4 ms·

The DoJ doesn't really have the power to do that. They can get a judge to issue a warrant to search an existing device, and the judge can in some circumstances

The DoJ doesn't really have the power to do that. They can get a judge to issue a warrant to search an existing device, and the judge can in some circumstances compel other parties to cooperate in that search. But generally any requirement that Apple insert a generalized backdoor into a product will need to come from new legislation.

ubernostrum 11y ago
Actually the FBI's current argument is very close to saying that the All Writs Act has no limits, and can compel literally anything the FBI thinks would "help" them with investigations.
- hvindin 11y ago
  I'm not a lawyer so obviously I'm not exhaustively well read on the law but in the case that All Writs did allow any action to be demanded to help with an investigation it would still require there to be an investigation in the first place. To preemptively demand a back door is almost akin to guilty until proven innocent, youre assuming that there will be an investigation in the future where a governments ability to hack a device is required.
- russell_h 11y ago
  The FBI's argument doesn't come anywhere close to saying that. What the FBI's motion actually says[1] is: Pursuant to the All Writs Act, the Court has the power, "in aid of a valid warrant, to order a third party to provide nonburdensome technical assistance to law enforcement officers." The most important limitation here is that nobody, including the FBI, is claiming the All Writs Act grants the court any power at all in the absence of a search warrant. Nobody really disputes the statement above, or the validity of the warrant in question. Again: if the FBI wants Apple to preemptively insert a generalized backdoor into their products they'll need to lobby to have new legislation passed. They've tried that and it hasn't gone much of anywhere. In my opinion lets try and keep it that way. [1] http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SB-shooter-MOTION-seeking-asst-iPhone.pdf http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SB-shooter-M...
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    If the proposed help here isn't "burdensome", then nothing would be.

ubernostrum 11y ago

Actually the FBI's current argument is very close to saying that the All Writs Act has no limits, and can compel literally anything the FBI thinks would "help" them with investigations.

hvindin 11y ago
I'm not a lawyer so obviously I'm not exhaustively well read on the law but in the case that All Writs did allow any action to be demanded to help with an investigation it would still require there to be an investigation in the first place. To preemptively demand a back door is almost akin to guilty until proven innocent, youre assuming that there will be an investigation in the future where a governments ability to hack a device is required.
russell_h 11y ago
The FBI's argument doesn't come anywhere close to saying that. What the FBI's motion actually says[1] is: Pursuant to the All Writs Act, the Court has the power, "in aid of a valid warrant, to order a third party to provide nonburdensome technical assistance to law enforcement officers." The most important limitation here is that nobody, including the FBI, is claiming the All Writs Act grants the court any power at all in the absence of a search warrant. Nobody really disputes the statement above, or the validity of the warrant in question. Again: if the FBI wants Apple to preemptively insert a generalized backdoor into their products they'll need to lobby to have new legislation passed. They've tried that and it hasn't gone much of anywhere. In my opinion lets try and keep it that way. [1] http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SB-shooter-MOTION-seeking-asst-iPhone.pdf http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SB-shooter-M...
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  If the proposed help here isn't "burdensome", then nothing would be.