Apple said in court filings last month that it would take from six to 10 engineers up to a month to meet the government's demands. However, because Apple is so compartmentalized, the challenge of building what the company described as "GovtOS" would be substantially complicated if key employees refused to do the work.
"Such conscription is fundamentally offensive to Apple's core principles and would pose a severe threat to the autonomy of Apple and its engineers," Apple's lawyers wrote in the company's final brief to the Federal District Court for the Central District of California.
After interviewing Apple engineers, it has been revealed there is indeed a discussion among Apple employees about resisting any court order to deliberately weaken Apple security. Key engineers have said they may quit the company if forced to participate.
Huge fan of civil disobedience, and up till now it didn't occur to me that Apple engineers may quit. It seems like the government may really have no way at all of forcing the decryption of the iPhone without forcefully conscripting engineers into service, which is unlikely.
Good news everybody!
Related Stories
At a press conference, an FBI spokesman blamed industry standard encryption for preventing the agency from accessing the recent Texas mass shooter's locked iPhone. Reuters later reported that the FBI did not try to contact Apple during a 48-hour window in which the shooter's fingerprint may have been able to unlock the phone. Apple said in a statement that after seeing the press conference, the company contacted the FBI itself to offer assistance. Finally, the Washington Post reports (archive) that an FBI official acknowledged Apple's offer but said it did not need the company's assistance:
After the FBI said it was dealing with a phone it couldn't open, Apple reached out to the bureau to learn whether the phone was an iPhone and whether the FBI was seeking assistance. An FBI official responded late Tuesday, saying that it was an iPhone but that the agency was not asking anything of the company at this point. That's because experts at the FBI's lab in Quantico, Va., are trying to determine if there are other methods, such as cloud storage or a linked laptop, that would provide access to the phone's data, these people said. They said that process could take weeks.
If the FBI and Apple had talked to each other in the first two days after the attack, it's possible the device might already be open. That time frame may have been critical because Apple's iPhone "Touch ID" — which uses a fingerprint to unlock the device — stops working after 48 hours. It wasn't immediately clear whether the gunman had activated Touch ID on his phone, but more than 80 percent of iPhone owners do use that feature. If the bureau had consulted the company, Apple engineers would likely have told the bureau to take steps such as putting the dead gunman's finger to the phone to see if doing so would unlock it. It was unclear whether the FBI tried to use the dead man's finger to open the device in the first two days.
In a statement, Apple said: "Our team immediately reached out to the FBI after learning from their press conference on Tuesday that investigators were trying to access a mobile phone. We offered assistance and said we would expedite our response to any legal process they send us."
Also at Engadget.
Related: Apple Lawyer and FBI Director Appear Before Congress
Apple Engineers Discussing Civil Disobedience If Ordered to Unlock IPhone
Senator Dianne Feinstein Claims That the FBI Paid $900,000 to Break Into a Locked iPhone
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @04:49PM
They should not quit their job or refuse to do the work. What they should do is do their best to delay the project, introduce bugs, provide incorrect documentation, and make so many mistakes that the code is not usable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Friday March 18 2016, @05:02PM
They are probably better of quitting their job then. What you are suggesting sounds dangerously close to sabotage or probably be in defiance of a court order if one came down. It might even be considered obstruction of justice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:20AM
It might even be considered obstruction of justice.
Curious, it sounds more like Microsoft to me, albeit with the twist that it would be intentional?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:23PM
That's called contempt of court and is not very smart. The court expects you to take them very seriously and they can put you in jail if *they* perceive that you don't. Yessir, nossir is the correct behaviour. Don't fuck around.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by oldmac31310 on Friday March 18 2016, @06:41PM
Sad that the legal system is not deserving of anyone's respect. I'd say fuck the court. The onus is on them to prove obstruction, contempt etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:25PM
lol you know the judge can just "find" you in contempt, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Friday March 18 2016, @07:11PM
There is a proven strategy called Italian Strke [wikipedia.org]
Work-to-rule is an industrial action in which employees do no more than the minimum required by the rules of their contract, and precisely follow safety or other regulations in order to cause a slowdown, rather than to serve their purposes.
It has been described as a decision to "Give the rules a meaning which no reasonable man could give them and work to that."
