Obeying the court order would both significantly harm Apple's reputation, and would likely send it's stock south (it actually went up today after news came out of this). His duty is to his shareholders, and he did exactly what any CEO should do in that situation. Nevermind that if he complies to US lawmakers, every single country on earth will demand the same. No one actually trusts the Government with this tool to not totally abuse it right? That fact he got to tell the US government and FBI to #### themselves is just one of life's little bonuses.
It doesn't matter. You can't disobey a court order because you disagree with it, regardless of whether you think you have really, super awesome good reasons for disagreeing with it.
Your only recourse is to appeal and convince a superior court that your super awesome good reasons should win the day and the order should be quashed. And even then, you have to follow the order in the meantime unless you get a stay. This is non-negotiable. The alternative is, quite literally, criminal, and should result in an arrest and being thrown in jail.
There is simply no good excuse for not following a court order. There is rule of law for a reason.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 02-17-2016 at 03:12 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Obeying the court order would both significantly harm Apple's reputation, and would likely send it's stock south (it actually went up today after news came out of this). His duty is to his shareholders, and he did exactly what any CEO should do in that situation. Nevermind that if he complies to US lawmakers, every single country on earth will demand the same. No one actually trusts the Government with this tool to not totally abuse it right? That fact he got to tell the US government and FBI to #### themselves is just one of life's little bonuses.
His duty is to obey the law and courts, not shareholders. Unless you believe shareholders should be the ones doling out law and justice in US society. If the same thing were applied to documents held in a safe maker or a bank relating to a murder investigation, would the bank/safe have any right to impede an active investigation without incurring obstruction of justice charges?
His duty is to obey the law and courts, not shareholders. Unless you believe shareholders should be the ones doling out law and justice in US society. If the same thing were applied to documents held in a safe maker or a bank relating to a murder investigation, would the bank/safe have any right to impede an active investigation without incurring obstruction of justice charges?
The difference is Apple is being ordered to develop a new operating system to be applied to the phone, not hand over anything that already exists.
I'm not sure a court can order you to invent something for them, provide things already in existence or give testimony I get, this is wholly unprecedented.
It doesn't matter. You can't disobey a court order because you disagree with it, regardless of whether you think you have really, super awesome good reasons for disagreeing with it.
Your only recourse is to appeal and convince a superior court that your super awesome good reasons should win the day and the order should be quashed. And even then, you have to follow the order in the meantime unless you get a stay. This is non-negotiable. The alternative is, quite literally, criminal, and should result in an arrest and being thrown in jail.
There is simply no good excuse for not following a court order. There is rule of law for a reason.
I would imagine Apple could appeal the ruling and make a pretty argument about why it sets a bad precedent to 'hack' someone's phone.
His duty is to obey the law and courts, not shareholders. Unless you believe shareholders should be the ones doling out law and justice in US society. If the same thing were applied to documents held in a safe maker or a bank relating to a murder investigation, would the bank/safe have any right to impede an active investigation without incurring obstruction of justice charges?
But he is not personally being ordered to do this, Apple the company is. And as their CEO, he will always act in the best interests of owners, the shareholders. Could he ultimately be charged with obstruction? Maybe but that's a risky play for the government. This isn't a subpoena for records or a court order to hand over existing technology, they are being ordered to create a technology, one in the wrong hands (like I don't know...government for instance) could have catastrophic consequences for the company he represents, and millions of people.
Nevermind what he's being asked to do is develop technology that is basically designed to allow hacking. Cook has now wisely put all the pressure on the Feds instead of on Apple by publicly saying they won't do it voluntarily. If Apple is ultimately forced to do it, it looks terrible for the government instead of Apple doing it voluntarily, which looks terrible for Apple. He's played this very well.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I actually agree with Apple's decision not to make the backdoor. It's incredibly dangerous to have that kind of backdoor to encryption technology.
However, this goes to show the sheer power of corporations in the US. No one is going to go to jail. Apple might face fines, but I highly doubt anything more than that will happen.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
Dr. Carson very well spoken tonight. Quite likeable. His resume is amazing. Too bad he has some nutty ideas.
This format is odd - each candidate gets 50 minutes alone with the voters. I thought they would be on stage at the same time. Tonight, Carson, Cruz and Rubio.
I would imagine Apple could appeal the ruling and make a pretty argument about why it sets a bad precedent to 'hack' someone's phone.
And they're welcome to make it. They're not welcome to say, "Oh, Judge, I see you told me to do that, but I don't want to, so I won't." If that starts working, I'm not paying a speeding ticket ever again.
Incidentally I think the better argument is that it isn't within a court's jurisdiction to order a company to produce a new product. Because what they're really asking Apple to do is design a program to be used on their OS. I'm not sure a court can do that, absent clear statutory language. A court cannot, for example, order me to go and work at Subway tomorrow.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
And they're welcome to make it. They're not welcome to say, "Oh, Judge, I see you told me to do that, but I don't want to, so I won't." If that starts working, I'm not paying a speeding ticket ever again.
The ruling specifically stated "Apple has five days to notify the court if it believes the ruling is unreasonably burdensome."
Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP frontrunner Donald Trump "is not Christian" if he calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.
The Pope, who was traveling back to Rome from Mexico, where he urged the United States to address the "humanitarian crisis" on its southern border, declined to say whether American Catholics should vote for Trump.
But Francis left little doubt where he stood on the polarizing issue of immigration reform.
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.
Quote:
Trump immediately fired back on Thursday, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."
"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith," he said in statement. Trump added that the government in Mexico, where Pope spent the past five days, has "made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope."
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump added.
Quote:
Before the Pope left for Mexico, Trump called Francis "a very political person." He added, "I think that he doesn't understand the problems our country has. I don't think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico."
Trump also suggested that the Pope, who celebrated Mass Wednesday near the U.S.-Mexican border, was a pawn of the Mexican government.
In response, the Pope made light of Trump's accusations.
"Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person," he said. "As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people."
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
I still cannot believe people are still falling for Trump's traps. All he wants is attention, good, bad or indifferent. So what do people who want him to go away keep doing? Give him a chance to be the center of attention on a silver platter. Press is one thing, they need Trump financially, but things like this for the Pope....doesn't help anyone but Trump. Ignore that ####er and he'll go away. Keep prodding him and he'll be President before you know it.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith,"
Really? The Pope is empowered to excommunicate people. If anyone has the right to question someone's religion it's the bloody Pope.
Quote:
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump added.
This is not ISIS's ultimate trophy. ISIS's ultimate trophy is a victory at Dabiq. ISIS has no particularly strong interest in the Vatican; these are people of the book, to them. The Vatican isn't on their list of priorities. Rome would be more likely to get attacked.
Quote:
Trump also suggested that the Pope, who celebrated Mass Wednesday near the U.S.-Mexican border, was a pawn of the Mexican government.
There it is; he's gone full loony tunes again. Seriously I just cannot fathom how people watched him in the last debate and managed not to despise the guy.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
