The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, which authorizes the United States federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law”.
Advertisement
Apple had previously agreed to help open up the iPhone in the drug case, and it has complied with past All Writs Act orders, the Justice Department said.
Committee members also questioned Sewell and Comey about whether weakening iPhone security would prevent terrorists from using encrypted messaging systems to evade law enforcement.
A judge for the US District Court in NY on Monday ruled that the US had no right to use a 227-year-old law called the All Writs Act to compel Apple to unlock a specific device and denied its motion.
The American Civil Liberties Union said it is filing a friend-of-the-court brief to Judge Pym Wednesday, urging her to reject the government effort, also citing Judge Orenstein’s ruling.
But U.S. law enforcement officials say evolving technologies aimed at protecting privacy have simultaneously weakened their ability to collect evidence in criminal investigations.
Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department want Apple to turn off the feature that erases an iPhone’s data after 10 failed attempts to unlock the device, so that investigators can run all possible combinations to break the four-digit passcode on Farook’s phone. That has set off a farreaching debate over privacy and security.
The case is In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, 16-00010, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Riverside). While the outcome does not have any direct effect on the more high-profile San Bernardino case, it is still a shot in the arm for Apple’s pro-privacy stance. Apple has said that in many cases investigators have other means to gain access to crucial information, and in some instances it has turned over data stored in iCloud. “We can all agree this is not about access to just one iPhone”.
Advertisement
However Comey appeared to confirm fears expressed by Apple chief Tim Cook that the Farook example would not be a “one time request”, after confirming that the precedent would “potentially” apply in future cases. “You have had apparently 70 prior instances where you have not taken the steps available to you”, Orenstein said to Apple’s lawyers during a hearing.
