Somewhere I read that the FBI did a very stupid thing: as long as Apple does not comply, and is very vocal about it, they can actually only win.

Given the general mistrust of the government in the US (well, make that about every country in the world), I can see that. How do you force an international company with the biggest financial warchest in the industry to do anything, given said company has not only the backing of the general public in this cause, but also their fiercest competitors (All the other tech companies would be stupid to not support them... if apple looses this fight, everyone just has lost)?

Is there a possibility for a big US tech company to actually leave the US, at least move their headquarters? I know this will not do much as long Apple still wishes to do business in the US, and given the size of this market it would be stupid to leave it.

But could stupid moves like this drive away US tech giants to, I don't know, Europe? Canada? Southern America? China? Russia? ... okay, the last few might not be too interesting at the moment because of either economical or social instability, but maybe that changes in the future?

At least if the FBI doubles down on it, and this isn't a singular mistake but the first in a whole series of the US government overstepping their boundaries?

I know this happened before: "If this comes through, we will leave <insert country name here>... we are an international company and not bound to the laws of a single country, yadda yadda"... never really have seen a company pull through though. Most governments where intelligent enough to back down, as soon as public support for the case did wane.

But could it happen at some point?

But could it happen at some point?

It seems fairly unamimous here that the FBI is playing dirty. I hope that in non-tech circles, the view isn't too radically different, although I really doubt it.

I read a little bit more about the story, and apparently the FBI were the ones that went public with it. I assume knowing full-well that the "Apple supports Terrorsits!!" tagline will be smeared across the news. This is what prompted Mr. Cook to write an open-letter about it. I'm not sure if the public leak it was official, "unofficial", or unofficial.

It's very concerning across the board. They've been barking up the "we want total information access" tree for years. They applied publicity smear in a case that will make Apple look bad for resisting, and then play stupid on the topic of mass survailence. "Yeah, we just want this one little phone unlocked". That's like asking someone to build a hammer that will only break a specific window.

The Obama administration has been surprisingly heavy-handed in regards to anything relating to national security. It's possible that the admin is just too weak to keep them on a tight leash, but i doubt that's the case. Any party that's in power when/if a medium-to-large attack occurs will lose their seat in the finger-pointing fallout, so I'm betting the tactics are going to be a pernament feature of our country for decades - at least until time-wearyness and 'old news' syndrome sets in and the public stops caring.

I think in this particular case Obama doesn't really care. This is his last year of his last term in office, so he's just not as interested imo (pretty much like all last term Presidents in their last year). In any event, this is going to be a problem for whoever becomes President next, cause it's not going to be decided this year for sure.

I think this has more to do with what the FBI is trying to make this look like and what really is the case. The FBI is trying to make this look like they are getting an unlock for one phone (the San Bernadino phone). In reality they are asking for something that is pretty much universal. It's like using an RPG where gentle pressure is required. If this were a court order to unlock one specific phone (this is what the court order wants to look like) then the answer to the question is obviously that Apple must comply. It'd be like a subpoena for phone records for someone who is a criminal. The thing is that the specifics of what they are asking for will be more than just one phone. That's what Apple is (correctly) arguing.

Apple is somewhat unique among US tech companies in making a majority of its revenue overseas, but they'd still be looking at leaving ~40% of total revenue on the table if they pulled out of the US. Not likely to get the board to sign off on that one

Actually I wonder what would happen if they quietly packed their HQ and design offices and relocated to Canada. Apple as a company doesn't need to stop selling in the US or hosting their stores and such there, but what exactly happens to the US government's demands for what are effectively developer services when the related developers are no longer under their jurisdiction?

I'm not sure what grounds the US government could block the import of Apple products for retail sale on in that case, especially if Apple as an entity was based out of Canada or Mexico.

I really don't think it will come to that.

Sure, Apple could decide the only way to fight it is to leave the US or to discontinue the products or make other enormous changes. The government could decide to implement import controls or tarriffs or duties. But those are unlikley in my view.

The order was carefully written, see my link to it back near the beginning on page 1 of the thread. Technically it is not that difficult for Apple to comply. The thing they need to do is not technically all that difficult plus they can get full payment for all the development costs. A six digit, possibly seven digit cost, and they are done. From what I've read, Apple helped them craft it so their in-house geeks could comply if there was a legal need; it is not technically impossible.

However, the bigger issue is the claim that it is not a legal order. The claim is the order is unlawful and the judge issued it in error.

Maybe when this all gets shaken out I'll be shown wrong, but I believe their strongest argument is the same one that has played out in several high-profile SCOTUS decisions over the past decade or so. Most of those decisions were unanimous and included direction to lower courts that technology decisions related to privacy and personal rights need to be considered in broader terms when they relate to potentially automated and bulk systems rather than individual or manual systems.

In all but one of those cases I'm aware of (a license plate reading case), it was either unanimous or nearly-unanimous that while a specific court order that affects one person's privacy related to a specific issue is okay, broad orders that affect or even potentially affect a large group of people outside that specific issue, a much tighter standard is needed. FBI keeps repeating it is a single phone, Apple is saying it is all of them. I think it is akin to asking for a rock that can only smash through one window, a saw that can only cut through one board, or a hammer that can only hit a single nail. In the software and hardware world, if it works on one it works on them all. The FBI is saying they only need help smashing through one, but are asking Apple for a tool that works on them all.

