The full headline on BoingBoing is much better than the abbreviated version: "DoJ to Apple: your software is licensed, not sold, so we can force you to decrypt." The HN headline just means that DoJ hasn't given up the fight; the full headline makes it clear that there's a novel legal argument involved.
While the DoJ's legal argument here is insane and it deserves to be thrown out with prejudice, software companies have happily used the "we're not selling this to you, we're licensing it to you" argument to justify all kinds of gross anti-consumer behavior - including Apple, when they used it to crush Psystar. It's a long shot, but I wonder if the DoJ prevails here it'll make companies think a little harder about whether licensing is the correct way to distribute software, and if consumers might end up getting some rights back because of it.
If DoJ prevails, I would think that the original thoughts that decided licensing was better for a company than selling would still prevail, and they'll just comply with the new legal environment.
The wording that the link discusses is in the pdf[0] section 1.a. on pg 13. Which, for reasons beyond my understanding, argues the point "Apple is not 'far removed' from this matter". The DOJ is discussing a phone that pre-dates iOS 8.
I think the main argument in the linked document is that Apple has the ability to unlock pre iOS 8 phones, and has done it before. Again, that "Apple is not 'so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled.”
The OP seems wrong but IANAL.
> it doesn't have the technical capability to do so;
Like with iMessage, their claim "we can't" seems to have the catch "today, without changing the code and patching it". While they have a whole bunch of safeguards, they're still actually incomplete as far as I can tell.
In other words, Apple design their security measures under the assumption that they themselves are not the enemy. That's not good enough anymore. If you get compromised, you become the enemy. The designer should lock even themselves out, the end user should be the one in control.
If my phone is protected with a 4 digit pin, and someone has physical access to it, why is it so hard to decrypt? Can someone point me to an explanation of the hardware that protects my data?
Isn't the ability to sell their phone in other markets (e.g: APAC) a clear desire to win? I'm not gonna buy or recommend a phone if I know my competitors can tap into it anytime?
[+] [-] gdwatson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Analemma_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|10 years ago|reply
It is a delicious twist, though.
[+] [-] amdolan|10 years ago|reply
I think the main argument in the linked document is that Apple has the ability to unlock pre iOS 8 phones, and has done it before. Again, that "Apple is not 'so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled.”
The OP seems wrong but IANAL.
> it doesn't have the technical capability to do so;
Is factually incorrect in this case... Right?
[0] https://ia801501.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.3...
[+] [-] Natanael_L|10 years ago|reply
In other words, Apple design their security measures under the assumption that they themselves are not the enemy. That's not good enough anymore. If you get compromised, you become the enemy. The designer should lock even themselves out, the end user should be the one in control.
[+] [-] Natanael_L|10 years ago|reply
If you're the only one to decide what software runs on it, this crap can't be enforced against you.
[+] [-] snissn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klodolph|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_stretching
[+] [-] astrange|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|10 years ago|reply
If this goes badly and loses on all appeals it is over.
[+] [-] kalessin|10 years ago|reply