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, 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.