Apple unlocked at least 70 iPhones before refusing to hack into terrorist’s device

ny daily news ^ | 18 Feb 2016 | MEG WAGNER

[DiogenesLamp]

I think that since before the nation was founded, inability to comply has always been recognized as a valid defense for not complying with a legal order or a legal responsibility.

This says nothing about how long it is going to take. It simply means that if Apple isn't lying through their teeth, they won't have to comply.

As I said, their conniption fit implies they know this defense isn't going to work because their asserted inability to comply isn't true.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ah, back to your know nothing, unknown blogger that no one has ever heard of before, eh, Johnny-one-note?

His statement seems pretty self evidently true. If Apple can update locked phones, then that's pretty much it, isn't it?

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, and if they can't, why are they throwing a fit? They have a ready defense for failure to comply with the Judge's order. It goes like this:

"We can't."

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh, how you love to take things out of context.

"Or alternatively at an Apple facility" is pretty self explanatory in or out of context. Your position was that there isn't the slightest hint of a suggestion that Apple can keep that phone.

I excerpted that sentence because you couldn't seem to see it when it was in context.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's exactly what they are telling the judge. The judge is trying to tell them they have to create one.

If Apple isn't lying, it won't matter if the judge tells them to do it or not. Inability to comply is a valid legal defense for not complying with a legal order or legal responsibility.

I think they are throwing a fit because the can comply, and just don't want to.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's exactly what they are telling the judge. The judge is trying to tell them they have to create one.

If they are telling the truth, they won't have to do anything. It has always been a valid legal defense if you are unable to comply with a legal order or legal responsibility.

I think they are throwing a fit because they are perfectly able to comply, but don't want to do so.

[CA Conservative]

They might be able to create the tool - but the court has no authority to order someone to create a new product against their will.

[Carry_Okie]

I think this is the fact that keeps getting ignored by the Apple cheer leading team. Apple has already done this many times before, and according to one article, admits they can do it in this case as well.

This phone uses a very different encryption technology than those they "unlocked" before. To give the government a way in with this system is to violate the security of every phone they make.

[DiogenesLamp]

This phone uses a very different encryption technology than those they "unlocked" before. To give the government a way in with this system is to violate the security of every phone they make.

No it wouldn't. That's just Apple propaganda that they are circulating amongst the public because they don't want to do it.

Read this court filing posted by Ray76.

It lays bare Apple's attempt to deceive people.