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: 3, Insightful) by fnj on Monday November 02 2015, @11:47PM
Re IOS 9: The government could attempt to compel me to produce a unicorn for them, but that does not guarantee that I have the capability to produce a unicorn for them. Same with prime factoring a very large number.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:17AM
The government could attempt to compel me to produce a unicorn for them, but that does not guarantee that I have the capability to produce a unicorn for them.
Don't they have a law in the UK [wikipedia.org] to surrender the PGP keys and passwords even if you don't have them anymore? If you refuse or claim impossibility of such a thing, you'd be thrown in prison for two years.
Good that I'm not in the UK, because I generated and eventually lost (neglected to save) too many test keys.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:39PM
If you don't have the capability to decrypt the material, that is a defense. However, if the government can prove that at some point in the last X years, where I think X is 3 but I'm not sure, you did have the capability to decrypt the material, the burden shifts to you to prove you can no longer decrypt the material. It's a messed up law, still, but not quite as bad as you make it sound.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @07:22PM
How do you prove a negative?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday November 03 2015, @07:59PM
It's a messed up law, still, but not quite as bad as you make it sound.
I didn't know that it takes at least three years to lose a Flash disk or to have an HDD failure.