There seem to be a whole bunch of people waving around odd ideas.
The idea that this would be a new low is ridiculous if one takes the time to consider conscription.
If you don't like that the government can coerce you (conscription, work in jail, contempt of court, eminent domain, etc) then rally against those laws, rather than the court using established powers
> There seem to be a whole bunch of people waving around odd ideas.
No, it's not an 'odd idea'. The fact that the government can coerce you has lots of limits placed on it. Conscription and the draft have been abolished in most places in the developed world, contempt of court may get you jailed but will not - and can not - be used to force you to create something and eminent domain can only be used to take something away from you.
So yes, this would be a new low, it would mean that ordinary citizens that have broken no laws can be forced to create something that does not currently exist against their express desire (and maybe even against their capability, how do you even begin to check if someone should be able to do something).
It would definitely be a new low.
All the things you pulled into it have nothing to do with the matter at hand, those are other things that you may or may not agree with but they are not the same as being ordered by a judge to perform a job that you have no desire to if you yourself are not guilty of breaking any laws. It would be an abuse of power that to me is unprecedented in any modern society.
> eminent domain can only be used to take something away
> from you
... it was given as an example of coercive power of governments.
> it would mean that ordinary citizens that have broken no
> laws can be forced to create something that does not
> currently exist against their express desire
Only if you ignore conscription, which is alive and well in the US (Selective Service), and the counter-examples where contempt of court is used to compel people to "create" something.
It's in 'weird news' for a reason, it's not there because this is the normal state of things. Yes, there are idiot judges, and yes, the system is broken to the point where you have no recourse. But to use that as examples to prove that the whole system is broken is reaching.
> Only if you ignore conscription, which is alive and well in the US (Selective Service), and the counter-examples where contempt of court is used to compel people to "create" something.
Neither of which prove that you could use either of those mechanisms to make a computer programmer create a piece of software, which was 'the topic under discussion', so what's your point?
That the US is a crazy country? That some judges are crazy? That you ought to place some checks on Judges power? Or that you actually feel that any of the examples above would be enough to prove to any person reading this that a judge will order a person (not Apple, the company) to create some intellectual property or be jailed if they don't?
I wasn't sure at first, but now I think you're being actively dishonest to try and ...? Who knows.
> Selective service is a back-up plan that has not been
> used
Right. Except for WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, which drafted collectively 15m people, when has it ever been used? Either you knew that, and lied, or you didn't know that, and decided to speak authoritively on the point anyway. It would have taken you 10 seconds with Google to know either way.
> It's in 'weird news' for a reason, it's not there
> because this is the normal state of things
Right, because the Apple case is run-of-the-mill? The Apple case is "the normal state of things"?
You said it was a new low for the courts. It's not even close. That's my point. You're twisting yourself and your words in circles.
> I wasn't sure at first, but now I think you're being actively dishonest to try and ...? Who knows.
That's all in your mind I'm afraid.
> Right. Except for WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, which drafted collectively 15m people, when has it ever been used?
Yes, they were drafted. And since then the draft has been abolished and the US is at present operating an all volunteer force. Nobody got drafted into Iraq or Afghanistan.
That they can re-instate it does not change anything to the fact that right now the US does not have a draft. If you don't like the situation the way it is right now you have the following options:
(1) you can resist if a draft is re-instated, and you'll probably end up in a lot of trouble (I did this and got away with it (not in the US)) but it is possible to resist
(2) you can leave the country
(3) you can give up and get shot at for someone else's reasons
> Right, because the Apple case is run-of-the-mill? The Apple case is "the normal state of things"?
No, the Apple case is very much in the public eye and Apple is a very wealthy company. The courts may see fit to compel Apple to do this but if the employees resign I don't see how the courts are going to conscript them back into working for Apple, and so far nothing you've shown has made me change my mind on that.
> You said it was a new low for the courts. It's not even close. That's my point. You're twisting yourself and your words in circles.
