Apple Files Official Motion to Vacate Court Order, Says FBI Seeks 'Dangerous Power'

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,446
8,512



Apple has officially filed a motion (via Re/code) to vacate the court order that would require the company to help the FBI hack into the iPhone 5c of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. "This is not a case about one isolated iPhone," reads the filing, going on to say the FBI is seeking a "dangerous power" that would undermine the security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of people.

As expected, Apple argues that the All Writs Act, which the FBI is using in the case, does not give the government a pass to "conscript and commandeer" the company. "No law supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process," Apple writes. "And the Constitution forbids it." Apple believes setting a precedent for allowing the All Writs Act to be used in this way could lead to more insidious demands in the future, such as turning on the microphone or camera to aid in surveillance.


Apple says FBI's demand for new code would violate its First and Fifth Amendment rights, as it is the equivalent of compelled speech and is contrary to Apple's core principles. Apple also points towards the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, using it as evidence Congress limited the assistance companies must provide to law enforcement.
In addressing the twin needs of law enforcement and privacy, Congress, through CALEA, specified when a company has an obligation to assist the government with decryption of communications, and made clear that a company has no obligation to do so where, as here, the company does not retain a copy of the decryption key.
Apple says the government "sought to cut off debate and circumvent thoughtful analysis" by taking the case to the courts and invoking terrorism instead of pursuing new legislation. Once again, Apple says the FBI's demand to create new software that would allow it to brute force the passcode on the iPhone in question is "too dangerous to build" because it could fall into the hands of criminals and foreign agents.
In short, the government wants to compel Apple to create a crippled and insecure product. Once the process is created, it provides an avenue for criminals and foreign agents to access millions of iPhones. And once developed for our government, it is only a matter of time before foreign governments demand the same tool.
While the government insists the software would be used for a single phone, Apple points out that there are already multiple applications for similar orders. Assisting the FBI could quickly lead to additional orders using the case as a precedent should Apple be ordered to comply.

According to Apple, creating the software the FBI wants would necessitate between six and 10 Apple engineers dedicating a "substantial portion of their time" for a minimum of two weeks and up to four weeks.

It would require new code, detailed documentation, the development of encryption procedures, and rigorous quality assurance testing with the entire development process carefully logged. If the need should arise to respond to multiple demands, Apple would need to create "full-time positions" in a new "hacking" department.

Apple ends its motion by calling for the decision on security to be made by American citizens through the democratic process rather than through a court order.
Society is still debating the important privacy and security issues posed by this case. The government's desire to leave no stone unturned, however well intentioned, does not authorize it to cut off debate and impose its views on society.
Now that Apple has filed its official opposition, it will need to wait for a response from the courts. Should the motion to vacate be denied by the district court, Apple has pledged to take its fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Files Official Motion to Vacate Court Order, Says FBI Seeks 'Dangerous Power'
 

MRrainer

macrumors 65816
Aug 8, 2008
1,155
623
Zurich, Switzerland
Not too long ago, the public and law-makers around the country urged Apple to secure its phones so they can't be used anymore in case they get stolen.
Now, some of the same law-makers somehow want a way around the protections erected specifically at their behest...

Not sure what Steve Jobs would do - he stayed out of politics as much as he could.
But one thing is sure - if somebody could sway a court or a jury, he could.

Though, to be fair, Tim also did very well in front of that Senate committee a while ago.
 
Last edited:

thisisnotmyname

macrumors 68000
Oct 22, 2014
1,969
4,250
known but velocity indeterminate
Go Apple!

Edit: so this could get really interesting if it makes it to SCOTUS and there's still an open seat. A 4-4 tie would defer to the lower court which makes whichever court of appeals this ends up in critical. One more fun twist in the current Scalia controversy.

Edit 2: although I think it is inevitable that congress will attempt some form of legislation on this I still think that Apple stating that is the correct avenue is a bit like poking at the hornets nest. As much as I dislike the precedent this case potentially sets I see far more damage that could be done via legislation.
 
Last edited:

2457282

Suspended
Dec 6, 2012
3,331
3,006
Although I stand with Apple on this (as stated in various other previous posts), I am intrigued by the argument they filed. Some of their points are substantive in that they point to prior bills that did not pass, but at other times it seems to be less legal or substantive and very much opinion. how much of that is for the judge and how much of that is for the public?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iOSFangirl6001

rdlink

macrumors 68040
Nov 10, 2007
3,239
2,383
Out of the Reach of the FBI
Go Apple!

Edit: so this could get really interesting if it makes it to SCOTUS and there's still an open seat. A 4-4 tie would defer to the lower court which makes whichever court of appeals this ends up in critical. One more fun twist in the current Scalia controversy.

Edit 2: although I think it is inevitable that congress will attempt some form of legislation on this I still think that Apple stating that is the correct avenue is a bit like poking at the hornets nest. As much as I dislike the precedent this case potentially sets I see far more damage that could be done via legislation.
True story. This will go to the 9th Circuit. Advantage Apple.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors 604
Jan 24, 2008
7,404
5,836
Apple points towards the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, legislation that would have mandated a similar back door. It did not pass, which Apple uses as evidence Congress denied law enforcement the authority to compel companies to provide data when no decryption key is available.
Your description of CALEA is misleading at best. CALEA did pass and specifically prevents the government from demanding changes to hardware or software in telecommunications equipment.

See the quote on Daring Fireball.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/25/apple-fbi-motion
 

GadgetDon

macrumors 6502
May 11, 2002
319
241
Go Apple!

Edit: so this could get really interesting if it makes it to SCOTUS and there's still an open seat. A 4-4 tie would defer to the lower court which makes whichever court of appeals this ends up in critical. One more fun twist in the current Scalia controversy.
Actually, I'd love to have read Scalia's writings on this. Yes, conservative and originalist - but in most cases very good for suspects and very reluctant and over-reaches by the government. I think he'd have ruled in favor of Apple.
 

MRrainer

macrumors 65816
Aug 8, 2008
1,155
623
Zurich, Switzerland
Actually, I'd love to have read Scalia's writings on this. Yes, conservative and originalist - but in most cases very good for suspects and very reluctant and over-reaches by the government. I think he'd have ruled in favor of Apple.
Well, if another judge dies shortly, it'll get interesting.
They could make a Hollywood-movie out of that.
Oh, wait...
 
  • Like
Reactions: St.John Smith

tito2020

macrumors 6502a
Oct 16, 2011
837
283
The proverbial shot heard around the digital world?

Either way, here we go. The only question I have for everyone:

Buttered popcorn, or nachos? Because this is going to be good. :p

BL.
Apple will lose feds stick together even in the court system.