Apple said that in this case the Department of Justice is exceeded in the exercise of his authority, saying that there is a single iPhone but the FBI seeks the following …
it’s been a week since federal investigators threw down the gauntlet to Silicon Valley.
(Bloomberg) .- Tim Cook called it nothing less than a threat to civil liberties, digital privacy of millions of people and to safety of children. Now, after a week since federal investigators threw down the gauntlet to Silicon Valley , Cook’s lawyers intervened to provide dispassionate legal arguments opposing Apple Inc. unlock iPhone used by one of the attackers they killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Apple said that in this case the Department of Justice is exceeded in the exercise of his authority, saying that not This unique iPhone but that “ FBI seeks justice through a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have kept; the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and interests regarding privacy of hundreds of millions of individuals throughout the world “.
On Thursday, in a filing documents in court federal in Riverside, California, Apple asked the judge to revoke the order dated 16 February that demanded help FBI to override the encoding iPhone used by Rizwan Syed Farook, who led the shootout with his wife. The company argued that unlock the device Farook ultimately return the confidential and personal information vulnerable users to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents and unwarranted government surveillance.
‘greater good’
“the greatest public good is a secure communication infrastructure protected by a ubiquitous device-level encryption, server and enterprise without incorporating means for monitoring government,” he said Apple.
The government has said it is not seeking a rear door or setting a precedent and only concerned access to your Farook, but Apple already is standing against at least eight attempts to force the company to help prosecutors to open investigations related devices. The company says that if it complies with an order, followed by others and may foreign governments raise similar demands.
The response of Apple to order is the first formal step in the company in a case that could be destined to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 65 pages, the document proposes a basic legal argument: that justice has overstepped its authority forcing Apple to create new software and force a company to do so would represent an “undue burden”. The request of the government violates the constitutional rights of Apple against the obligation to express a certain way and forced business activities, the company said.
Sala hyper-protected.
Design software needed to unlock the phone would require 10 engineers and company employees for four weeks, Apple said. These engineers should also use an isolation ward hyper-secure to create and test the new operating system fixed and then monitor their use by the FBI . Then they would have to destroy it, Apple said.
“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 only disable the functionality of the code existing “according to the documents.
Apple also he said the United States has no power to force the company to help the FBI . The judge’s decision in the sense that it must provide “reasonable support” is based on the premise of an unprecedented expansion of the All Writs Act (law of all court orders), a 1789 law in which they supported prosecutors to the opinion of last week. The law requires third parties to take “not expensive” to help law enforcement agencies executed search warrants in circumstances not covered by other legislation and does not authorize a judge to “recruit Apple” to develop software measures, the company said .
‘Too dangerous’
“the order required by government forces Apple to create a new operating system -in practice, a ‘back door’ to the iPhone – the development of which Apple considers too dangerous. “Apple said
Apple also rebuked the FBI by an error in your research. He said the agents changed the password associated with one of the accounts of the attacker without consulting the company or review public materials on the operating system. This prevented the phone automatically log all the iCloud. The government has already agreed to data in iCloud, reaching to more than a month before the attack. Without that mistake probably this dispute would not have arisen, said.
Free expression.
is well established that the computer code is protected by the right to free expression First Amendment, said Apple. The company said it can not be obliged in this case to create the code because that would affect their freedom of expression. The lawyers then raised some imaginary scenarios such as forcing a pharmaceutical laboratory to create a drug used for lethal or being told a reporter to write a false story to come out of hiding a fugitive injection.
the hypothetical prospect of forcing a laboratory to manufacture a drug for lethal injections was discussed earlier in Brooklyn, New York, where prosecutors are trying to access the phone of a drug trafficker in prison. a decision on that case is expected shortly.
Privacy vs. Security.
impasse, based on whether the United States can require Apple to create code likely to nullify a key feature of its iOS operating system security, it refers only to a certain extent what law enforcement agencies may require a company in its investigation into the motivations of Farook. The couple died in a shootout with police.
The broader battle pits, however, the public interest in privacy interest in protection against terrorists and other criminals, and highlights that progress in consumer technology, including electronic diary coding, there may be overshadowed US law. Shortly before the company document was published, the Republican US representative from Florida, David Jolly, said “Apple executives are at 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 be difficult to explain, “Jolly said during a hearing at the subcommission Appropriations of the House to discuss the budget FBI .
the director of FBI , James Comey told the subcommittee that is not a good idea, in your opinion, have “immune spaces warrants” as phones and other devices. He admitted that the judge’s decision in the case of Apple could influence the thinking of courts that handle kinds of conflict on encoding.
Comey said that one of the mysteries that the FBI would resolve concerns where the terrorists were 19 minutes after the attacks. The officers checked the security cameras at service stations and other retail outlets but can not find out, Comey said. The answer could be on the phone man said.
Cook and Apple have gathered widespread support in the technology sector.
Technology companies like Twitter Inc., Google Inc. and microsoft Corp. next week plan to submit amicus curiae in support of Apple, as will the Civil Liberties Union of the United States. The families of those killed in the attack in San Bernardino submit reports in support of the government, his lawyer said.
No comments:
Post a Comment