Hacker News Reader

Comment by studentrob | Hacker News Reader

So, signing the code constitutes Apple saying this code is safe to run. But Apple doesn't think this code is safe to run. The argument will be that forcing them to sign the modified code is compelled speech. Interesting.

Is there any reason Apple can't use more than one argument in its defense?

According to USA vs. New York Telephone, "unreasonable burdens may not be imposed". I think Apple will bear quite a burden if it must force its engineers to implement this code. It will be telling them to reverse their work and go against company values. Also, the public is going to know the outcome of this case. If Apple doesn't come out cheering, we will all know its security features have been weakened, which will impact sales.

View on HN

Amusingly, you're allowed to use multiple, mutually exclusive defenses:

"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading

I had no idea. Thanks for sharing.

People routinely use multiple defenses, I'd be amazed if they didn't have a lot more than this.

But Phone companies do actually do quite a lot to cooperate with their host countries TLA's - I think Apple is naive to use this defence as the FBI CIA and the NSA will just tell the judge but ATT does XYZ we are asking for a lot less.

Apple should have thought about this before they got into the phone Biz.

Because another company agrees to say something they're being asked to doesn't diminish your right not to say something you don't want to say.

That's not the point here Apple are trying to claim this requestby the FBI would be burdensome if ATT etc do far more then that defense is flawed and will not work.

>Is there any reason Apple can't use more than one argument in its defense?

No.

> go against company value

I wonder how it would go down if they said it was against their religion, a la Hobby Lobby.

This comment feels a bit underhanded. The free speech argument is pretty good, is it not?

Hobby Lobby's argument (and the supreme court decision in their favor) involved the element of being "closely held". Apple would need to have over 50% of its stock owned by 5 or fewer individuals to satisfy that requirement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com