They would be in a good position to execute this as the price of any error is as high as prison term. In fact I can't see myself doing the job even if I try to - any reasonable progress involves cutting corners nowadays and it's plain too dangerous in this case.
Quitting on the other hand could provoke court actions.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @07:29PM
Directive 10-289
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @04:50PM
...which is unlikely
That's funny that... How much are you willing to bet that there aren't people lining up to do this work for them? How many people do you actually expect to have morals and wouldn't flog off their mom for a sack of French porn?
You'll quickly find that everyone has their price... either monetarily or punitively.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 18 2016, @04:55PM
That's fine, but if I were an Apple competitor I'd be ready at the door with a job offer in hand, because talented, ethical engineers are exactly the kind of guys I'd want to hire.
For the engineers in question, integrity trumps complicity if you're not a base coward. It's times like these when the real men (and women) stand tallest.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @04:58PM
because talented, ethical engineers are exactly the kind of guys I'd want to hire.
No, you don't. The people that you do want to hire are those that will do exactly as you say, unquestioning and with utmost loyalty to you and to you only. You want ruthless money-whores.
If you hire people that can think for their own, and have morals and could refuse to do your bidding, they are of no use to you as a business owner!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 18 2016, @05:29PM
If you hire unethical people they will probably do unethical things that will harm you and your company. Of course, if you mean as a business owner to be a scumbag, then you would certainly want to hire the scumbags you describe. Everyone else, not really.
That's why it's kind of hard for felons to find work.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:39PM
That's why it's kind of hard for felons to find work.
Yes.... because, we as a society, believe that people never change! That is why we never ever, ever let anyone convicted of anything at all out of prison. We lock 'em up and throw away the key. Because people won't change! It's also why we have the Revenge and Punishment Institutions and not Correctional Institutions, because it is no use 'correcting' these people, they will never see the errors of their ways. All we can do is inflict pain, punishment and degradation upon them. Because that's the only thing they deserve.
That is why we should destroy these specimens as soon as we nab them.
And you, you with your couple of speeding tickets and parking tickets. You will never change too. You should be locked up forever! You're a danger to society, and you always will be!
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Friday March 18 2016, @06:21PM
We should should be willing to give felons a second chance, but how can you tell if they are truly reformed? When you loose society's trust, it takes a long time to earn it back.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:25PM
even longer when you lose it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @07:16PM
Are you saying that you don't believe in the correctional system then? Clearly, if they haven't been corrected after their sentence, it isn't working accurately, no?
What's you solution? Longer prison sentences? Maybe something more along the lines of 'indefinite' sentences? Until we 'feel' they have changed? But not too soon, they may be faking it...
On an unrelated note: do you have stock in Aramark or G4S or something?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:38AM
"If you trust someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if they don't they never were." - with apologies to Richard Bach
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:42PM
Another perspective: convicted felons were careless enough to get themselves caught.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday March 18 2016, @06:27PM
Even scumbags don't want to hire scumbags, because they know they will get screwed by them eventually.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Friday March 18 2016, @05:40PM
The people that you do want to hire are those that will do exactly as you say, unquestioning and with utmost loyalty to you and to you only.
You mean like these engineers that are clearly on their boss's side on this topic?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:02PM
This is true, from what I've seen in biomed research all it takes for most people is a threat of inconvenience. "Why are you cherry picking data and hyping up your study? Doesn't this pretty much lead directly to the suffering and death of desperate sick people?" "Because if I am honest it will be too difficult to publish in a prestigious journal."
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 18 2016, @06:23PM
I'll respond since you quoted me. You goofed on your reading comprehension there. Add more to the sentence:
Unlikely was being kind. This isn't about finding new people, which is a huge assumption it could even work, but the likelihood of being conscripted into service.
It is indeed highly unlikely the government could conscript those specfic engineers back into the company, or even into a special government project. It would be exactly akin to Vietnam and being drafted into the service and "police action" against your will. How is unlocking the iPhone like going to war and being drafted into the military? Can we argue that drafting citizens for technical projects is morally and ethically valid, much less Constitutionally?
