Judge Rules in Separate Case That Apple Does NOT Have To Unlock an iPhone

Discussion in 'Android News' started by dgstorm, Mar 1, 2016.

  1. dgstorm

    dgstorm Editor in Chief
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,016
    Likes Received:
    3,979
    Trophy Points:
    823
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +4,254
    [​IMG]

    The biggest mobile tech news case that has been dominating the headlines (other than US politics) has been the feud between Apple and the FBI. It's back in the news cycle this morning, but in a separate case than the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.

    As a recap, the FBI has ordered Apple to hack/unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, and Apple refused because it would require them to create software which would compromise the security of all of their iPhones. Apple also argued that it is a dangerous violation of civil rights and is unconstitutional for the FBI to even ask. Apple even went as far as filing a motion to have the FBI's court order vacated. That case is still pending, but that's not actually the case making the headlines today.

    Apparently, there is another case in New York in which the FBI has ordered Apple to unlock an iPhone which was seized as evidence in a drug trafficking case. In that case, the iPhone in question is actually an older device, and it would be much easier for Apple to unlock the device. Despite that, Apple has argued against the order, claiming that unlocking the device would, "substantially tarnish the Apple brand." Judge James Orenstein, who is presiding over the New York case actually agreed with Apple's argument, and ruled that the FBI can NOT order Apple to unlock the device.

    In this case, the FBI also attempted to compel Apple using the All Writs Act, just as it has in the San Bernardino shooting. In four separate parts of Judge Orenstein's legal brief he made these points,
    • "The established rules for interpreting a statute's text constrain me to reject the government's interpretation that the AWA empowers a court to grant any relief not outright prohibited by law.
    • "The extraordinary relief [the government] seeks cannot be considered 'agreeable to the usages and principles of law.'"
    • "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, rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking."
    • "The government should not be able to run to court to get the surveillance power that Congress has deliberately kept from it. The future of digital privacy also hangs in the balance. If the government can force companies to weaken the security of their products, then we all lose."
    Orenstein's final point (paraphrasing) was that the FBI and the Department of Justice were trying to circumvent the system by gaining broad authority that is not expressly permitted in the Constitution. He acknowledged that the digital age has created a complex situation, but that arbitrarily granting power to the FBI in this case would be unlawful. Furthermore, there needs to be more discourse on this matter through new legislation and not law enforcement.

    So, basically, this judge concurs with Apple's assessment that Congress needs to address these technological hurdles through new legislation designed to work for 21st Century technology, and find a way to make it work without bypassing the Constitution in the process.

    In a final note on this particular case, an Apple executive made it clear that this is not a binding legal precedent in regard to the San Bernardino case, yet it is still "an important precedent of opinion."

    Source: NBCNews
     
  2. pc747

    pc747 Administrator
    Staff Member Rescue Squad

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    24,709
    Likes Received:
    5,628
    Trophy Points:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +6,233
    So basically be on look out for an executive order allowing more power to be able to have oems be required to unlock phones in the future.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Vepaot

    Vepaot Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    158
    Location:
    KCMO
    Ratings:
    +258
    Current Phone Model:
    LG G5 (LS992)
    I'm back and forth on this. On the one hand, it's not Apple's responsibility to get involved with this sort of thing. They sell their product and if criminals want to use it for nefarious purposes, that is on them. On the flip side of that though, we're talking about the same company that was bricking their older iPhones years ago when customers were using them in a way Apple didn't see fit; and they were also talking about blocking out all pornography from their iPods, iPhones, and iPads.

    It's a fine line to walk on. You can't want to exert control over a product you sold to someone else, but then absolve yourself of how they use it when they see fit. Though personally, I do hope Apple stands their ground. If they do give into this sort of thing, it will set in a motion a very bad precedent for the mobile technology industry.
     
  4. chevycam94

    chevycam94 SteelDroid ROM / Cortex ROM Developer
    Developer

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,616
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Ratings:
    +222
    Current Phone Model:
    Nexus 6P, VZW Note Edge, D1
    This could be bad if Apple doesn't comply. That kind of tells criminals to use iPhones to do their communication, and keep it encrypted/locked. That way, nobody would ever see what was on it, and Apple won't allow it. That's ENCOURAGING crime!

    I have to say Apple is wrong on this one. What if they got the iPhone of someone who shot a president? Too bad, so sad. Apple won't help you.

    I think they are using the "one-key-fits-all" thing as an excuse. They could very well unlock one phone at a time. They don't actually need a one size fits all key. They know how their software is written, they already have the solution, they just want to "save face". They COULD do it, and not compromise every other iPhone, but they just "don't want to ".