4 ms·

The conclusion is pretty clear. Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether th

The conclusion is pretty clear. Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come. For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not. The government's motion is denied. It doesn't answer the question that was on my mind ("Can the FBI force Apple to write and cryptographically sign a less-secure version of their operating system?"), but it's nice to know that the AWA doesn't grant them that capability.

y0y 11y ago
I've seen a lot of doom and gloom about the current state of the US government all around the internet, but I have to say that this kind of thing helps me remain optimistic. A judge is free to make his or her decision without fear of coercion or some fanciful Tom Clancy-esque story unfolding as some people seem to believe things to work. The system may be flawed, but it's not broken yet.
- r00fus 11y ago
  I would feel a lot more confident about the US's overall state of corruption if the defendant in this case weren't the largest capitalized company in the world. Would this case have come to the same result (which is likely to be appealed) if it was say UnluckySmallCo. instead of Apple that was on the receiving end of the government's pressure?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    If UnluckySmallCo. had created a phone that was used by defendants in nine separate cases, they probably would be big enough to handle it.
    - CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
      Let's look at it from a different angle: What if you were a GNU/Linux distro maintainer and nine defendants had used your OS instead of Windows? Could you be forced to help the FBI?
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Or you maintained an open source crypto library? Yeah, that might be tougher. But if it was an open source crypto library, the feds could just fork it and leave you alone...
    - wooter 11y ago
      the fact that the government is creating so many cases, hoping one sticks, isn't a good sign to me. lavabit didn't fare so well.
  - singlow 11y ago
    I thought the defendant in this case was a drug dealer.
andrewjl 11y ago
The FBI needs some legal basis for forcing Apple to develop and cryptographically sign a less-secure version of their operating system. This order, assuming it's not overturned by a higher court on appeal, removes one legal avenue the FBI had. I haven't seen any other avenues. (In fact, Apple cited laws on the books that expressly prohibit the FBI from making this type of request if it concerns a phone manufacturer.)
username223 11y ago
This is one of those times I really wish we had a functioning legislative branch. They could write and pass a law describing companies' obligations and law enforcement's powers when dealing with strong encryption on smartphones. Then people who disagreed could take it to the courts, and a Supreme Court with an odd number of justices could decide whether said law was constitutional. Unfortunately we do not live in that world, so we get to creatively interpret centuries-old laws written by people who could not have imagined encrypted smartphones. And that interpretation may end up at an evenly-divided Supreme Court.
- bmelton 11y ago
  In the event of a tie, the the lower court is the tie-breaker. Having an even number of justices doesn't break the court, and even if it did, it'd be another long while before this case could be appealed that high anyway. Even if we're to believe the rhetoric that the Senate isn't going to appoint any candidate, nobody's even been nominated yet, so the idea that the whole system is broken may be true, but not for the reasons speculated.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  An even number of justices does not necessarily mean a deadlocked Supreme Court. Most cases are not decided 5-4 (though it may be true that the most controversial cases are more likely to be decided that way).
  - username223 11y ago
    I agree, especially in this case. Since it isn't a straightforward Democrats vs. Republicans issue, Kennedy or Roberts might go either way. Still, with our useless Congress, there won't be any new law, and even if there were, it could be struck down by a Circuit Court decision "approved" by a deadlocked Supreme Court. Ugh.

y0y 11y ago

I've seen a lot of doom and gloom about the current state of the US government all around the internet, but I have to say that this kind of thing helps me remain optimistic. A judge is free to make his or her decision without fear of coercion or some fanciful Tom Clancy-esque story unfolding as some people seem to believe things to work. The system may be flawed, but it's not broken yet.

r00fus 11y ago
I would feel a lot more confident about the US's overall state of corruption if the defendant in this case weren't the largest capitalized company in the world. Would this case have come to the same result (which is likely to be appealed) if it was say UnluckySmallCo. instead of Apple that was on the receiving end of the government's pressure?
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  If UnluckySmallCo. had created a phone that was used by defendants in nine separate cases, they probably would be big enough to handle it.
  - CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
    Let's look at it from a different angle: What if you were a GNU/Linux distro maintainer and nine defendants had used your OS instead of Windows? Could you be forced to help the FBI?
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      Or you maintained an open source crypto library? Yeah, that might be tougher. But if it was an open source crypto library, the feds could just fork it and leave you alone...
  - wooter 11y ago
    the fact that the government is creating so many cases, hoping one sticks, isn't a good sign to me. lavabit didn't fare so well.
- singlow 11y ago
  I thought the defendant in this case was a drug dealer.

andrewjl 11y ago

The FBI needs some legal basis for forcing Apple to develop and cryptographically sign a less-secure version of their operating system. This order, assuming it's not overturned by a higher court on appeal, removes one legal avenue the FBI had. I haven't seen any other avenues. (In fact, Apple cited laws on the books that expressly prohibit the FBI from making this type of request if it concerns a phone manufacturer.)

username223 11y ago

This is one of those times I really wish we had a functioning legislative branch. They could write and pass a law describing companies' obligations and law enforcement's powers when dealing with strong encryption on smartphones. Then people who disagreed could take it to the courts, and a Supreme Court with an odd number of justices could decide whether said law was constitutional. Unfortunately we do not live in that world, so we get to creatively interpret centuries-old laws written by people who could not have imagined encrypted smartphones. And that interpretation may end up at an evenly-divided Supreme Court.

bmelton 11y ago
In the event of a tie, the the lower court is the tie-breaker. Having an even number of justices doesn't break the court, and even if it did, it'd be another long while before this case could be appealed that high anyway. Even if we're to believe the rhetoric that the Senate isn't going to appoint any candidate, nobody's even been nominated yet, so the idea that the whole system is broken may be true, but not for the reasons speculated.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
An even number of justices does not necessarily mean a deadlocked Supreme Court. Most cases are not decided 5-4 (though it may be true that the most controversial cases are more likely to be decided that way).
- username223 11y ago
  I agree, especially in this case. Since it isn't a straightforward Democrats vs. Republicans issue, Kennedy or Roberts might go either way. Still, with our useless Congress, there won't be any new law, and even if there were, it could be struck down by a Circuit Court decision "approved" by a deadlocked Supreme Court. Ugh.