As for Apple hiring other people back which is easier, that would be a quite valid delay in the courts. Apple would have to find them, which let's say it's as easy as you describe. You must still then assume that they found serious talent, but also face an uphill battle since the original engineers are gone.
If you've ever had to go into a massively complicated and large platform to refactor it, I think you would understand how difficult and time consuming a process that would be. Legitimately, it could take 3-5 years. Apple said 10 months with the engineers who made it in the first place.
Bottom line is that if the government wants access to the data in any tactically viable time period in which they could use it, they truly do need to win the hearts and minds of these specific Apple engineers. Sounds like the chances of that are a snowball's chance in hell :D
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:01PM
6 to 10 engineers for a month to do what??? Change an IF statement from 10: try again, to != -1: try again or change try++ to noop. Needing signing rights, yeah yeah blah blah blah.
But then again the GOV is brain dead too. Pop the NAND and copy it, standard forensics. Repeat testing and reloading until done. Yeah, yeah ten tries. Place into COW system, or cached with write protect. A little cost (free compared to Lawyers). and blah blah blah again.
This is a question of who has the largest P__s! Put them on the table and be done!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:08PM
You've never heard of a TPM, haven't you?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday March 18 2016, @05:09PM
largest P__s!
What on earth is a P__s! ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:16PM
"P [blank] [blank] s"
"Pets" makes sense - if you've got a pet tiger and the other party has a goldfish then you are likely to win if you put them on the table together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:18PM
But what if you make them battle under the water?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 18 2016, @06:25PM
While an interesting point, you do know that tigers can swim right?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:40PM
But how long can they hold their breath... I'm sure the tortoise/goldfish would win in this battle in the long run...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @10:01PM
Not necessarily. The long run need not be. The tiger only needs to bite the head off of its opponent and the fight is over. Then they can surface and breathe again (assuming you're not condemning the combatants to live underwater thereafter entering the competition, because then the "victor" becomes either "no one" or "life forms that live in water").
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:20PM
People don't usually put pets on a table though. Pens are often put on tables.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 18 2016, @05:50PM
Maybe "piss"? Competitive urination on top of a table sounds rather difficult to measure without a bucket or something, though.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:42AM
It's a metaphor.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pissing+contest [urbandictionary.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by oldmac31310 on Friday March 18 2016, @06:45PM
Clearly you don't have one if you don't know what is implied.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:44PM
Calm down McAfee, we are well aware you can do this with a rag-tag team of geniuses without Apple's consent!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @10:35PM
This isn't so easy because most likely the nonvolatile memory in question is internal to some chip package, with the only external access through a microcontroller (in the same package) enforcing the policy to access the keys. Most likely the chip could be decapsulated and then the internal memory could be copied, but this is an expensive and risky process (could destroy the memory by accident).
Apparently Apple implemented some of the access policy (rate limits on PIN entry, self-destruct) in updatable firmware, which was probably a mistake as it makes the court's demands technically possible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Friday March 18 2016, @05:04PM
Apple doesn't even have to suspend operations. They can just move everything offshore. A 100 different countries will gladly take them in.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:11PM
No they won't. Because Apple doesn't pay all the taxes it should. (hey, look at me everyone, I just turned this into a discussion on 'is it immoral/illegal to minimize your tax burden' - it may not be illegal, but I think it is immoral)
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday March 18 2016, @05:23PM
If they chase the "honor" of hosting the Olympics, they'll chase after Apple. China specifically will probably build them a whole city and house them in luxury under 3 month just to stick it to the US for all the H1Bing. Russia and Brazil won't hesitate too long either once they realize it will stop the brain drain.
compiling...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday March 18 2016, @07:00PM
Almost any country would accept re-basing Apple on their soil, even if Apple avoids tax. The Income taxes and domestic spending from all those high-paid employees is more than sufficient inducement.
Want proof? This is EXACTLY the agreement most countries work out with any large manufacturer that wants to open an office. Even some/most US states
have such plans. Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon all get custom tax loopholes in states where they have plants.
