The FBI wants Apple to install custom software on an iPhone 5c used by a terrorist.
Advertisement
Comey acknowledged that last week’s order could help guide other courts considering the same issue in the future.
The information first surfaced in the US government’s February 19 motion requesting Pym to compel Apple to comply with her order after Apple CEO Tim Cook, following Pym’s February 16 order, posted an open letter on the company’s website saying Apple would fight the order.
The “MDM solution”, said Wert, is not created to allow a device’s owner to take control of the device from an uncooperative user, but to protect the county’s network from trouble that might try to come in through a mobile device. “We need 21st century laws that address 21st century technology issues, and we need these laws to be written by Congress. We therefore agree wholeheartedly with Apple that the right place to bring this discussion is here, to the House of Representatives and the Senate, so the people who are elected by the people can make these decisions”.
Finally, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department told USA Today on Thursday that its attorneys are now reviewing Apple’s new motion, and will respond “appropriately” in court.
Got it? Well…Think of it as standing up for one of your friends when they are in trouble, even if they didn’t ask for your help. He also said that the code would remain in Apple’s hands.
Asked whether he could promise that what the Federal Bureau of Investigation was requesting would not “echo beyond” the San Bernardino case, Comey told the House appropriations panel, “The American people need to decide how we ought to be”. “But the government knows those statements are not true; indeed the government has filed multiple other applications for similar orders, some of which are pending in other courts”. But at some point, Apple reached a point at which it was not willing to “offer the relief the government was asking for”.
The court fight is set on new ground that could create meaningful precedent and establish new legal boundaries on how technology is dealt with in the national security context when encrypted devices increasingly proliferate and so numerous overarching laws governing their use are antiquated.
Apple’s lawyers also blamed the US Authorities for forcing a password reset of Farook’s iCloud account.
And it is worth pointing out that Apple is not alone here.
The case will be heard in court on 22 March.
Advertisement
Indeed, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter have all pledged to join a supporting brief, and will reportedly sign a joint amicus brief in support of Apple’s position.
