[Cryptography] Hope Apple Fights This!

[Allen]

>
> There is no either-or situation in this case. If they set a precedent
> of not fighting for both technical and legal protections, technical
> protections will mean nothing.  If lost, this case stands to set a
> precedent that the US judicial system will revisit time and time
> again, insisting that Apple create increasingly novel bypasses for
> technical protections.
>

Not exactly.  There are several different issues:

Issue A: If a device is hackable, to what extent can a court compel a
company to help hack it?

Issue B: If a device is unhackable, to what extent can a court compel a
company to modify a specific targeted device to make it hackable, for
example, can a company be forced to modify one user's device to install
spyware or make it easier to install spyware?

Issue C: To what extent can the court or congress compel device
manufacturers to install backdoors on every device they create?

If a case is not contested or fought, it does not set a precedent.  This
case is only Issue A; Issues B and C are much more important.  This case
does not present a good set of facts on which to win a fight on Issue A.
Conceding the case now would not set a precedent, while contesting the case
and losing would set a precedent that could ultimately affect the outcome
of Issues A, B and C; therefore, given the potential to lose on a bad set
of facts and setting a bad precedent, Apple should make this quietly go
away and save the fight for a better set of facts, or save it for fights
over Issues B and C which are much more important.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20160218/13578741/attachment.html>