Prosecutors Ask Judge to Review Pro-Apple Ruling in New York Case

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,409
8,483



The U.S. Justice Department yesterday appealed a New York federal judge's refusal to force Apple to help investigators unlock the iPhone of a suspected Brooklyn drug dealer.

Last week, magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the FBI lacked the legal authority to force Apple to bypass the iPhone's passcode, and that the prosecution's use of the 1789 All Writs Act was an unconstitutional overreach.

On Monday, Reuters reported that prosecutors are now hoping to overturn the ruling and yesterday's filing to the court of U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie is the official first step in such an appeal.

"In light of the debate that has recently come to surround this issue, it is worth briefly noting what this case is not about," the Justice Department's court filing said. "Apple is not being asked to do anything it does not currently have the capability to do."
All of Apple's pre-iOS 8 operating systems allowed for extracting data from a passcode-locked device. Apple has used that capability dozens of times, in response to lawful court orders like the one sought here, with no claim that doing so put customer data or privacy in harm's way.

Apple may perform the passcode-bypass in its own lab, using its own technicians, just as it always has, without revealing to the government how it did so. Therefore, granting the application will not affect the technological security of any Apple iPhone nor hand the government a 'master key'.
The All Writs Act is the same act that the agency has revived to order Apple to unlock the iPhone at the center of the San Bernardino shooter case, which Apple has requested to be vacated. However, the device in the California investigation is an iPhone 5c running iOS 8, which Apple cannot unlock without creating special software. In contrast, the New York case involves an iPhone 5s running iOS 7.

As noted in the filing, Apple has complied with cases involving iPhones running iOS 7 and earlier versions of the software, partly because the company is able to retrieve data from such devices without having to unlock them. But in a statement Monday evening, Apple made clear its specific issue with the FBI's invocation of the All Writs Act, and reiterated its belief that misuse of the Act, passed in its current form more than 100 years ago, threatens public privacy.
Judge Orenstein ruled the FBI's request would 'thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution' and we agree. We share the Judge's concern that misuse of the All Writs Act would start us down a slippery slope that threatens everyone's safety and privacy.
Apple CEO Tim Cook believes that use of the All Writs Act signals a disregard for established legal procedures and that any ruling should come from Congress, while Apple has repeatedly warned that forcing it to create software that could unlock devices running iOS 8 and later would set a dangerous precedent.

Apple's opposition to the order that would require it to help the FBI break into the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone will face off against the government in court on March 22.

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: Prosecutors Ask Judge to Review Pro-Apple Ruling in New York Case
 

Jsameds

Suspended
Apr 22, 2008
3,530
7,714
They will keep on trying until one gets through. Once they've got their foot in the door it will set a precedent for future cases.

All they need is one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantheman1990

diipii

macrumors 6502a
Dec 6, 2012
605
535
UK
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.
"posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts." MR has got to explain this. I spout total garbage all the time and I can comment while some newcomer who is lucid, balanced and perceptive can't. Does MR imagine it is "special" in any way. If so I would dearly like to know just how they come to that particular conclusion. Maybe it's just an "Apple" thing and they are all totally "Cooked" up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gudi

macrumors 68030
May 3, 2013
2,703
1,363
Berlin, Berlin
So let me get this right, it's all about the procecution's use of law from 1789, had they used another law the judge would have ordered Apple to provide the data and the company would have complied like it did in dozens other cases involving iPhone 5s running iOS 7.

Seems like the FBI doesn't want to convict a suspected drug dealer.
 

soupcan

macrumors 6502a
Nov 21, 2014
732
2,926
Netherlands
"Apple may perform the passcode-bypass in its own lab, using its own technicians, just as it always has, without revealing to the government how it did so. Therefore, granting the application will not affect the technological security of any Apple iPhone nor hand the government a 'master key'."

These two sentences show they have absolutely no ****ing idea whatsoever what they're talking about. You ask them to do that while under some obscure and old-as-**** law while you could've just ask nicely since it was running iOS 7.
 

Gudi

macrumors 68030
May 3, 2013
2,703
1,363
Berlin, Berlin
"posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts."

MR has got to explain this. I spout total garbage all the time and I can comment while some newcomer who is lucid, balanced and perceptive can't. Does MR imagine it is "special" in any way.
MacRumors is special in every way and they can moderate their forum however they want. Count of postings is the easiest way to narrow down the number of participants in a potentially contentious discussion and the idea is that long time members should have learned how to behave, thanks to prior reminders from moderators.
 

bpcookson

macrumors 6502
Apr 6, 2012
482
88
MA
"Apple may perform the passcode-bypass in its own lab, using its own technicians, just as it always has, without revealing to the government how it did so. Therefore, granting the application will not affect the technological security of any Apple iPhone nor hand the government a 'master key'."

These two sentences show they have absolutely no ****ing idea whatsoever what they're talking about. You ask them to do that while under some obscure and old-as-**** law while you could've just ask nicely since it was running iOS 7.
Sounds fishy, right? So just think about it: this smaller case was supposed to be the setup for the big one at hand.

