Yesterday, he met the deadline in which Apple had to respond to the order issued by a federal judge and according to which it ordered the company to create the tools that were necessary so that the FBI could access the iPhone 5c of the alleged San Bernardino terrorist, Farook. And effectively it has been like that. Apple has presented the legal allegations on which it bases its refusal to comply with that order, and it makes it very clear.
Apple lawyers say NO to Justice and the FBI
A week after Tim Cook passionately defended the company's opposition to what he described as an "unprecedented danger" to freedoms and privacy in an open letter, the company's lawyers have added the nuance to those words. It is essential to avoid the court order that obliges the company to unlock the iPhone 5c of Farook, an alleged terrorist linked to the Islamic State who on December 14 killed XNUMX people and left about twenty badly injured in the town. Californian from San Bernardino.
It has been before a federal court in Riverside (California) where Apple has requested to revoke this order arguing that, if it is complied with, the private, personal, and confidential information of users would be much more exposed to both malicious hackers and a possible e unwarranted government surveillance.
Apple's legal argument is based on what it considers a abuse of authority by the Department of Defense in the exercise of its functions, since it would not be a question of unlocking a single device, but rather that “the FBI seeks through justice a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have maintained; the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the world. "
Although the authorities insist that it is a single iPhone, that of Syed Rizan Farook, found in his car after he and his wife were killed by the police in a long chase, the truth is that there are other similar requests, at the minus 8, which Apple also opposes under the argument that if it complies with a single order, another will soon follow, and another, and another, in addition to the fact that governments of other countries could pose similar demands.
The greater public good is a secure communication infrastructure protected by ubiquitous encryption at the device, server, and enterprise level without incorporating means for government monitoring.said Apple in its argument.
In the 65-page document, all full of arguments that, legally, would support the company's position, Apple states that justice has exceeded its authority by wanting to force Apple to create new software, something that qualifies as an "undue burden" on the company and that would violate constitutional rights.
The United States Has No Power To "Enlist Apple" To Help The FBI
The order that Apple must provide "reasonable technical assistance" is based on what appears to be a free reading of the All Writes Act (All Court Orders Act), a law dating from 1789 that requires third parties to take “non-burdensome” measures to help law enforcement agencies execute search warrants in circumstances not covered by other legislation. According to Apple, this law does not authorize the United States to force companies to help the FBI.
"There is currently no operating system that can do what the government wants, and any effort to create it would require Apple to write new code, not just disable the functionality of existing code," according to the documentation. This would require at least a dozen engineers working for a month, which should be done in an absolutely isolated and safe way, which would allow them to create and test this new software and, later, supervise its use by the FBI after which, it should be destroyed.
In addition to the above arguments, Apple charges against the FBI and its error during investigation. The agents managed to change the password associated with the Farook account, which is why the iPhone could no longer perform a backup in iCloud. This was before seeking collaboration from Apple. The company contends that without that error, this dispute probably would not have arisen.
Privacy vs. Security
Should the right to privacy of users or the need to investigate a criminal act prevail? Can a company be responsible for the misuse that a user makes of a device? The key to the debate seems to be there: Privacy V. Security.
Dvid Jolly, Republican Representative for Florida, has gone so far as to express that "Apple executives run the risk of having blood on their hands" if they do not cooperate with the FBI and if it is determined that critical information on the phone could have prevented a future attack, "Tim Cook will find it difficult to explain," he said.
But in Apple's view, the First Amendment supports its position. According to this, the computer code is protected by the right to free expression and consequently, forcing the company to create the necessary code to penetrate an iPhone would go against their freedom of expression.
For his part, James Comey, director of the FBIHe noted that it is not a good idea to have "spaces immune to search warrants", such as telephones and other devices.
Several technology companies such as Google or Twitter could present reports of amicus curiae in support of Apple. So would the United States Civil Liberties Union while the families of those killed in the San Bernardino attack will do the same in support of the government.
Follow the news in Applelizados:
- Apple ordered to unlock iPhone of perpetrator of California shooting
- Apple Refuses to Collaborate with FBI in San Bernardino Killer Case
- Google CEO describes the FBI's demands on Apple as a "worrying precedent"
- Facebook, Twitter and ACLU also support Apple in its fight against the FBI and Justice
- Donald Trump encourages boycott against Apple while tweeting from his iPhone
- The San Bernardino victims, along with the FBI and against Apple
- Bill Gates thinks Apple should unlock Syed Farook's iPhone
- Justice Department Wants Apple to Extract Data from 12 More iPhones
- The American people, in favor of the FBI against Apple
- Apple files its allegations against the FBI petition
You can also hear our thoughts on this matter on our Apple Talkings podcast.
SOURCE | Management
