Judge looks to jumpstart public encryption debate with Apple iPhone unlocking case
A U.S. federal judge is asking Apple to comment on whether a sought-after government order to unlock a customer's iPhone would be "unduly burdensome."
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, made the ruling on Friday, according to the Washington Post. The court won't make a decision on the unlock request until Apple has offered input, which must come by Oct. 15.
Both Apple and the government will be able to present oral arguments on Oct. 22, if they so choose.
Orenstein is reportedly a supporter of limits on government surveillance, and in an analysis rejected a government argument relying on a 1977 Supreme Court case with the New York Telephone Company. He claimed that while the NYTC was a public utility, Apple is a purely private firm "free to choose to promote its customers' interest in privacy over the competing interest of law enforcement." That same case was used by Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York to back another iPhone unlock request.
One problem for the pro-privacy stances of Apple and Orenstein, though, may be the phone in the current case. Anonymous law enforcement officials told the Post that the device runs an older version of iOS that Apple can unlock, unlike iOS 8 or 9. Apple claims that the full-disk encryption on those operating systems is so tough it can't provide a key even on demand.
Orenstein's ruling came a day after the public learned the Obama administration won't pursue regulations mandating backdoors in encrypted communications. Instead, however, the administration is continuing to pressure corporations on the matter, and talks have allegedly become "increasingly productive."
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, made the ruling on Friday, according to the Washington Post. The court won't make a decision on the unlock request until Apple has offered input, which must come by Oct. 15.
Both Apple and the government will be able to present oral arguments on Oct. 22, if they so choose.
Orenstein is reportedly a supporter of limits on government surveillance, and in an analysis rejected a government argument relying on a 1977 Supreme Court case with the New York Telephone Company. He claimed that while the NYTC was a public utility, Apple is a purely private firm "free to choose to promote its customers' interest in privacy over the competing interest of law enforcement." That same case was used by Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York to back another iPhone unlock request.
One problem for the pro-privacy stances of Apple and Orenstein, though, may be the phone in the current case. Anonymous law enforcement officials told the Post that the device runs an older version of iOS that Apple can unlock, unlike iOS 8 or 9. Apple claims that the full-disk encryption on those operating systems is so tough it can't provide a key even on demand.
Orenstein's ruling came a day after the public learned the Obama administration won't pursue regulations mandating backdoors in encrypted communications. Instead, however, the administration is continuing to pressure corporations on the matter, and talks have allegedly become "increasingly productive."
Comments
No problem - ask their buddies at the NSA. Should take only a minute for them.
"...the device runs an older version of iOS that Apple can unlock."
No problem - ask their buddies at the NSA. Should take only a minute for them.
Nah... they would only waste their time doing so if it involved a conservative being investigated by the IRS, a reporter covering a story that makes a democrat look bad, or generally anyone against the Obama administration.
Oh, can't forget a politician on an investigative panel looking into all that Secret Service scandal stuff. They'd be pretty interested in seeing what's on the phone then too...
The are millions of ethical and business reasons...
The first of which is there is no back door, which means this judge and the accused would most likely be dead by the time the encryption is cracked.
The use of gag orders is in some ways more troubling than demanding access to encrypted devices. Gag orders directly attack the concepts laid out in the bill of rights. This is one reason I oppose all activities of this administration that undermine our freedoms, be it gun control, attacks on individuals and organization via the IRS, suppression of free speech or any other nasties that have come from this administration.
The use of gag orders is in some ways more troubling than demanding access to encrypted devices. Gag orders directly attack the concepts laid out in the bill of rights. This is one reason I oppose all activities of this administration that undermine our freedoms, be it gun control, attacks on individuals and organization via the IRS, suppression of free speech or any other nasties that have come from this administration.
"come from this administration"? Better reread the Bush Patriot Act and it's reauthorization before blowing that particular trumpet anymore, gag orders ("National Security Letters") WAY predate Obama.
The tone of the questions makes me think that judge is doesn't have a fracking clue and that's always dangerous.
The burden is on THE PEOPLE, not Apple, off course Apple could do it, but it goes against their whole business model.
Ask the turds at Google which already all this data on hand and it is even easier.
Just because there is no backdoor NOW doesn't mean the courts and/or the government can't not only compel them to install one, but also issue a gag order that would make it illegal to even discuss it or reveal it to the public.
Do you fracking believe such a thing cant be discovered, if only through reverse engineering, come on.
If Apple does it, it wouldn'T be hidden more than a micro-second. It would leak.
Considering how much code would be needed to do this, and the numbers of people invovled, it would leak from a current or former Apple employee.
Anyway ,decent crooks and terrorist can already encrypt /obfuscate their own communications in 1000 ways and the only one who would be affected by this is the poor sap who smoked a joint... Or did nothing at all : Us.
So, the arbitrary ear of the state could pounce on anyone, but not those that need the most investigating.
The argument about terrorism is the same as using Children as a reason to remove civil rights.
"come from this administration"? Better reread the Bush Patriot Act and it's reauthorization before blowing that particular trumpet anymore, gag orders ("National Security Letters") WAY predate Obama.
Put in place by congress, signed by bush into law and was supposed to be expired by now, but embraced by the current administration under President obama who has no problem using the patriot act, which he has signed extensions on several times now.
Put in place by congress, signed by bush into law and was supposed to be expired by now, but embraced by the current administration under President obama who has no problem using the patriot act, which he has signed extensions on several times now.
BTW: were the votes veto proof majorities? I'm always interested in that when people point to a president signing off on something: because the veto is meaningless if the vote shows a routine override (not that President Bush, being of the same party, would have faced the same issues with a House and Senate in Republican hands as, say,. President Clinton did with banking legislation in his last term).
BTW: were the votes veto proof majorities?
In all cases the extensions had the support of presidents Bush and Obama, so there was not much likelihood of veto anyway.
In all cases the extensions had the support of presidents Bush and Obama, so there was not much likelihood of veto anyway.
That would be the case, but their opinions would be a lot less relevant for legislation passed with a veto proof majority.
That"s pure Bullshit.
If the US operated like this Apple would be a Canadian company.
This is very important to Apple's business.
Surely that's how it should be? If a judge states he knows all there is to know then that would automatically disqualify him/her from making a 'reasoned' and 'unbiased' judgement. Since unbiased facts are all but absent in most governmental and federal agency discussions, an invitation by a judge to openly debate the issues, with both sides of the argument stating their case including technical, moral and constitutional precedents, would seem the only way to clear away the deliberate obfuscation by uneducated, unintelligent 'paid for' politician shpeel that currently defines the debate.