If the DoJ ultimately won the case, then it's fair that Apple should have to pay their legal costs.

But since using a 200 year old law to force Apple to do work they don't want to do was a legal stretch, if the DoJ lost the case then again I'd say the DoJ should pay Apple's legal costs.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by teacup50 on Monday March 28, 2016 @07:22PM (#11378277)
The law in question was passed the same week that congress submitted the fourth amendment.

Please stop parroting "200 year old law".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by Johnny555 on Monday March 28, 2016 @08:15PM (#11378586)
Oh, you mean in 1789, 227 years ago?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by teacup50 on Monday March 28, 2016 @09:09PM (#11378841)
Yes. The same week that the fourth amendment -- which is what provides us with strong protection against unreasonable search and seizure -- was approved by Congress.

Or do you refer to that as a stale 200 year old law, too?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing ... by gherkin0 on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @09:47AM (#11381390)
> They did choose to fight this legally adjudicated and issued order.

IIRC, but wasn't the order issued with only one side present at court (i.e. without Apple's attorneys being present to raise issues before it was issued)?

[ Parent | on HN ]