Apple has asked a federal magistrate in Washington to vacate her order that it help the FBI hack into a locked iPhone.
Advertisement
– The case could set a precedent: “The government says: “Just this once” and ‘Just this phone, ‘” Apple’s lawyers write.
Apple has been ordered by a court to help crack the iPhone of Syed Farook who, along with his wife Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and injured 22 others in San Bernardino, California, in December. But Apple supporters say that the government’s interest in this specific case is less than the “compelling” standard, and does not outweigh the standing and value of Apple’s promise to consumers of privacy for their data.
“This case is about the future”, he said.
Microsoft has also officially confirmed that it will file an amicus brief, a court filing that offers insights to a court case, and back Apple.
Cook, who expressed the company’s sympathy for the families of the shooting victims, said the only way for Apple to provide more information on the phone Farook used would be to hack the phone using the software it so strongly opposes.
Over the course of the ongoing battle between Apple and the government over unlocking the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist, Max Levchin – PayPal co-founder and CEO of financial tech company Affirm – said his views have changed from a “clear-cut, black and white” stance of helping the Federal Bureau of Investigation to supporting Tim Cook.
While Comey said there are benefits to encryption and privacy, he also argued that law enforcement needs information to protect the public, which they often access through court orders that are search warrants, including of mobile devices.
“Apple is 100 percent correct in not providing or doing research to create software to break into it”, said Tom Rapko, an Apple investor from Santa Barbara, California, as he waited in line to enter the auditorium at Apple’s headquarters.
And it accused the government of working under a closed courtroom process under the auspices of a terrorism investigation of trying “to cut off debate and circumvent thoughtful analysis”.
Apple has equated the request to “hacking” its own devices and building a back door which could be used by others. The Watch was nice enough, but the interaction methods were confused and it didn’t have the focus that we’ve come to expect from Apple.
Advertisement
Attorneys for Apple also argued that forcing Apple to use its cryptographic signature to validate the code so that Farook’s iPhone would recognize and accept the new operating system would be “compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination” and violate the First Amendment.
