That is totally unfounded. Their book of business is huge. You think Google is paying 32B of shareholder dollars because of a foreign intelligence agency? Keep your conspiracism to yourself.
OK, but I think you missed the point of the question above. The point was whether a court can compel people to explain a secret code, and whether there should be a different standard, if that code involves the computer or not
But there is the essential difference — it is not the algorithm, whether performed manually or by machine, it is the testimony. A defendant need not testify against oneself. A computer cannot testify at all. The police can seize the computer and have a go at cracking it, it’s just a thing.
This one seems pretty cut and dry, frankly, since they’ve asked him to provide the code, and he refused. It sounds like the prosecution erred significantly in making closing arguments about pleading the fifth being indicative of guilty. The more interesting question, which is not involved in this case, is whether a defendant can be compelled to provide unlocked devices to law enforcement.
This deserves much more attention given the initial report’s high ranking throughout the day. It’s an important clarification to what’s happening. Even as a non-T-Mo customer, I was initially very concerned.
