Item — HN Reader

> A NSL can force Apple to not disclose it, but they can't force them to publically lie about it. And lying about that would be ridiculously stupid.

I'm not sure they'd be put in a position to lie. It would have to be a very direct, specific question to _require_ a lie. Otherwise, dodgy language would suffice.

1 comments

They didn't use dodgy language: "conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data." [1].

1. https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/

And per the article, that statement can be true at the same time this statement can be true:

"Apple can intercept the creation of new conversations between users on iMessage or FaceTime if compelled to do so by a valid court order."

English being as fungible as it is, leads to this sort of mess.

I meant using dodgy langugage in future statements. They may not have received a NSL yet, so one doesn't know if their strong language could poentially be tempered by a NSL. I don't think one can conclusively argue this point either way.

Suppose Apple made the broad, unequivocal claim before they got an iMessage-related NSL. While the NSL can't compel Apple to lie, would Apple choose tone down their language afterwards?