4 ms·
The non-controversial part (that even Apple concedes in its briefs) is that the AWA grants courts the power to issue one of several particular forms of writs (c
by rst 11y ago
The non-controversial part (that even Apple concedes in its briefs) is that the AWA grants courts the power to issue one of several particular forms of writs (court orders) that existed in British Common Law prior to the American Revolution, when it's necessary to do so in service of some other order that the same court has already issued.
The controversial part is what the AWA authorizes (if anything) beyond those pre-existing types of writs. Apple's position was "not much, if anything". The government's was, in effect, "anything not specifically denied by a law passed by Congress" -- which attracted heavy criticism, not only from Apple's lawyers, but also from many highly qualified lawyers who submitted amicus briefs.
- brisance 11y agoBut the FBI reports to Obama and Obama being an ex-law professor surely would've told them that their plan would be doomed to failure. Unless Obama wanted them to fail…?
- acqq 11y agoIt appears as reading in too much, because nobody knew if Apple would react so strongly and bravely, risking to be presented by the majority of the press as "helping the terrorists." Read, as an example of the view opposite of Apple's, how Bill Gates reacted: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/bill-gates-on-apple-unlock-terror-suspects-iphone http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/bill-gates-on...