No, I said it would be a new low.
If you feel that these other things are already below that then that's your right but for me there is a huge difference.
Anyway, I'm kind of tired of your personal attacks so I'll let this rest. Bye.
>>> Selective service is a back-up plan that has not been
>>> used
>> Except for WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam
> Yes, they were drafted
That's because Selective Service "is a back-up plan that has not been used" is a falsehood.
> And since then the draft has been abolished
"the draft" has not been abolished any more than "war is over". The specific drafts for each conflict are finished because the conflicts are finished. The US retains the right to draft its citizens in law, and it (in contrast to many other states) actively maintains a whole government agency just for that, and remains the right to prosecute - to this day - 18 year old men who don't sign up. In more than half of US States, when you get a driving license, you are registered explicitly as eligible for military service.
> If you feel that these other things are already below that
Do I think your country compelling you to kill people is lower than your country compelling you to patch a binary? I guess I do, on account of not being deranged.
- people have protested extensively when there was a draft
- as far as I understand, unlike in Russia or some place you actually aren't forced to work in jail. It's voluntary - they do it because they get paid and get extra benefits
- no eminent domain would be pretty insane... you wouldn't have highways or railways etc. without it... since it's been abused in the past - but it has it's place
Forcing people to work for the court does seems like a weird thing though. The whole "contempt of court" is a bit arbitrary (like you can be jailed indefinitely .. based on the decision of just a judge?) and just hasn't really been abused till now
> people have protested extensively when there was a
> draft
I agree. But so what? It's a criminal offense to not register with the Selective Service System to this day, a system that exists primarily to facilitate conscription.
> as far as I understand [snip]
The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery for convicted criminals, and that's the basis for jail work. Wikipedia has an article about "Penal labor in the United States".
> no eminent domain would be pretty insane
I agree, but I also think that about "no conscription" and "no contempt of court". I have no strong feelings either way on penal labour. I think the US Court compelling a company to do something is probably a right the court already has, but that's sort of what Apple's case is about, right?
> Forcing people to work for the court does
> seems like a weird thing though
And this brings me back to the original point. In the context of conscription, penal labour, corporate personhood, eminent domain, and all the rest of the circus, it doesn't seem especially weird to me. It seems like a rarely used but existing right.
What it's absolutely not is some kind of "new low".
Lavabit's amicus brief explicitly argues that interpreting the All Writs Act the way the government is trying to interpret it is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
I think Lavabit wasn't about All Writs, rather it was a simple pen/trace order?
Lavabit's problem was that they actually had access to the data, so they were capable of providing records and they didn't provide them. Then pen/trace laws require cloud email providers to provide this data to LE upon authorized request, and case law does not really support payment for hours expended to implement any data collection solution.
Demanding the SSL key in order to plug in their own packet capture (and we must presume appropriate filtering, yeah right) was a -- 'if you can't give us realtime feeds, we can get one ourself'.
So overall I think there are a lot of stark differences between Lavabit and Apple's case, thankfully. Apple is on much stronger legal footing. The corollary is iCloud and Apple has long since provided everything they had there, and there was no question they were required to do it.
As nice as it is to have the guy stand up for Apple I don't think that from a practical point of view there is anything that he could say that would make a difference.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand US courts from reading Groklaw and HN and Wikipedia, the arguments put forward in friend-of-the-court briefs can still be helpful to judges who may want to rule a certain way, but don't know all of the possible arguments they could use.
There's only so much time they and their staff have to do research, so members of an industry and their legal representatives can contribute if the judges are on the fence or just looking for arguments.
It's debatable that slavery was ever actually abolished - it was just formalised, given a new brand, and life went on. If you are the subject of a state, you do not have any rights beyond those which they choose to grant you - and their ultimate backstop and means of control is the threat of violence against the person. It is illegal to be stateless - you must be the possession of a state.
Now consider how slavery is defined. The slave-owners just got bigger.
