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: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 02 2015, @11:34PM
As with so many other laws, government wants to apply the law beyond, or far beyond, what the law was meant to do. I read the entire PDF, and Apple's response is very well written, and makes the point very well. If government is permitted to force Apple to crack (or try to crack, as the case may be) the encryption, it sets an example. A safe cracker (lock smith) may be abducted by the government from any city in the US, transported to any city in the world, and forced to open a safe. An automotive technician may be abducted for the purpose of diagnosing the auto - electronics, programming, EPA requirements, or whatever the government dreams up. Any skilled person in any field can be summoned, and he will have to do the government's bidding.
If government is so damned stupid that they think the encryption can be cracked, then the burden should be with government. Let their bright boys at NSA do the work. They can't force Apple to do it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:25AM
While I agree with your statement, I would replace "the government" with "some hard-headed egomaniac prosecutor".
While in too many cases, "the government" (in the DOJ's Brass sense) mechanically supports idiotic prosecutors who are just trying to make themselves look tough while trampling constitutional rights, almost everybody in "the government" (in the Uncle Sam's Payroll sense) is actually a law-abiding freedom-protecting citizen.
That kind of dangerous amalgam is at the root of much of the populist crap we hear from politicians with certain agendas.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:01AM
Who hires Federal prosecutors?
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:59AM
HR people who probably can't pick the good ones out of the bad. Might be different, but mainly I'm going on IT experience in hiring and who the HR folks forward to us for shortlists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:55AM
I highly doubt that based on my experience working as an attorney in two State level government legal offices. The hiring there was done by other attorneys higher up the food chain. HR had nothing to do with it aside from explaining benefits, setting up payroll stuff, and other such things after being hired.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @07:15PM
Some other hard-headed egomaniacs. Using a small subset of government employees to generalize for all government employees is the same false generalization fallacy as using the KKK or WBC to generalize for all christians, or using ISIS to generalize for all muslims - fallicious and wrong.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:08PM
Except they all work in one place together and wield enormous power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:35AM
Funny you should mention the "automotive technician may be abducted for the purpose of diagnosing the auto". I had to correct an expert forensic investigators shitty inspection of a brake problem in a court case. The fucking idiot missed wheel cylinders leaking brake fluid all over the place.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:44AM
Huh? But - everyone knows that the insides of the brake drums need to be lubricated, don't they? If you don't allow brake fluid to drip on them, they just get rusty and dusty.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:04AM
Interestingly, the all writs act, is merely a sentence
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
The prosecutor seems to have become page-blind at the point where my bold text started.
In fact, the current wording in the statute called the All Writs Act, dropped the several types of writs that were originally authorized:
Writs of ne exeat (Order not not to leave the jurisdiction)
Writs of Prohibition (Order to lower court to stop proceedings due to no jurisdiction)
Writs of scire facias (Order to show cause - since abolished)
Writs of mandamus (a command to an inferior court or ordering a person/corporation to perform a public or statutory duty - something that body/person is obliged under law to do).
None of those except the writ of mandamus could possibly apply to Apple in this case. Even Mandamus requires a specific statutory obligation, which the prosecutor fails to provide.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.