Corporate Tax forgiveness is generally a good deal for the hosting state/country. Much as the jealousy crowd likes to lament "tax dodging", it is done with the knowledge and wink of the local governments. Some voice some regrets later [washingtonpost.com], but almost any jurisdiction will offer tax breaks to keep any industry.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @11:58PM
only traitors, cowards and/or idiots pay income tax.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:47AM
They moved five divisions of the company to Hollyhill, County Cork, Ireland. There are 4000 Apple employees there.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/05/apple-tax-investigations-europe-united-states-cork-ireland [theguardian.com]
http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-announces-major-expansion-european-headquarters-ireland-2179331 [ibtimes.com]
http://fortune.com/2013/11/01/on-site-at-apples-famous-irish-headquarters/ [fortune.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday March 18 2016, @05:10PM
...is that you need to stop before you're in over your head. A lesson that the FBI apparently has not understood.
Arrogant bastards, they figured Apple would cave. Then they figured they would cave rather than fight it in court. At this point, there it literally no upside left for the FBI. Even if the courts rule for the FBI - which seems very unlikely - imagine the publicity if a principled company and principled engineers refuse to comply.
Throw them in jail? Apple is a lot more popular with voters than the FBI. Congress would pass a law within days. On top of that, to anyone with half of a brain, it's obvious that the principles really are on Apple's side here. The government has no moral or ethical right to conscript labor. Slavery was abolished a few generations ago.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:14PM
Even if the courts rule for the FBI - which seems very unlikely - imagine the publicity if a principled company and principled engineers refuse to comply.
... and it would be forgotten in about 48-hou-aahhhhh... look shiny bobble....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @07:40PM
bauble
(Score: 2) by cellocgw on Friday March 18 2016, @10:14PM
no, not "bauble," but "bobble." Go read your Vernor Vinge
Physicist, cellist, former OTTer (1190) resume: https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
(Score: 3, Funny) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday March 19 2016, @06:54AM
Neither "bauble" nor "bobble" but "bourble" - check your Neil Simon.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:12AM
Congress would pass a law within days.
What makes you think the law would be in favor of Apple's position?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:38PM
"...principled engineers refuse to comply."
I'd like to see some discussion about the principled managers refusing to comply, the principled CxOs refusing to comply, etc. This has all the hallmarks of getting the workers to sacrifice while the bosses eat caviar and shrimp cocktails. Is it all down to the guys at the coal face to take the principled stand?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:42AM
The managers are irrelevant; they don't possess any specific knowledge or skills essential for this project. If any of them refuses, you can just get any generic one to replace him, because management wise, it's a trivial project if the developers cooperate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:45AM
And they get paid for... what exactly?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday March 18 2016, @06:56PM
Slavery has not been abolished in the US, it has merely been made a government monopoly. Or do you think that the labor of prisoners isn't slavery for some reason?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:48AM
Also, conscription is another form of indentured servitude. No free country would ever practice it, but since the US government still technically has the power to create a draft, the US cannot be called free.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:53AM
Since 1941, Congress has shown a remarkable reluctance to declare war. They didn't do it over 9/11 and I doubt they'll do it over the San Bernardino shootings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @03:51AM
Since 1941? The problem is that the government has the power to conscript people *at all*; it doesn't matter if it's unlikely to actually use that power.
Anyway, we've had all kinds of wars, even if they are not called wars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @04:27AM
The text of the 13th Amendment seems applicable to your point:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. [emphasis mine]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 18 2016, @05:21PM
It doesn't hurt that the company behind them has more $$$ than the U.S. govt.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @05:22PM
Have you seen the budget of the US Govt? Please think before you fart out of your mouth!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 18 2016, @05:47PM
Well if you factor in the national debt...after a cursory googling it appears the U.S. is still a few trillion in the hole if we decided to sink the entire GDP into paying it off.
So in that sense, any organization that's in the black "has more money than the U.S. government."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday March 18 2016, @06:12PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14340470 [bbc.com]
Get out of here anon.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @05:36PM
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 18 2016, @06:19PM
Was I talking about valuation? No, I was talking about cash on hand:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14340470 [bbc.com]
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/22/investing/apple-stock-cash-earnings/ [cnn.com]
It really doesn't matter how much money the USG is worth, if it is busy spending that money on uncontrolled growth in entitlements and interest on the debt. Does your $50 trillion figure take into account the $19 trillion in debt (likely to rise to $25 trillion or more)?
