Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New York Judge Rules U.S. Government Can't Force Apple to Unlock an iPhone

garylapointe said:
I don't think I'm going to be able to squeeze "conscript and commandeer" into a conversation very often!

Unless I'm talking about this case... :)

Gary
Click to expand...

you should take that to an episode of Says You. You never know what you could come up with when you poke fun and have some humour at Merriam Webster's expense. :)

BL.
 
Solomani said:
Confusing. This is a New York state magistrate judge. His "ruling" only applies to cases in the State of New York, right?

The current case regarding the terrorist iPhone is in the jurisdiction of Southern California (San Bernardino). So the NY judge's "ruling" really has little bearing on the outcome of the FBI attempting to coerce Apple into getting access to that iPhone.

To me, the word "ruling" used here is misleading, since it gives the impression that Apple already won the case regarding San Bernardino. A better word would have been "opined". This judge opines that Apple should not be forced by the Gov to unlock the (San Bernardino) iPhone. But his "ruling" (or any opinion for that matter) is not binding in all 50 states. That's really up for the Supreme Court to decide.

Still, I will admit that Apple did score a small victory by having this NY (federal) judge on their side. The rest of the country, the tech-illiterates, are against Apple. And Trump and the other demagogues are using the narrative that "Apple is wrong because Apple is helping those terrorists! Apple should instead be a good Patriotic Company and help the US Government in every manner possible to defeat the boogeyman terrorists!"
Click to expand...

Right now, the judge in the San Bernadino case is reviewing Apple's filings requesting the order be withdrawn. It's true there is no legal precedent, the California judge is not required to say "OK, this is a settled issue unless I see a reason that separates the case before me". But judges do listen to each other. I suspect the fact that another judge, in a case with a far lower burden of Apple, said that the government can't use the All Writs Act to compel behavior from Apple, is something that the California judge is thinking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring, Agilis, dk001 and 1 other person
Solomani said:
Confusing. This is a New York state magistrate judge. His "ruling" only applies to cases in the State of New York, right?

The current case regarding the terrorist iPhone is in the jurisdiction of Southern California (San Bernardino). So the NY judge's "ruling" really has little bearing on the outcome of the FBI attempting to coerce Apple into getting access to that iPhone.

To me, the word "ruling" used here is misleading, since it gives the impression that Apple already won the case regarding San Bernardino. A better word would have been "opined". This judge opines that Apple should not be forced by the Gov to unlock the (San Bernardino) iPhone. But his "ruling" (or any opinion for that matter) is not binding in all 50 states. That's really up for the Supreme Court to decide.

Still, I will admit that Apple did score a small victory by having this NY (federal) judge on their side. The rest of the country, the tech-illiterates, are against Apple. And Trump and the other demagogues are using the narrative that "Apple is wrong because Apple is helping those terrorists! Apple should instead be a good Patriotic Company and help the US Government in every manner possible to defeat the boogeyman terrorists!"
Click to expand...

This NY judge isn't opining on the San Bernardino case at all. It's a seperate case of the government trying to force Apple to open a drug dealer's phone. Apple won this particular case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duervo
Well, one judge agreed. That's a step. Next step is if the government appeals, which it should.
 
iThingsGurl said:
This sucks
Click to expand...

While this case may not directly impact the San Bernardino one, it just gave Apple a huge edge later on. Since the ruling of this case, it is now going to be considered the "go-to" answer to these types of scenarios. The chances of the FBI winning in the upcoming case are now less than 20%, imo.
 
[doublepost=1456791804][/doublepost]
Mr. Chewbacca said:
I love how this judge points out the absurdity of citing a 200 year old law in respect to an iPhone.
Click to expand...

We write on a phone's notepad program the same way we write on paper with pen. How much of a difference is there? Apart from folding the paper into an envelope and saying "For Mrs. Pennyfeather's eyes only" and encrypting the phone? If government can be authorized to intercept a stinking piece of paper, the phone is no different.

It's not that absurd. We only pretend it is because silicon chips didn't exist 200 years ago.

Or, with other words:

Activist judges supporting terrorists and letting corporations be above the law? Corporate personhood prevailing, does this mean individuals like you and me get the same treatment? If not, then corporations shouldn't have had the entitlement either.
 
The MacRumors article is factually incorrect in reference to the San Bernardino case:

"Apple has officially opposed an order that would require it to help the FBI break into the iPhone owned by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook..."

Farook did not own the phone in question. The city of San Bernardino owns the phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spinnyd
Some sanity. Siting "conscript and command" as not a part of the All Writs Act, has a lot of case history. I'm sure every Law School in the country is talking about this case in lecture halls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
CFreymarc said:
Some sanity. Siting "conscript and command" as not a part of the All Writs Act, has a lot of case history. I'm sure every Law School in the country is talking about this case in lecture halls.
Click to expand...

Let alone every school with a journalism curriculum.

BL.
 
To me, this New York ruling, in another very liberal state, is indicative of how the Federal court in Riverside, CA should also rule. Now if it rules to uphold the obviously illegal and not adversarilly reached order of the lower court, then it would be right and just to take the case to the Supreme court. One SCOTUS divided equally by party lines and at least two judges appointed for their political biases even more than their judicial temperment.

I can clearly see why conservatives have made it clear they will use their Senate powers to simply wait for another term.

Under a D senate we did not have a budget for 5-6 years, the main remit of the body, but CR's to maintain the "stimulus spending" which proved counterproductive. Malicious economics tested on a large population. The senate dragging its feet on purpose was perfected by Reid and the D senate. To complain now is vastly hypocritical. But totally expected.

The stimulus spending was tacked onto Bush's last budget to make him look bad. In case you were not paying attention to details.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hudson1
I feel much safer trafficking women and dealing drugs knowing Apple will protect my data from Law enforcement.
 
There will be twists and turns in the coming weeks, if not month. Nonetheless, however enormous the burden, it is hoped that the issue of privacy is in solid hands as it could be - and sorted with the urgency that it needs.
 
dannyyankou said:
Obama, please appoint this guy to the Supreme Court. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I suggest everyone reread what this judge wrote. My take is he's basically just punting on the question and saying the legislative branch should decide this, not the judicial branch. He's not so much ruling in favor of Apple but refusing to rule in favor of the DOJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back