Apple ordered to surrender coveted docs in iOS privacy lawsuit A US magistrate has ordered Apple to show in great detail how it goes about searching for documents it has been ordered to provide to plaintiffs in an ongoing personal information–slurping lawsuit, noting that he no longer trusts Cupertino's efforts to be on the up-and-up. "Luckily for Plaintiffs, Apple has provided more than …
Something tells me the EU fine isn't all that big, relatively speaking.
Where did that misconception come from? Apple and Microsoft are making money hand in hand. They own stock in each other's company since the big law suits of the past over GUI disputes alone. Apple is making just as much money off Office for Mac as Microsoft is. The Lawyers probably made a huge stipend too!
"What on earth are we coming to when a court flat out says it doesn't trust a large (supposedly responsible) corporation."
Business As Usual?
Large corporations have a long history of hiding/lying about the documents when big money is on the table.
Classics in the US are the Ford Pinto "let them burn" memo (and the intermittent windscreen wiper malarky) and the $200Bn+ damages paid by the major tobacco corporations when they were finally exposed as having a)Known Nicotine was addictive and carcinogenic for decades and b)Manipulated the level of Nicotine in cigarettes to dial up or down the level of addictiveness.
"What on earth are we coming to when a court flat out says it doesn't trust a large (supposedly responsible) corporation."
I and plenty of others have mentioned this already but it bears repeating:
A public limited company (or corporation if you like American-speak) is legally bound to be a psychopath, placing money above all other priorities including human decency. The original idea of a corporation may not have been like this. The original "incorporated company" was limited in what it could do and what other companies it could buy, and stakeholders (not shareholders) were partly responsible for what the company did in their name.
After a couple of centuries of lawyering in order to get more power than the original laws dictated, the modern corporation is far removed from the original.
What amazes me is that they were ever trusted to begin with.
Also the movie "The Corporation" is a good intro for people who don't know the history. It makes for depressing viewing. Nice if you're in a "fuck the world" mood.
(El Reg editors: The movie makers don't care if people copy and paste the movie around, though you can buy it for £2.49 if you like. Please don't delete me.)
If you read up on crowd psychology, it is obvious why a corporation (or government department) can act in an unethical manner given the wrong circumstances and motivations. No individual believes he is making a decision, he is just following the rules and acting within a whole.
Nothing all that special about corps. They need to be kept at arms length from public power, lobbying and also need to be kept well within the law. Doesn't mean they are evil, just that one shouldn't trust them blindly. Nor regulate them to death either. In this case, the judges are doing exactly what they should, esp. with Apple who has a history of corporate secrecy.
Having said that, in Corporation Chomsky spouts off that "in the good ol' days" a corporation was a governmental exclusivity to run something, like a bridge (don't recall the exact terms he used).
Chomsky may believe that a government-mandated exclusive monopoly is better than a modern corporation. I rather disagree.
Fundamentally, the problem is that, with the correct legal framework, a corporation can be compelled not to act overly against the public interest. Are we there? Not always. Starbucks' tax filings being an example.
A government-sanctioned entity on the other hand is being regulated by the government which has a vested interest in that entity's results and likely has a cozy relationship with its leadership. Take Fannie Mae in the US for example, Hanford nuke site, Repco in Japan, various state-owned air transport companies, public works in Spain, Greek public sector workers, etc..
Shining examples where strong government involvement benefited the public? I think not. Much better an arms length relationship between the government and public or private companies it regulates, with clear rules, as much regulation as needed, but no more, and lots of transparency.
Judging by the responses you got it seems that it has become a cereal world. It is hard to tell on a few of them, but others clearly take your comment cereal. I am not sure if it is Internet in itself or if it is the loonies roaming around the comment sections, but it seems that something has fatally wounded sarcasm, irony, goofy comments and untagged jokes as an art form.
So Apple "refuse" to comply because without providing evidence they can argue that the plaintiffs have no proof of wrong doing?
"Sorry your honour, we are not willing to stand trial for tax evasion. The HMRC suggests wrong doing but we are unwilling to submit our end of year returns until he proves we have committed a crime"
Typical apple...
Actually protection against self-incrimination is one of the protected rights under the US Constitution. But once you've got probable cause, certain non-confidential information can be required by the courts. That the case has been accepted is sufficient for me to believe probable cause exists and Apple are therefore bound to produce the documents. Documents would be protected if they were trade secret related, but then Apple would need to prove they fall under that category of protection.
What I'm surprised at is that Apple didn't appear to comply by burying the complaintants with too much data. Surely they could have produced it, and to me that would seem to be easier to disguise.
The other play is to bury the other side in paper and give them all the documents.
But note, either play is a means to hide facts.
Which means that there definitely is something to find.
But also note. Due process separates a law abiding society from a lynch mob or a dictatorship. When these lying b***ards have finished showing just how much they will wriggle and squirm to avoid trouble they can't turn around and say "The trial was not fair" because the documentation condemned them, not the plaintiffs.
Thumbs up to the judge for not putting up with Apple's corporate BS.
After all "BigBastardCorp" (whichever big bastard we are talking about) won't pay taxes so why not shaft them as thoroughly as we can with fines for even the slightest infraction?They wont pay taxes? Let us fine them instead at every possible opportunity. A very handy 0.75 billion from MS recently, now we should screw Cupertino for gazzillions per day whilst they fail to comply and while we are at it we should see what heavy fines will do for Mountain Veiw's attitude towards privacy. Indeed in the words of the Lord High Executioner from Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado", "I have a little list and none of them would be missed". In a paraphrase of something Denis Healy said in another era "let us fine them until the pips squeak".
Typically the client (Apple) contacts their highly paid law firm to run the case, who charge hundreds of dollars per hour for their counsel and attorneys while the data is collected and processed by an outsourced "partner" (read cheapest vendor quote). In the first instance the law firm would identify all individuals associated with the case and the data that is held, interview the individuals and have the vendor forensically image all the machines and servers (defensible process and cover their arses). The search terms mentioned would be part of a "living" document that continually gets updated as documents are "discovered", normally using software that's pretty much standard in litigation industry. Basically it looks data is either lost, the law firm has promised something different from what the court has said, the data discovered is highly damaging and all needs redacted, or Apple didn't give a flying fuck.
Choice is yours...
(An alcho as he also cares as little about the judges decision as Apple)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