Go derp on some more topics please.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 18 2016, @06:30PM
> cash on hand
See QE, QE2, QE3 for instruction on how the Govt can inject 80 Billions a month into whatever their cause is.
Granted, they're less likely to do it for a lawsuit than for their banker friends, but the precedent isn't exactly old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:30PM
What a ridiculous argument. What difference does cash on hand make? It's the government, they print the money.
Not to mention they could strip Apple of its corporatehood, or seize their assets, or just inflate their cash on hand into worthlessness if it really came down to it. Or, hell, just blow them up, no matter where in the world Apple ends up.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 18 2016, @06:34PM
You're argument is just as ridiculous since it completely ignores the relationships between Apple and members of the Legislative branch.
Whatever the government would want to do to Apple, would eventually be dragged into Congress. Assume nothing at that point, since Congress doesn't serve America, but serves monied interests, like Apple.
Nothing will happen to Apple through Congress simply because of principles. It's going to be washed through the circus that is politics.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @09:31PM
Whatever the government would want to do to Apple, would eventually be dragged into Congress. Assume nothing at that point, since Congress doesn't serve America, but serves monied interests, like Apple.
There's always a retarded argument for how big business is going to end up on top of these pummelings from government. It's circular reasoning to assume Apple is going to triumph just because that confirms your biases about big business. But if that were true, this affair wouldn't have happened in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:43PM
no matter where in the world Apple ends up.
And that place will henceforth be called a 'terrorist safe-haven' so we'll get our friend to help us bomb it into the dark ages... Oh, and you can't do any kind of business with that place anymore either because of international sanctions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @06:33PM
It really doesn't matter how much money the USG is worth, if it is busy spending that money on uncontrolled growth in entitlements and interest on the debt. Does your $50 trillion figure take into account the $19 trillion in debt (likely to rise to $25 trillion or more)?
Yes, I was severely understating the value of the US government monopoly because of those liabilities. Of course, as a business, one of the first steps would be to contain and rollback those liabilities as much as possible. I think if there were no debt and long term liabilities at all, the US government would be worth somewhere around $100 trillion (I think they can extract more revenue than present out of the US economy).
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 18 2016, @06:31PM
That's just adorable. I guess we're completely and totally ignoring each and every aspect of political and regulatory capture. Yeah, the USG has some resources, and yes again, it has a LOT of them.
Who's it run by again? Who do those people look to for campaign contributions? Are they writing the laws, existing as the true power base of the USG, or is the American Legislative Exchange Council authoring legislation and just handing it them?
"People who derp on about the power of the governments over corporations don't have a clue"
FTFY
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @06:41PM
That's just adorable. I guess we're completely and totally ignoring each and every aspect of political and regulatory capture. Yeah, the USG has some resources, and yes again, it has a LOT of them.
Why do you think regulatory capture would look different, if government were driving? That's one of the ways to monetize government power.
Who's it run by again? Who do those people look to for campaign contributions? Are they writing the laws, existing as the true power base of the USG, or is the American Legislative Exchange Council authoring legislation and just handing it them?
Yet more ways to monetize government power.
The main story shows the hollowness of your assertions. Apple, one of the largest corporations in the world, is fighting hard to keep a single law enforcement agency from walking all over Apple and its customers. If corporations were really that powerful in the first place, this wouldn't have happened at all.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @06:54PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:53PM
As other have said, the FBI's case is getting harder and harder.
If the FBI does win their legal case, I could see Apply saying "Well guys, we are being forced to do this.." and the engineers promptly quitting. Being a developer myself, I could see that. and I believe that in future job interviews, such a reason for leaving their previous employer would be viewed as a "pro" instead of a "con".
Then the situation turns into Apple selling the FBI "we'll need to find more qualified engineering staff before we can begin work on this" further drawing it out (with all new interviewees being unqualified to make the changes, those positions never get filled, mean while the legal appeals go on).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @07:13PM
I believe that in future job interviews, such a reason for leaving their previous employer would be viewed as a "pro" instead of a "con".
Really? Do you really think that? Let me run you through an exercise:
interviewer: Why did you leave your previous employer?
you: I didn't want to do something my boss told me to do.
interviewer: Can you elaborate on it?
you: yeah, a court decided we should do X but we didn't want to do X. My boss didn't think we should do X either but he asked me to do it and I didn't want to do it.
interviewer: Thank you, that'll be all. We'll be in touch...
