UPDATE : March 10 , 2016 , 3:46 p.m. Pacific — In a league call Thursday afternoon , Apple ’s SVP and chief effectual counsel Bruce Sewell said , “ The feel of the abbreviated reads like an bill of indictment , ” and in 30 years he ’s never see a brief trying so hard “ to smirch ” someone . “ It should be deeply offensive to everyone who reads it . ”
“ Corrosive rhetoric ” could be this week ’s “ sleeping cyber pathogen , ” the latest salvo in the government ’s endeavour to paint Apple as unreasonable for decline to craft a new interlingual rendition of iOS so law enforcement can brute - force an iPhone 5c used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook .
On Thursday , the Justice Department file a responseto the United States District Court for the Central District of California . That ’s the court that issued the purchase order for Apple to allow this help to the FBI , who is investigating the December 2 shooting .
War of words
The filing is a reaction toApple ’s legal argument , the first being that the All Writs Act is inappropriate to cover this request , as it ’s been superceded since then by more applicable Pentateuch likeCALEA . Apple will also argue that writing computer code should be considered speech , and since the first amendment would protect a diarist or writer from being order to write something the government want , the same free - manner of speaking protection should be offered Apple as a software party .
evidently , the DOJ disagrees and basically fault Apple for get itself into this mess by encrypting its devices in the first place . The political science ’s filing dismisses Apple ’s claim that executing this warrantee would be an unreasonable burden , saying , “ This burden , which is not undue , is the direct result of Apple ’s deliberate selling decision to orchestrate its product so the government can not search them , even with a warranty . ”
The filing also repeat the former canard that “ The Court ’s Order is modest . It hold to a single iPhone , and … it does not compel it to unlock other iPhones or to give the government activity a oecumenical ‘ maestro key ’ or ‘ back door . ’ ” But when FBI director James Comey and New York District Attorney Cyrus Vancetestified before Congresson February 25 ( along with Apple ’s trail counselBruce Sewelland Professor Susan Landau ) , both Comey and Vance hold that while this specific order is for this specific phone , the government would very likely seek to use this proficiency again with subsequent orders .
Before plunge into its legal arguments , the politics ’s briefing starts with a strongly worded introduction swiping at Apple ’s motive and rhetoric . Besides the accusal that Apple ’s option to impart firm encryption to iOS is about marketing , the filing charge :
alternatively of complying , Apple attacked the All Writs Act as archaic , the Court ’s lodge as leading to a “ police force country , ” and the FBI ’s investigation as shoddy , while extolling itself as the primary guardian of Americans ’ seclusion . ( See Wilkison Decl . Ex . 1 . ) Apple ’s rhetoric is not only false , but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able-bodied to safeguard our liberty and our rights : the tourist court , the Fourth Amendment , longstanding precedent and venerable Torah , and the democratically elect branches of government . … That see to it precedent and the All Writs Act — not Apple ’s technological fiat — should ascertain whether Farook ’s iPhone will be seek .
surety experts disagree that the regime even needs Apple ’s helper to enter the datum on Farook ’s iPhone . For example , the “ chip off ” proficiency would involve physically removing the flash store from the phone and clone it . The government presently ca n’t brute - violence Farook ’s four - digit passcode since iOS 9 has an Erase Data feature that , if enable , could wipe the earpiece after 10 incorrect attempts . Using the chip - off method acting , investigators could render 10 passcodes , then try out 10 more with a brisk copy of the flash reposition . It ’s a recollective , soft , and risky operation that experts say normally results in a destroyed headphone . But it does go directly counter to the government activity ’s repeated claims that its hands are dead tied without Apple ’s help .
The first hearing in this eccentric is scheduled for March 22,the day afterApple will announce its later round of golf of young mathematical product . Apple first received the court order on February 16 , and responded with amotion to dismisson February 26 . Last calendar week , other tech company , organizations , and security expertsfiled amicus briefsand friend - of - the - court alphabetic character support either Apple or the government . The DOJ ’s full filing from Thursday is embed below .
Gov’t Response to ApplebyCNBCDigital
