SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Apple-standing-up-for-freedom dept.
From ArsTechnica:
Federal prosecutors have said that they are moving forward in their attempt to compel Apple to unlock a seized iPhone 5S running iOS 7, even after the defendant in a felony drug case has now pleaded guilty.
The judge in the case, United States Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, said in a Friday court filing that he is confused.
...
If Feng's phone had iOS 8 or later installed—as 90 percent of iPhones do—this entire issue would likely be moot, as Apple now enables full encryption by default. In September 2014, Apple specifically said the move happened "so it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8."
Citing an 18th-century law known as the All Writs Act, federal prosecutors had gone to the judge, asking him to force Apple to unlock the phone. At its core, this federal law simply allows courts to issue a writ, or order, which compels a person or company to do something.
In the past, feds have used this law to compel unnamed smartphone manufacturers to bypass security measures for phones involved in legal cases. The government has previously tried using this same legal justification against Apple as well.
However, for the first time, the judge invited Apple into the courtroom to present arguments as to why the judge should not order it to comply. Apple has made a compelling argument as to why it should not be forced to do the government's bidding.
"The government's proffered reading of the All Writs Act, if carried to its logical conclusion, leads to disquieting results," Ken Dreifach, an attorney representing Apple, wrote in his reply to the government earlier this month.
"For example, if the government wanted to crack a safe, it could require the safe's manufacturer to take possession of, or even travel to the location of, that safe and open it," he continued. "If the government wanted to examine a car, it could send the car to the manufacturer and require the manufacturer to perform the examination. The government could seemingly co-opt any private company it wanted to provide services in support of law enforcement activity, as long as the underlying activity was authorized by a warrant. The All Writs Act does not confer such limitless authority."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by edIII on Monday November 02 2015, @11:20PM
That's about what it sounds like.
Federal Prosecutors: Halmark refuses to produce the model they used for the Tooth Fairy on one of their cards. Make them 'just do it and stop arguing' please.
Judge: Halmark?
Halmark: That would be quite the trick your honor. We kept trying to explain to the prosecutor that it was animated, not real, and that there is no model to produce. If our lives were on the line your honor, quite frankly, there is still nothing we can do.
Judge: Any responses counsel?
Federal Prosecutors: Sounds like those people denying that Santa Claus exists. We're petitioning to put them in Gitmo till they produce his physical address for discovery.
Halmark: Your honor... on 2nd thought.... we'd like to enter the following into evidence. [hands Federal Prosecutor a card]
Federal Prosecutor: What's a Cluepon?
I'm guessing these guys don't understand what encryption actually is, or how it operates, and really truly believe that Apple is just being obstinate. It's beyond their little pea brains to understand that no matter how much you might *want* it, that Apple specifically designed it to be impossible to perform.
Perform the impossible anyways!!!!
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:20AM
If you read TFA, you would have realised that it is iOS8 onwards that the encryption is enabled by default. The phone in question is running iOS7, so it is fully within Apple's technical capability to perform the decryption.
Appl'se court case has been hinging around whether the feds have the legal right to demand Apple perform the decryption.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:41AM
The fact that it's not enabled by default does not imply that Apple is capable of decrypting it any more easily than the NSA. It just means that by default the phones don't require any cracks to get at the data. This phone was encrypted and so they would have to crack it. That's of course assuming that there isn't a back door in there.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:46AM
One more time for the dummies who don't read TFA.
IOS8 onwards is the one where it is on by default, and that Apple does not have a master key for.
The phone in question is IOS7, which Apple DO have a master key for, and are fully capable of decrypting it. The thing that Apple has been fighting is the court order for them to decrypt something they are capable of decrypting.
But hey, dont let any facts get in your way of "gubmint demanding impossibles!!!11!!one1!" rants.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:57AM
There is no need to decrypt it, and no need for Apple to do so. I don't know why anyone would defend the government at this point, which is routinely in opposition to freedom and privacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @05:32PM
Saying that a demand is not impossible to fulfil is in no way morally justifying it. It just says that it's not demanding something that is impossible to do.