The 26th is to show the order is "unduly burdensome" and I think asking for a whole new os is and that they just might win that one.
If that fails then there is still appeals potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says Opposing FBI is 'Absolutely Not' a 'Marketing Strategy'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 26th is to show the order is "unduly burdensome" and I think asking for a whole new os is and that they just might win that one.
If that fails then there is still appeals potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.
It is amazing the total lack of education by so many in the USA on basic judicial process and rights.
If the basic rights have not been read in any of the many articles on this subject, at least try Wiki.
Knowledge is Power. Get some.
Last edited:
Quite frankly his response is offensive. Why this topic isn't a concern for everyone is unsettling. And people thinking everyone should blindly follow the law without any question as to whether it infringes upon their Constitutional rights is even more unsettling.
I'm not so sure. Apple released a public FAQ about security and included this:
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/
This says that yes, it can be done, but that Apple won't do it. Not a good position to be in in light of the court order.
This response also doesn't say what resources would be needed to do it, or if it would be burdensome, but on the face of it, it doesn't appear to be. We'll just have to wait for Apple's response to that.
This isn't about guilt / innocence. There are no suspects or accused. This is simply an expansion of powers couched as a data request. It's a writ. BF doesn't apply to this.
I guess having Ted Olson signing on to take Apple's case in court doesn't count then. Sigh...
Seriously? No. It was a case of workplace rage writ large carried out by individuals that had radical leanings.
However, under the current definitions (there are many), you can label this as a terrorist event.
So based on that, would it not be even worse for Apple to accept payment from the FBI for creating this backdoor? Imagine that for a moment... Apple accepting money compensation to make they devices less secure. They sure would not do it for free. That's a place Apple does not want to go.
in such a case, Apple should not have said they implemented cause our security was at risk. They got caught with their pants down on this one.
"The White House has denied that the FBI is asking Apple to "create a new backdoor to its products," insisting that the agency is seeking access to a single iPhone belonging to suspected San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook. FBI Director James Comey also said "the San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message," but rather "about the victims and justice."
The White House - laughable, zero credibility... The FBI might only be seeking access to one phone, but in order to get it, the same approach could be used on ANY iPhone. And while they might not be trying to set a precedence, that is exactly what would happen. How hard is it to understand this? How stupid can these people be? (They're not stupid actually, they know damn well it would open Pandora's box).
The White House - laughable, zero credibility... The FBI might only be seeking access to one phone, but in order to get it, the same approach could be used on ANY iPhone. And while they might not be trying to set a precedence, that is exactly what would happen. How hard is it to understand this? How stupid can these people be? (They're not stupid actually, they know damn well it would open Pandora's box).
Wow Republican congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the House judiciary committee is on CNBC right now strongly defending Apple. If this issue finds its way to congress I think Apple wins.
It would IMO beurdensme. Typically for all writs order you are just handing off informaiton you already have. No big deal - pull information and send it.
This is a whole different level of effort. First are talking development work will be needed which then likely means PM involvement as well and these developers now can't work on their main job while working on this. Then you need to keep the code "need to know" so a totallly segmented development environment will likely be needed to secure this code which will have to be setup. Then after all that would still have to do some QA on it afterwards to make sure notihing unintended was created.
So it will be quite the effort and a lot more then is normal with an "All Writs". I think they can make the argument.
You honestly think US needs help with intelligence gathering?!?! Have you ever heard about NSA, Prism etc. and how they managed spy on pretty much everyone on this planet including but not limited to heads of state of US allies. You seriously think US intelligence gathering needs Apple's help to do even more through job? You are 1984.
The 26th is for the filing of Apple's response if they do not intend to cooperate.
This isn't a hearing on the legitimacy of the writ.
From the order
Apple was given an extension to Feb 26, but that is what is due on the 26th.
Why is not a good position? The ability has never been a question. The legality, danger of building this, and the ability of a writ to force development / build are what's in question.
Just watched Rep. Darell Issa slam the FBI and side with Apple on CNBC. He voted for the Patriot Act and the establishment of DHS, he also co-sponsored the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, for someone like that to side with Apple speaks volumes. Even for him, this FBI overreach is a bridge too far.
At this stage, Apple is being driven by their own sense of principles and policy considerations, and I'm willing to cut them some slack. Some people agree with those policies and principles, and others do not. But the reality is that the court will not decide those. It only decides whether Apple is complying with the law, and as it stands now, there is very little legal basis for their current position.
The hearing on the 26th is directed to whether it will be burdensome for Apple to comply with the order, not the danger of building, ability to enforce the writ, etc. Those issues could be heard by an Appeals Court if Apple loses on the 26th and decides to appeal (which it probably will).
Google which creates the software *is* an American Company. Samsung just produces the hardware.
And what state is Issa from ... hmmm ... let's see ... hmmm ... ah, yes, California.
Small correction. The 26th is for apple to file that it is unduly burdensome. The actual hearing will be in March (22 I think).
Apple does have a legal leg to stand on. All Writs has not in the past been used to force the creation of something that didn't exist before. That is precedent setting and could open the door to lots of other things down the road
Actually it has to turn to Apple for help because the owner of the phone is dead, therfore they can't force him to give his password. That would have not been the case if he was alive.
Yes, March 22. As I see it, law enforcement cannot do their job in this terrorism investigation without Apple's assistance in this matter, so my money is on the court order standing and the All Writs covering this. It seems reasonable under the circumstances.
I'm all for customer privacy, but as I see it, if Apple loses this battle, they are going to have to develop the ability to access the encrypted phone when lawfully requested by law enforcement. On the other hand, if Apple wins, it's highly likely that Congress will pass legislation whereby tech companies must provide access to law enforcement to their encrypted devices. Two evil outcomes, not sure which is worse.