I fear it may be a long battle riddled with fictions, however.
My fear is that you're being overly optimistic thinking there will be a battle at all. As the commenter above you lamented, the government has to first read it, then decide it's not worth keeping an entire sector's worth of political donations, for any kind of fight to start.
Ok, I concede that it's possible to complain about an OTA update bricking a device and the lack of control over the things you own without actually wanting to own said device.
But at that point, isn't the story basically "Old man yells at cloud"?
I mean, seriously: "I yearn for the good old days, when the faulty devices we owned were OUR faulty devices, and we had to check the back of the paper every day if we cared to find out if it had been recalled yet"
If they start actually treading the slippery slope, that's plenty of time to bring out the pitchforks and disable phone updates.
For those of you who think it's your god-given right to own items that could hurt other people or burn down the building, I feel sorry for anyone who ever shares an apartment building with you. Please go live in the desert where you can't hurt anyone else.
In the meantime someone who brought a dud now gets the additional punishment of having it rendered useless, when they may not know or be eligible for any recompense.
That's the whole point of this update. People who don't realise they are eligible for recompense can take the phone back to the store and get recompense. Everyone who owns the phone is eligible for recompense, because the phone is under recall.
The only people being punished are those people who are putting other people at risk by keeping a phone that may burst into flames.
I agree with that on the extremes, but I think it still falls down in the middle:
Massive companies can afford to go to court, hoping that the PR boost from fighting for their customers comes back to their bottom line.
Individual employees, or tiny companies like Lavabit can afford to fold up operations, because those people are making the decision for themself.
What if you're the owner of a company with a dozen employees? A hundred? A thousand, across multiple countries? You may be able to get work again quickly on the back of a reputation of "standing up to the man"... but how long until you can afford to re-hire all of those employees again? Will they be able to hold out for long enough?
Plus, as one of your customers, how do I know that your new product is going to be around for long enough to get use out of it? Especially if you're offering a service, what happens when the government targets your new service in six months time? At what point does "have backup providers ready" become "just use a different provider"?
It's not just tech companies either; tax accountants, builders and tradespeople (we need you to install a bug while you're doing this job)... I don't know if lawyers are on this list; would client-attorney privilege trump an NSL? And that's probably the best solution for the people - reverse the third party doctrine, and give client-attorney-like privilege to ALL dealings between customers and their providers/contractors! Good luck with that, though.
And that alone should be a giant warning sign to any tech company that decides not to fight these kinds of demands: when it inevitably leaks to the public (and it will), the intelligence community will let you hang out to dry all by yourself.
I'm curious how a random tech company would be able to fight?
I guess a good answer is to spend a bunch of money to implement end-to-end encryption (and then even more, to do it properly)... but that doesn't work for email, or message boards, or a bunch of other situations.
But even then, how does a random tech company fight back against demands from the government to open a back door?
The only options I can see end up being to be to fight it in court (Apple), or to fold the company and liquidate the equipment (Lavabit). Both are horrifically expensive, and either way the cost is ultimately borne by the customer.
which is sorting out what OS's it will allow to be installed on a computer, based on whether an RMT RAID driver is built-into the OS Kernel? That's nothing but fingerprinting for identification, at best!
What? That's like saying that my Intel CPU is performing fingerprinting by not letting me install an OS based on whether it supports the x86 instruction set.
I feel the same. Copyright law is being used here because there is no plagiarism law.
What are the other avenues? Civil theft, trade secret? They don't really seem like they fit because the draft was given to Sutton without any kind of non-disclosure agreement.
It seems fine for now to ignore the legal route and just leave it to the court of public opinion; but at what point is it worse to set up a kangaroo court rather than deal with things in a proper legal arena in which all parties are meant to get due process?