[uxp]

What is the alternative available to Apple, or any other technology company, when given a valid warrant for someone's data that isn't blatantly ignoring the law? I'm honestly not sure what you are suggesting.

Apple has already given them Farook's iCloud backups, just not recent ones since they don't exist. If Alice was murdered, and Bob was circumstantially implicated, but had an iPhone that had some kind of data recorded that placed him at the time and location of the murder, what law exists for Apple to protect Bob's data if that data was uploaded to Apple for backup purposes?

[greglindahl]

This discussion is a bit confused. There are plenty of "valid" subpoenas or search warrants which are squashed after being opposed in court. I'm not sure if the other commenters really believe that no company should ever oppose a search warrant, or if they think "valid" search warrants can't be opposed, or what. But opposing an over-broad or otherwise screwed up "valid" subpoena or search warrant is a necessary part of the American legal system.

[uxp]

Correct. That's what I was trying to deduce, the difference between a valid warrant (eg, a warrant following CALEA for communications data stored on a third party server), and a warrant that is currently being argued as invalid (eg, a warrant for Apple to create software that allows some party to brute force a PIN without restriction).

Sure, it would be nice for Apple to oppose even "valid" warrants for iCloud data backups, because I trust them to keep my data safe on my device, so why should I have a reduced expectation of privacy when using their services. After all, they have billions in cash in some Scrooge McDuck mansion just waiting to be spent on lawyer fees, right? /s

[greglindahl]

Sorry, do you think the first example shouldn't be subject to opposition? The search warrant could still be over-broad or defective in one way or another, even if it jumps through the CALEA hoops and was signed by a judge. The concept of "valid" that you're using is fuzzy and unclear.

I agree that the second case - court order to create new software - is a lot more obvious and clear, and deserves opposition in court.

The reason I'm being so pedantic is that it's important to disagree with the notion that corporations should roll over in any situation that involves claims of terrorism. Lots of people think that, but it throws away an important part of our legal system.

[Bluestrike2]

Absolutely. But if the court challenges fail over this hypothetical warrant, there's a reasonable expectation for compliance. We live in a rule-based society. It works because people, and especially the government itself, are expected to follow those rules.

[DanBC]

Apple got a valid warrant here! But they fought back against this one.

I'm not saying they're wrong to obey court orders.

I'm saying that people will be saying that Apple fight against court orders when in fact they don't usually fight the court orders. They normally give out the information.

[zepto]

No - in this case it was clear to Apple that the warrant was not legal, which is why they chose to fight.

When warrants are clearly legal, there is nothing they can do to fight them.

They only give out the information they are legally forced to do, and are doing everything in their legal and technical power to reduce that as much as possible.

[uxp]

Yes. Exactly. Apple and every one else (company or individual) is required, by law, to comply with valid warrants. When one receives a warrant or any kind of legal request that they feel is invalid, the only way to challenge that potentially illegal or invalid request is to not comply and then let the courts decide. If there is existing precedent then they could be held in contempt. If there isn't precedent then hopefully one will be made by the result of the challenge.

The idea that the Govt can only issue "valid" warrants is flawed. The Government is just people, and like everyday citizens like myself, we're perfectly capable of breaking laws, either unintentionally (eg, giving a lift to a friend who has undisclosed controlled substances on their person (state dependent)) or intentionally (eg, murder).