Our justice system is just not well-designed to hold police to account.

There's no neutral, separate prosecutor to bring charges against the police. Instead, it's on District Attorneys and regular prosecutors--the same offices that bring charges against citizens and work with police witnesses every day of the year. Incentives are misaligned. Prosecutors, for the most part, are strikingly reluctant to pursue legal action against fellow law enforcement. They are nearly coworkers, in the sense that they see each other often and rely on each other to accomplish their day to day jobs.

Local police are rarely prosecuted and even more rarely convicted even in serious cases, like officer-involved shootings: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/us/police-involved-shooting-c...

The chance that federal police will see consequences for breaking copyright law looks slim.

Two reasons I see:

1) Nobody guards the guards

2) Being anywhere in the process of enforcing the DMCA on law enforcement will end your career (well, maybe with the exception of the secretary and the janitor). You can only cross the blue line once.

Grayshift isn't law enforcement though, they're a private company that is creating DMCA violating products. Apple has every right to sue them, and hopefully recover some compensation for how they have sullied Apple's brand.

As much as I hate the DMCA, I think this is the perfect suit with only upside:

1. Apple loses. DMCA is weakened for legitimate security research. Yay

2. Apple wins. My security in my person and belongings is strengthened against unlawful interference. Yay

Wouldn't scenario 2 potentially strengthen DMCA and make it more difficult to do legitimate security research in the future? That's quite a big downside.

Yes, but the obvious bounce back would be amendments called for by police to the law. Which puts us back in scenario 1

3. The world is a big place and flaws are exposed in other countries.