Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Monday November 02 2015, @11:09PM   Printer-friendly
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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:25AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @12:25AM (#257757)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:01AM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:01AM (#257764) Journal

    I would replace "the government" with "some hard-headed egomaniac prosecutor".

    Who hires Federal prosecutors?

    • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:59AM

      by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:59AM (#257782) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @03:55AM (#257803)

        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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @07:15PM (#258066)

      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

        by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:08PM (#258184) Journal

        Except they all work in one place together and wield enormous power.