
Gov't: iPhone users are only licensees, and Apple owns all iOS installations - hackuser
https://www.justsecurity.org/27109/writs-act-software-licenses-judges-questions/
======
hackuser
For those that want to go down the rabbit hole of this lawsuit (which covers
many more issues than the one raised here), here are related posts:

1) [https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2015/10/federal-judge-
shi...](https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2015/10/federal-judge-shines-
spotlight-%E2%80%9Cgoing-dark%E2%80%9D-debate)

2) [https://www.justsecurity.org/26964/update-apples-
compelled-d...](https://www.justsecurity.org/26964/update-apples-compelled-
decryption-case/)

3) [https://www.justsecurity.org/27109/writs-act-software-
licens...](https://www.justsecurity.org/27109/writs-act-software-licenses-
judges-questions/)

4) [https://www.justsecurity.org/27214/quick-update-apple-
privac...](https://www.justsecurity.org/27214/quick-update-apple-privacy-
writs-act-1789/)

------
hackuser
tl;dr: The U.S. government is trying to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone. In
the lawsuit, the government is arguing that, because Apple licenses and does
not sell iOS, Apple and not the user is the legal, responsible owner.

It obviously could have wide implications, and it's karma for the companies
that try to deny end-users control and ownership.

~~~
ivl
Which in the end will only hurt users as the U.S. government is just
interested in compelling Apple to hand them user information.

~~~
hackuser
> Which in the end will only hurt users as the U.S. government is just
> interested in ...

How do we know what they are interested in or will be interested in in the
future? The U.S. government is many people with many interests, both of which
change over time. When the All Writs Act was passed in 1789, certainly the
government was not interested in compelling decryption of smartphones.