The point I'm trying to make is that what X is, is not important. What is important is that
a) you refused to do something your boss told you to do, so you're insubordinate
b) you refused to do something that a court told you to do, so many people will -wrongfully- assume you too are a criminal
c) you do not respect the rule of "The Law(tm)", the specific one is of no importance, you went against "The Law" which so many people hold up as being final & to be obeyed because "The Law is Good"
I think you're being overly optimistic. The hope you have is related to those checkboxes on employment application forms that ask "Have you ever been arrested" or "Have you ever been convicted of a felony"... Sure, there is a section that says "If so, please explain" but you and I both know that if you check it, that application goes in the bin directly and the explanation is never read.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @07:42PM
You want to abstract away the issue into a generic "x", and claim "x" is unimportant.
That "x" here is ethics, and ethics are very important, especially to employers. That is why I feel many future employers would (in addition to siding with Apple already) see such an engineer quitting rather than performing unethically as a "pro", or at a minimum, as not a bad thing.
This starts to get into philosophical discussion, but anyway, addressing the part about "the government and its law".. You seem to have the mistaken idea that the government is the highest law in the land. It is not. People are.
When the government and its laws no longer serve the people, you have unrest (and we have much unrest today). When that unrest builds, multiple things can happen, and two primary ones are (a) reform can happen and address some of the issues (again, caving to the people), or (b) unrest builds into revolt (again, led by the people).
Personally, I feel this country is on a course leading to revolt, because the government does not really serve the people's interests. FBI v. Apple is just another drop in that bucket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:01PM
You want to abstract away the issue into a generic "x", and claim "x" is unimportant.
That "x" here is ethics, and ethics are very important, especially to employers. That is why I feel many future employers would (in addition to siding with Apple already) see such an engineer quitting rather than performing unethically as a "pro", or at a minimum, as not a bad thing.
I think you are confusing "should be" with "is".
This starts to get into philosophical discussion, but anyway, addressing the part about "the government and its law".. You seem to have the mistaken idea that the government is the highest law in the land. It is not. People are.
Again, "should be" vs. "is". The government is the only enforcer of the law, not 'people'. Those people are easily replaced by the government if they don't do its bidding^W anymore.
Additionally, I was talking about perception by the interviewer, not an absolutist "the government and its law".
When the government and its laws no longer serve the people, you have unrest (and we have much unrest today). When that unrest builds, multiple things can happen, and two primary ones are (a) reform can happen and address some of the issues (again, caving to the people), or (b) unrest builds into revolt (again, led by the people).
Let's hope it's "a" because if not, good luck with your handguns and your AR-16 against armored vehicles, apache gunships, Predator drones, Reapers drones and Global Hawks...
Personally, I feel this country is on a course leading to revolt, because the government does not really serve the people's interests. FBI v. Apple is just another drop in that bucket.
Again, see above, good luck with that... Let me know when you want to talk about "the military would never execute unconstitutional orders"...
You are correct about FBI vs AAPL being just a drop in a huge bucket though...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:14PM
The build up of unrest to revolt doesn't have to escalate to the point of bloody war. But it can.
Often though the revolt is the simple act of outspoken public protesting, enough to get more attention, and hopefully bring the reform before it reaches the point of physical violence.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday March 18 2016, @08:00PM
If doing "X" has a negative impact on the companies customers hurts the companies long term interests then by refusing to do "X", even to the point of resigning, you demonstrate by your actions that you put the interests of the company above your own. That is the sort of person I want working for me.
"X" always maters. Any interviewer who doesn't ask is an idiot. Every interview I've had where they asked why the last place let me go ended up offering me a job because the respected what I did.
Anyone who will just blindly follow any instruction they are given, even if it will hurt the company, are the most dangerous employees to have around. If the company tells them to lie, they lie. OK by your view but remember that if they will lie for you they will lie to you. You would never be able to trust them.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:16PM
There is actually one situation in which you are legally allowed to refuse to do something your boss says. If you, in your own judgment, consider that what you are being asked to do is unsafe, you may refuse to do it. Your employer is not allowed to penalize you for that. If it does, you have legal recourse.