They could have asked nicely but specifically chose to invoke this dusty old law in hopes to have a convenient precedent when bringing their main event to the national stage. And that didn't work out so now they're appealing.

They had little to lose really. Even with a loss here they can paint their appeal in big red letters proclaiming that Apple has already done this before, damaging Apple's public image while losing nothing but time in a case where time doesn't matter (putting away a drug dealer).

The uninformed masses won't care that the original trying failed because the use of the All Writs Act was incredibly inappropriate, they'll just see the "Apple defends bad guys" narrative and rally on command.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
if only they would focus this much on other ... REAL issues smh
Other cases get appealed like this all the time. It's just the controversial ones that make the news. It shouldn't be a surprise that they appealed it, I would expect these cases to go all the way to the Supreme Court, so this won't be the last appeal no matter how it goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantheman1990

2457282

Suspended
Dec 6, 2012
3,331
3,006
Sounds fishy, right? So just think about it: this smaller case was supposed to be the setup for the big one at hand.

They could have asked nicely but specifically chose to invoke this dusty old law in hopes to have a convenient precedent when bringing their main event to the national stage. And that didn't work out so now they're appealing.

They had little to lose really. Even with a loss here they can paint their appeal in big red letters proclaiming that Apple has already done this before, damaging Apple's public image while losing nothing but time in a case where time doesn't matter (putting away a drug dealer).

The uninformed masses won't care that the original trying failed because the use of the All Writs Act was incredibly inappropriate, they'll just see the "Apple defends bad guys" narrative and rally on command.
This unfortunately has become the state of our nation. The masses have become tired of reality and become ever more uninformed. Those that continue to push for power use this to their advantage and rally the masses with half truths or full lies. We aro longer a free People but a manipulated one. I have no answers, but I morn for this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantheman1990

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
So let me get this right, it's all about the procecution's use of law from 1789, had they used another law the judge would have ordered Apple to provide the data and the company would have complied like it did in dozens other cases involving iPhone 5s running iOS 7.

Seems like the FBI doesn't want to convict a suspected drug dealer.
The courts will rarely tell the losing side if there is another line of argument they could have made that would have worked, sometimes in Supreme Court dissents, but that is about it. What the court said was just that the government's interpretation of the law was wrong and didn't allow them to do what they said it did. If Congress passes a new law then that can be used to force Apple to comply.
 

Atlantico

macrumors 6502
May 3, 2011
439
136
BCN
I just don't get common law, it's reliance on precedent as a legal foundation and courts to effectively write legislation. Lex civilis all the way babe.
 

vpndev

macrumors 6502
May 11, 2009
282
94
So let me get this right, it's all about the procecution's use of law from 1789, had they used another law the judge would have ordered Apple to provide the data and the company would have complied like it did in dozens other cases involving iPhone 5s running iOS 7.

Seems like the FBI doesn't want to convict a suspected drug dealer.
You're right. The dealer already pleaded guilty. This issue now is all about forcing changes to the law so that Apple, and others, will be forced to break their own devices whenever the FBI says so.

Fortunately, Judge Ornstein's reason for the denial is extensively reason and quite detailed. It will be very hard for an appeals court to overturn his ruling.
[doublepost=1457439309][/doublepost]
Sounds fishy, right? So just think about it: this smaller case was supposed to be the setup for the big one at hand.

They could have asked nicely but specifically chose to invoke this dusty old law in hopes to have a convenient precedent when bringing their main event to the national stage. And that didn't work out so now they're appealing.

They had little to lose really. Even with a loss here they can paint their appeal in big red letters proclaiming that Apple has already done this before, damaging Apple's public image while losing nothing but time in a case where time doesn't matter (putting away a drug dealer).

The uninformed masses won't care that the original trying failed because the use of the All Writs Act was incredibly inappropriate, they'll just see the "Apple defends bad guys" narrative and rally on command.
The real agenda here is to try to force a change to CALEA. And that's strange because WH said some months ago that they were NOT going to make changes there. Seems to me that someone has gone rogue, wither in FBI or, possibly, in DoJ.
 

hiddenmarkov

macrumors 6502a
Mar 12, 2014
689
363
Japan
"Apple may perform the passcode-bypass in its own lab, using its own technicians, just as it always has, without revealing to the government how it did so. Therefore, granting the application will not affect the technological security of any Apple iPhone nor hand the government a 'master key'."

These two sentences show they have absolutely no ****ing idea whatsoever what they're talking about. You ask them to do that while under some obscure and old-as-**** law while you could've just ask nicely since it was running iOS 7.
That and this falls apart in the first case done by a competent defence attorney. They will ask so how was my client's info found. We can't talk about it. My client is about to go away for life for a crime they say they did not commit....you will talk about it.

In front of a jury, and a stenographer. And this case is public record when done. So lets start with....step 1. As many have done your other iOS updates and had corrupted data among other issues on their phone so I would love to hear how you created a 100% defect free process for this. Since you know...its kind of bad when evidence is altered while in custody.

this is what defence would do imo anyway. This won't be a secret very long. And I am not seeing every phone cracked case getting its special sealed court dates. Jurors don't sign NDA's....case over, case good enough...where is CNN at for my 15 minutes of fame?