zlacker

This isnt a traffic stop. Companies of size have daily relationships with law enfocement. While they certainly have obligations to customers, we cannot expect companies to be aggressively confrontational in every situation.

>>sandwo+(OP)
I don't think it needs to be confrontational to say "no" when it's not required by law. In the US we have been led to believe that it's confrontational to stand up for your rights to police (e.g. to deny IDing yourself when asked without being detained, etc in most states).

>>sandwo+(OP)
I would definitely pay more for an iPhone for Apple to hire more lawyers to (legally) obstruct law enforcement requests

>>sandwo+(OP)
The current state of things with a lot of big tech interactions with law enforcement seems to be "that's great! lets work together on making this easier!", they don't come off as even questioning law enforcement requests beyond the minimum needed to cover their backs, let alone being anywhere near approaching 'aggressively confrontational'.

>>sandwo+(OP)
That's why we have process like warrants and judicial review. For the law to set appropriate limits and procedure to demonstrate necessity. In practice even this is usually not enough, and too many warrants are court orders are approved.

>>asveik+E2
Warrants are to obligate companies. We must also accept that some companies actively want to cooperate. They have their own agendas over who owns what data, agendas that often conflict with the views of privacy advocates. One would hope that market forces would drive these companies away but that doesnt seem to happen much these days.

>>ddooli+n
But what if one is wrong about one's rights? A person mistakenly asserting themselves might have a car window smashed and spend a night in jail for obstruction. But a company mistakenly asserting rights can see equipment seized, fines, civil liabiliy, and possibly very negative regulator treatment. It is not unreasonable for a company to be very careful when saying no to US law enforcement. Cassually telling the cops to "stuff it" is a protest best left to individuals at the roadside.

>>sandwo+04
Sorry to go there, but it's more or less the same as saying there were some in 1930s Germany who "just wanted" to cooperate with their government. Being too lazy or ignorant of why the checks and balances exist and voluntarily violating their spirit is not really an excuse, and I give no one a pass for it. If it's important and justified, they can follow the law and get a warrant.

Your comments read as someone who isn't aware of all the terrible stories of cops not doing their jobs correctly and in some cases going after innocent people on the flimsiest of evidence. They should not be trusted by default.

>>asveik+y6
No, they read like someone who has had to write realworld policies on handling such requests, not lawschool dissertations where there are no consiquences.

>>sandwo+d6
It is unreasonable. But it is a broken system.

I mean, in general, there shouldn't be situations that are described as "mistakenly asserting rights". But as you say, the alignment and incentives are opposed, and it's too easy, not better, for companies to choose the path of least resistance, rights be damned.

>>sandwo+d6
If the cops are asking, it means they need your permission and you have the right to say no. They might be dicks about it but if they’re asking, you can say no. Conversely if they don’t need your permission, they won’t bother asking. And you can always verbally tell them you don’t consent to searches; you only really get in trouble for physically interfering.

Also, companies in particular have lawyers whose entire full time job is to know when to tell the government to “stuff it” (though usually in much classier terms). Apple famously did this with the FBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute