Government resubmits failed motion to compel Apple's assistance in NY iPhone case

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2016
The U.S. Department of Justice is objecting a New York magistrate judge's decision to deny its motion to compel Apple's assistance in unlocking an iPhone linked to a years-old New York drug case, with the case now landing at the Eastern District of New York.




The Justice Department's memorandum of law, filed on Monday, requests the district court, in its supervisory authority, reconsider a previous application leveraging the All Writs Act, which would require Apple's aid in bypassing the passcode lock of an iPhone owned by suspected drug trafficker Jun Feng. Federal Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued an order denying the motion last month, portrayed in the media as a blow to the government's position in a broader encryption debate.

In October, the Justice Department filed an All Writs motion to compel Apple's help in breaking into Feng's iPhone 5s running iOS 7, a device that could potentially hold locally-stored information related to an ongoing court action. At the time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said Apple initially agreed to cooperate, as it had done at least 70 times before, but later flip-flopped due to public relations concerns.

As noted by Apple in a report regarding government requests for information published to its webpage in 2013, the company only complies with orders for data retrieval when it is "satisfied that the court order is valid and appropriate." The government argues Judge Orenstein forced Apple's hand by deferring the AWA request, instead calling on Apple to offer a briefing on the technical feasibility and burden of complying with the proposed order.

Reuters reported on the development earlier today.

For his part, the magistrate judge said there are larger issues at play in this particular case, and in his original ruling voiced concern over the FBI's use of All Writs and other judicial instruments.

"It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking," Judge Orenstein wrote.

Apple and the Justice Department are embroiled in a contentious court battle over consumer device encryption that most recently sparked a wider debate on how best to balance personal privacy with national security. Like the New York case, the FBI is currently seeking an AWA-based motion to compel Apple's assistance in cracking a passcode-encrypted iPhone 5c used by San Bernardino terror suspect Syed Rizwan Farook.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    Court:

    all writs its act doesn't let you do that. 


    FBI:

    then we will keep filing all over the nation until we get someone who "reinterprets" it our way. 


    The the entire planet:


    edited March 2016 brakkentdknoxlatifbpnouser
  • Reply 2 of 12
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    ORLY?

    Poor US govt being inconvenienced by pesky laws!
    We should get rid of the constitution, and the façade of democracy while we're at it!
    tdknoxlatifbpbuzdotsnouser
  • Reply 3 of 12
    The government will keep going until it gets a win (in which case Apple will appeal) or it loses (in which case it will appeal) until this case gets to the SCOTUS. If not in this case, another. 

    Might as well send it right there, right now. 
    edited March 2016 magman1979nouser
  • Reply 4 of 12
    roakeroake Posts: 737member
    SCROTUS?
    latifbpbuzdotsbadmonk
  • Reply 5 of 12
    stskstsk Posts: 22member
    With any luck, they can add the important "Cyber Cooties" argument promoted by the San Bernardino DA. I'm sure the courts will find that compelling when combined with the Cyrus Vance "I'll stomp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue" argument.
    magman1979SpamSandwichlatifbpnouserbadmonk
  • Reply 6 of 12
    Urei1620Urei1620 Posts: 88member
    It is the FBI's job to figure out how to access the data in the phone with the billions of dollars they get from us each year. We expect them to be able to hack any phone and get the data they "need", after getting a search warrant of course.

    The problem with law enforcement is that they would rather use coercion and intimidation instead of brains. The FBI should hire MIT or Carnegie Mellon if they are too lazy and stupid to do the hard work.

    This needs to be settled by the SCOTUS.

    The job of Chief of the FBI should have been given to an engineer rather than a lawyer. All Jim Comey knows is to take his problems to court. We need Congressman Issa beat some sense into him again.
    edited March 2016 magman1979tdknoxradster360latifbp
  • Reply 7 of 12
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,018member
    These idiots just don't fuckibg give up huh!
    magman1979radster360
  • Reply 8 of 12
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,801member
    Maybe the govt should find its own Neo and stop forcing Apple to hack its own software. 
    nouser
  • Reply 9 of 12
    radster360radster360 Posts: 544member
    The government will keep going until it gets a win (in which case Apple will appeal) or it loses (in which case it will appeal) until this case gets to the SCOTUS. If not in this case, another. 

    Might as well send it right there, right now. 
    The sad part is that if Apple appeals with SCOTUS, it will get rejected. Like what they did today with the E-Book issue. I don't understand why Apple has become "Enemy of State" - Apple is getting dinged by everything. And this didn't start with Apple v/s FBI, but goes back with Samsung issue, etc. etc. Could the Syrian blood in Steve Jobs have anything to do with it? Just saying it.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    zimmermannzimmermann Posts: 260member
    Hey come on, it isn't House of Cards time.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    The government will keep going until it gets a win (in which case Apple will appeal) or it loses (in which case it will appeal) until this case gets to the SCOTUS. If not in this case, another. 