Freedom of speech is a solid argument, and they need to cover it. The novel requirement to invent something is sold because it is without precedent, so they need to cover it too. But being able to cite a bunch of recent SCOTUS rulings directly related to individual vs societal privacy is more solid than either of them.

Actually I wonder what would happen if they quietly packed their HQ and design offices and relocated to Canada.

But could it happen at some point?

In general, this doesn't happen in large, affluent countries.

Apple is somewhat unique among US tech companies in making a majority of its revenue overseas, but they'd still be looking at leaving ~40% of total revenue on the table if they pulled out of the US. Not likely to get the board to sign off on that one

Especially not after Apple just sunk nearly $5 billion building a new super-headquarters that they haven't yet moved into.

Oh I have no doubt that Apple is going to stay in the US, but it is still kind of an interesting scenario to run through. It isn't like they couldn't rent their new headquarters out (and with the low Canadian dollar and soft property market in some parts of Canada, they could potentially get more bang for their buck if cards were played right in a move.) while still selling Apple branded products and providing customer support in the USA.

But if they DID move their design, development, and upper management and financials out of the US, leaving just call centres and apple stores behind, then what could the US government really do to 'demand' anything of a technical nature out of Apple? Waterboard Apple Store techs and hope upper management caves? They would of course split the US retail and support division into its own company, so legally this would be like them arresting or harassing your neighbour when they wanted something out of you.

Especially not after Apple just sunk nearly $5 billion building a new super-headquarters that they haven't yet moved into.

Just because you moved your headquarters doesn't mean you move your workforce. All it means that the US has a little harder time forcing them to do about anything, and that they might have the government of the country they moved to as a new ally if they continue to resist the court order.

The US might actually have a hard time forcing Apple out of the US market should Apple not make a big mistake. See how well that worked until now for Russia and China and their plan to stop the US tech giants being the monopoly when it comes to both hard- and software.

Sure, Russian government agencies seem to run Linux by now, and AFAIK both the russian and chinese try to develop CPUs to rival Intel... but still Windows XP is as far as I know the widest spread OS in russia. Not Linux. Most of it cracked versions. Still a Windows version made by a big US company. I think we all know how many PCs likely are running on non-Intel, non-AMD CPUs.

Now, that might be different for Apple, as Apple is pretty much replacable in about every market they compete in in the US. But if people are attached enough to a companys products, they will just do grey imports, and swallow the bigger prices from inflated taxes and all that is linked to a product not officially available in a market.

The apple fans are famous already for paying premium prices for Apple products. Kinda hard to keep such a company off your market if you cannot flat out prohibit their products.

Stuff like that happened before. Most of the time as a method of tax evasion (yes, switzerland has gotten a lot of flak for that, for good reason. Nothing to be proud of).

Don't think a single event like this will trigger such a huge reaction though. To expensive for what currently is far from a lost case.

Especially when it looks like the FBI is just testing the water to see how far they can go until they meet resistance. Don't think anyone with some common sense would have thought about any tech company would comply with something so blatantly obvious a try to get a back door, especially not after all the NSA crap became public in the last few years.

Not sure what the FBIs play is. Maybe the start of a bigger campaing to get their noses into everyones private business again?

They applied publicity smear in a case that will make Apple look bad for resisting

If that was their plan they failed miserably. This only makes Apple look much better in the eye of the public.

Depends on the public. I've seen several articles bashing Apple, and multiple twitter users vowing to not buy Apple (ofcourse, everyone knows how valid internet vows are).

I've seen the same. There are a few over-simplified and poorly researched articles simply stating the surface details followed by user comments "JUST UNLOCK THE DAMN PHONE, APPLE" and such. Whether the articles are simply over simplified because of a crappy writer/reporter or to purp

They applied publicity smear in a case that will make Apple look bad for resisting

If that was their plan they failed miserably. This only makes Apple look much better in the eye of the public.

Depends on the public. I've seen several articles bashing Apple, and multiple twitter users vowing to not buy Apple (ofcourse, everyone knows how valid internet vows are).

I've seen the same. There are a few over-simplified and poorly researched articles simply stating the surface details followed by user comments "JUST UNLOCK THE DAMN PHONE, APPLE" and such. Whether the articles are simply over simplified because of a crappy writer/reporter or to purp

I saw a post earlier which indicated that just over 50% of American people surveyed think Apple should unlock the phone...

but then people believe all manner of dumb things so this should come as no surprise to anyone...

Yea I saw that too and I'm not too surprised to be honest. The majority of the public probably believes "Huh? It's just one phone why ain't they unlocking it? Apple be bad. They like terrorist.". The average public is pretty easy to fool (just look at any recent elections and the amount of crap slung by all politicians). All of us here have a pretty good understanding of tech and the implications of what's really going on here and we are not representative of the average person.