However countering that claim, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Manhattan district attorney, have now both admitted that they would use an Apple back door to unlock close to 200 other smartphones if they win the case.
Advertisement
Among the witnesses scheduled to appear at the hearing:FBI Director James Comey and Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell.
Comey conceded that his agency would seek court orders to access other iPhones around the nation if a California judge forces Apple to unlock Farook’s phone.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte said technology is moving toward newer generations of encryption and security, and “we’re going to have to figure out a different way to help law enforcement”.
“Apple is very good at what it does. they have set out to design a phone that can’t be opened”.
On Monday a Federal magistrate in Brooklyn, New York denied the government access to an iPhone owned by an alleged drug dealer.
Apple’s lawyers filed the appeal “in an abundance of caution”, to cover the possibility that an appeal is the most appropriate way to oppose Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym’s February 16 order, they said in a court filing. “We’re doing this because we think that protecting security and the privacy of hundreds of millions of iPhone users is the right thing to do”, he said.
In connection with a shooting case in San Bernardino, a Federal court has ordered Apple to create a software to bypass security features on an iPhone used by a terrorist.
In response, Comey agreed with Goodlatte’s comment, even though he had previously said this would only affect Farook’s iPhone.
On December 2, an Islamic couple – US-born Syed Rizwan Farook and his Pakistani wife Tashfeen Malik – attacked the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, killing 14 people and injuring more than two dozen. Apple initially said it would help. Still, the director acknowledged that any ruling made by the California court would likely be weighed in any similar future cases.
Advertisement
Despite the fact that Apple had never objected before, Orenstein ruled that the government can not use the All Writs Act against Apple because another law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, addresses the same issues but excludes specifying information services companies.
