Appeal to Authority - "a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument"
Absolutely, and you realize that when it comes to legal matters that's exactly why we have lawyers (like the OP post author) and why lawyers spend years becoming lawyers so we pay them stupid amounts of money to interpret and opine for us on what a judge (or jury) will think of a given case? And why we don't consult people who flip burgers or drive taxis what their opinion about the same case is.
Where people are getting confused here is the difference between having an opinion on what you think legislation should be around evidence tampering (public policy) vs how a judge or court would decide on this specific issue given the laws as they are on the statute today (law).
What the OP wrote about is about is this specific case. How lay-people in this thread think a court would decide on Moxie and Signal's actions, if bought to court, is frankly irrelevant and especially when arguing with someone who is highly qualified! That fact that people here don't get this is the very point I'm making - you're not lawyers.
Matters of the law are all about Appeal to Authority, I don't understand what the problem is with that (have you never paid for a lawyer before??). Matters of public policy are for the public, there's a subtle difference.
Sorry to be just replying to your thread salawat but this applies to most of the comments here.
Laws aren't a black box that only lawyers and judges are allowed to discuss and interpret. The difference you're making doesn't make sense especially when you look at criminal law and the concept of having a jury.
The fact that a significant criminal trial involving Signal, Cellebrite, and the CFAA would call in an expert witness also is worth remembering. The kind of expert witness that would be needed to break down and explain the "hack" and who also would visit this thread to read or comment.
The situation hasn't been tested in court and no helpful precedent exists, otherwise it wouldn't really be something that needs a discussion.
Absolutely, and you realize that when it comes to legal matters that's exactly why we have lawyers (like the OP post author) and why lawyers spend years becoming lawyers so we pay them stupid amounts of money to interpret and opine for us on what a judge (or jury) will think of a given case? And why we don't consult people who flip burgers or drive taxis what their opinion about the same case is.
Where people are getting confused here is the difference between having an opinion on what you think legislation should be around evidence tampering (public policy) vs how a judge or court would decide on this specific issue given the laws as they are on the statute today (law).
What the OP wrote about is about is this specific case. How lay-people in this thread think a court would decide on Moxie and Signal's actions, if bought to court, is frankly irrelevant and especially when arguing with someone who is highly qualified! That fact that people here don't get this is the very point I'm making - you're not lawyers.
Matters of the law are all about Appeal to Authority, I don't understand what the problem is with that (have you never paid for a lawyer before??). Matters of public policy are for the public, there's a subtle difference.
Sorry to be just replying to your thread salawat but this applies to most of the comments here.