Obviously, safety regulations don't apply here. If an Apple employee quits rather than following court instructions, he won't have legal protection. But my point is the idea of "insubordination" being so cut-and-dried is unrealistic.
I disagree with your statement that an interviewer would just terminate the interview at that point. It depends on the company. If you're interviewing for a company that makes, say, micro-transaction based mobile games, then, yeah, they're looking for people who say "yessir" and do whatever they're told. But if the applicant in your mock interview were applying for a company that made, say, security or encryption software, or perhaps medical software, and "X" in your example were "implement a backdoor that would compromise the security of our product and the privacy of our users", then I agree with the parent commenter - I think such an organization would definitely consider that a plus.
Personally, the sort of employer whose interviews are a list of check-boxes are not the sorts of places I would want to work. I guess I should consider myself fortunate that my skillset and experience mean I can choose not to work for places like that. While I don't work for a place as glamorous as Apple, I'm sure any ex-Apple employee would have no trouble finding another job at a company worth working for.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 18 2016, @08:00PM
It sure seems to me that Obama is doing everything he can to push younger (and especially tech) voters to vote GOP and/or Trump. The Democrats have sadly become the party of authoritarianism and government snooping.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:30PM
lol have u even heard of da tooobz ?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quacking duck on Friday March 18 2016, @08:36PM
Trump and the other leading GOP contenders at the time spoke out solidly in favour of the FBI's position on this matter. Publicly, Clinton is on the fence, and I don't recall if Sanders spoke about it.
So I fail to see how GOP/Trump is in any way aiming to get away from authoritarianism and government snooping.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 18 2016, @10:28PM
The only candidate who would be pro-privacy here is Sanders, but the Democratic party is doing everything they can to sideline him and make Hillary the nominee. And the idea that Hillary would be any better than Obama is pure fantasy; if she says anything different, it's because she's lying to get votes. Remember how Obama did a 180 and adopted Bush's policies when he was elected? Hillary will be no different, except that she's not even bothering to make as many nice promises as Obama did when he was campaigning the first time.
Oh well, whether Trump, Cruz, or Hillary wins the general election, at least I'll have 4 years where I can tell the Hillary supporters, "I told you so".
Anyway, my contention is not that voting GOP will get us away from authoritarianism. My contention is that Obama's actions are turning people off of the Democratic party, especially younger voters, and in doing so, they're going to cause many people to not vote at all, vote third-party (like for Jill Stein), futilely write in Bernie's name, or vote Trump out of spite, and the end result will be that either Trump or Cruz (or whoever the GOP nominates) will win. Obama isn't endearing himself and his party to the tech-savvy younger crowd.
Of course, it's totally impossible to say how the election will go at this point. We could even see Paul Ryan running on the GOP ticket, if the GOP has a brokered convention. And we could see Trump running as an independent. I should hope if that happens that Bernie will say "fuck it" and do the same; that could be really interesting.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:16AM
to the tech-savvy younger crowd.
I'm tired of seeing this. Just being able to use Facebook and a few applications does not make someone tech-savvy. Most young people do not understand technology to any meaningful extent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @09:44AM
Sanders used the word "balance," as in: there should be a balance between privacy and governmental intrusion. Other major-party candidates looked even more favorably upon snooping.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @09:51AM
This is what Sanders said:
The quote was broken up in such a way that I'm unsure whether something was omitted.
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/02/19/102411/ [siliconbeat.com]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/18/bernie-sanders-staying-out-apple-fight-government/ [washingtontimes.com]
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Monday March 21 2016, @03:26PM
So we have both Democratic contenders at least not siding 100% with the FBI in public. Not as good as speaking outright against them, but still far better than the leading Republican contenders who all tripped over themselves to support the FBI and condemn Apple.
(Score: 2) by BK on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:53AM
Did you ever really believe that the Democrats were not the party of authoritarianism and oppression? I mean really?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:02PM
Sorry, kimosabe. I'm not a libertarian or a nihilist or a guy who does FTFY, but FTFY.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by BK on Saturday March 19 2016, @05:13PM
Agreed. Good edit.
...but you HAVE heard of me.