    Might as well send it right there, right now. 
    The sad part is that if Apple appeals with SCOTUS, it will get rejected. Like what they did today with the E-Book issue. I don't understand why Apple has become "Enemy of State" - Apple is getting dinged by everything. And this didn't start with Apple v/s FBI, but goes back with Samsung issue, etc. etc. Could the Syrian blood in Steve Jobs have anything to do with it? Just saying it.
    This.

    Most recently, the Supreme Court just flat decided "nah, nobody got time fo' dat!" when Apple asked them to hear their appeal regarding one of the stupidest decisions ever regarding their ebook case. Seriously? The Supreme Court doesn't "have time" for one of the biggest corporate cases of recent times? I guess the DOJ cronies and judges like to watch each others' backs rather than watching out for America. 

    That was a time for the government to say it was ok for someone selling a product to define the price of that product and not be at the mercy of a reseller who railroaded them into being forced to to accept sales loss should that suit the reseller.

    Amazon could bankrupt an ebook seller like that and Apple says, "hey, we are here to make it all fair to everyone." The sellers get to make a fair wage and the buyers get a fair price. Of course everyone wants something as close to free as possible, but that's not fair to the seller nor is it sustainable.

    Apple wanted to do right by the ebook publishers and still make the prices fair - JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE MUSIC INDUSTRY and saved a countless amount of money by showing consumers a more excellent way than pirating.

    I personally have an Amazon Prime account. I also sell ebooks on Amazon. And part of my account offers me free Kindle books.

    I don't know how much of the Prime fees go to authors of said "free" Kindle books as mine have never been on offer like that. But that fact that Amazon forces me to allow them to sell my work at a price in which I do not profit if they so wish, just reeks of strong-arm tactics. If I want to sell ebooks, I must sell on iBooks and Amazon. And sadly, the majority of my sales are on Amazon (I guess people really don't know that iBooks is so vastly superior). So I am stuck.

    Apple pays better than Amazon does in terms of royalties even though the books are sold for the same price on each.

    The iBooks version allows unbelievably rich and complex formatting. The Kindle version? crap. As someone who is very detail oriented, this really bugs me.

    I can see the rationale. Not every entity that publishes an ebook knows what they are doing and so Amazon thought they would create guidelines that help to establish a reader friendly baseline. the only problem is that there isn't much wiggle room and Amazon's idea of what looks good and readable is vastly different than Apples. Apple = good test. Amazon = not so much. I create an ebook and it turns out exactly like I want on iBooks. I do so on Amazon and I must make massive formatting concessions. In short, Kindle is inferior to iBooks. 

    So I am looking at this three ways:

    1) What is fair to a company that wants to compete in the ebook market

    2) What is fair to the consumer who buys ebooks

    3) What is fair to the entity that produces and sells ebooks.

    It seems Amazon has made it to where it's all fair to Amazon and I believe the customer like that agreement, because at least so far, it gets the price down in many cases.
    However, Apple has come up with a way to really make a go of the ebook market that is fair to EVERYONE. All three.

    What Amazon does is it abuses its entrenched position to force its sellers into anticompetitive practices that best suit Amazon and potentially hurt the seller as well as any other entity who wishes to compete with Amazon.

    How Apple coming along and creating a fair model that allows publishers to have the final say was handled so poorly and misinterpreted is unbelievable.

    Apple is actually following the capitalist philosophy. If there is one thing we all have learned is that in a free market, if your price is too high, people don't buy. So the market can sort itself out. It doesn't need Amazon forcing itself on people trying to make a living and it doesn't need the DOJ protecting anticompetitive practices.

    Finally, after Apple was  assigned a woefully and admittedly incompetent overseer who charges and abusive amount of fees, the whole case ends up where it belongs - the United States Supreme Court. then end all be all, best chance you have of getting a fair hearing. And what do they do? 

    The stage is set. It looks a lot like a chess board. And Apple is like a lone queen facing a full complement of complicit characters trying to take it down.

    Simply because they make no apologies for constantly trying to build the best computing products on the planet. Think about that for a while.


    latifbpJanNLcivanouser
  • Reply 12 of 12
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 966member
     "At the time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said Apple initially agreed to cooperate, as it had done at least 70 times before, but later flip-flopped due to public relations concerns."

    sounds like a lie to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.