Slashdot Mirror
Judge Favors Apple In iPhone Unlocking Case In New York (google.com)
The Washington Post reports that Apple has prevailed for the moment in its fight with the FBI over the agency's demand that Apple help them break the security of an iPhone — but not in the California case about the phone belonging to San Bernadino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook -- that more famous case, as we mentioned the other day, is of course not the only case with a phone the FBI would like to peek into. New York federal judge James Orenstein scoffs in his 50-page decision at government arguments that Apple should be compelled to produce a software solution that would give them full access to content of the phone belonging to a drug dealer's phone.
[Orenstein] found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones.
He also found that ordering Apple to help the government by extracting data from the iPhone- which belonged to a drug dealer --would place an unreasonable burden on the company....
He also expressed concern about conferring too much authority in the government. "Nothing in the government's arguments suggests any principled limit on how far a court may go in requiring a person or company to violate the most deeply-rooted values to provide assistance to the government the court deems necessary," he said. Whether the same logic will prevail in California is yet unclear; the New York decision is not binding on any other court.
He also found that ordering Apple to help the government by extracting data from the iPhone- which belonged to a drug dealer --would place an unreasonable burden on the company....
He also expressed concern about conferring too much authority in the government. "Nothing in the government's arguments suggests any principled limit on how far a court may go in requiring a person or company to violate the most deeply-rooted values to provide assistance to the government the court deems necessary," he said. Whether the same logic will prevail in California is yet unclear; the New York decision is not binding on any other court.
Doesn't look like Apple's making any big after-hours moves in the wake of the announcement.
and 43 other countries.
Everyone who stands to gain power will surly opt for totalitarian control.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
he had a supreme judge bumped off just so he could ensure the majority vote on this issue.
To be clear, this was a decision from a Federal Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of NY. (E.g. Long Island and Staten Island). It is not binding on any other court, but it is a Federal Court Decision, which gives it more weight than most equivalent state court decisions, and it is from a fairly well-respected District. (For example, they are responsible for some of the classic electronic discovery cases). They are not the Southern District of New York, which is the rock star of District Courts--but it has enough persuasive weight that most other courts will take it at least a little seriously. They just aren't required to follow it.
Feel free to scroll through my post history. Under what authority does the judge issue these orders? Nobody has been able to cite where this authority is coming from. Lots of people have told me that I'm wrong, in lots of ways. Nobody has actually answered the damned question or shown where the authority comes from. The judge doesn't have this kind of power.
An example, albeit not a good one, is that even though there's litter on the ground, a judge can't just order a random person to pick it up. There's nobody even charged in this case. There has been no indictment, no arraignment, nothing... There's nobody charged AND if there were, I'm still not sure that the judge has authority to issue this order.
People are still running around calling it a warrant. It's not a warrant. It was never a warrant.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
When courts are encountering an issue that's been decided before in another court, they often at least consider the other court's rationale, even if it's not binding precedent for them. That's termed "persuasive precedent". It's especially useful when several decisions going the same way pile up; then a party in a subsequent case can say, "every previous court to consider this issue has decided [x]", putting the onus on the other side to explain why the case here should go differently.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
http://www.y42k.com/2016/02/29/when-apple-settles-with-the-fbi/
. . . and I thought that Obama was was going to nominate himself for the empty seat on the Supreme Court
He can't do that. Biden will recess-appoint him after Obama resigns, and just before BIden walks into the DNC convention and kicks Sanders to the curb.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...I guess it's time for Apple to update its law enforcement compliance guide:
I. Extracting Data from Passcode Locked iOS Devices
[...]
For iOS devices running iOS versions earlier than iOS 8.0, upon receipt of a valid search warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause, Apple can extract certain categories of active data from passcode locked iOS devices. Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Appleâ(TM)s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (âoeuser generated active filesâ), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. Apple can perform this data extraction process on iOS devices running iOS 4 through iOS 7. Please note the only categories of user generated active files that can be provided to law enforcement, pursuant to a valid search warrant, are: SMS, iMessage, MMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Apple cannot provide: email, calendar entries, or any third-party app data.
What makes you think that Obama favors Apple's position?
If this goes far enough and it looks like it's going to get put up to SCOTUS, it's very likely the feds wil back down. Because then All Writs goes under the supreme microscope and may itself get ruled unconstitutional. THAT is something the FBI doesn't want to happen, because it's too useful of a law to lose. They're playing a dangerous game of chicken here. That NYC judge spelled it out, All Writs is a blank check. It's not even a matter of "inadequate protections against abuse"... it has essentially NO limits at all. The law just has to say "we need you to cooperate", and you have to do what they tell you to do, unless you can prove that it's clearly too much effort to demand. So if they can make a case that it's not too difficult for you to do, you have to do it, yours or anyone else's rights be damned. That'll make it a tough sell to keep on the books if SCOTUS gets involved.
Go look up "writ of assistance". In theory it was a "you can't interfere with my doing my govt job", but in practice it was typically applied as a "you are required to cooperate with and assist me in performing my government job, otherwise you're interfering with me". (it was a similar blank check, and was often used as a perpetual univeral search warrant for customs) That's one of a handful of principle complaints we had a few hundred years ago while living under England. I have NO idea how All Writs got on OUR books after we so clearly despised its grandfather, and it needs to go away. So I'm all for Apple talking this to the top.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
"The ruling is not binding in any other court"
"Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones."
So he is saying, OK if you want it, put it in law explicitly and see how the voters react to it. Seems to be conformation of what I pointed out the other day, this "issue" is confected with the aim of getting it into the lime light and making it a current political diving point.
The authority the FBI points to is the All Writs Act, passed in 1789. It's a law which probably should be repealed, but hasn't been. It says the following:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
By the text of the law, a court may render any order which is EITHER necessary OR appropriate in aid of a case under their jurisdiction, provided it is consistent with other law. To be clear, I'm not saying that SHOULD be the law; I don't like it, but that IS the text of the law, and it has been for 227 years.
Subsequent court decisions have held that when Congress passes a law providing more detail about a certain type of order, the more specific law controls. This is how they interpret the phrase "agreeable to the usages and principles of law". In other words, courts can issue any order they want, under the All Writs Act, unless there is some other law saying otherwise. So the legal question is, "is there some other act of Congress which overrides in this case?"
So by law, the question comes back to you (and Apple): "by what law is the authority granted by the All Writs Acts removed?"
Apple points out that Congress did make a law requiring telecommunications manufacturers and carriers to allow for phone taps, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but chose not to address decryption of past communications in that particular law. They made other laws in this general area, but none (other than the All Writs Act) that would allow for this type of order. Recently, Congress debated making a law that would require decryption. Congress didn't end up passing any law. The FBI says "because there is no law to the contrary, the All Writs Act applies". Apple says "because Congress chose not to make a law requiring decryption, that's the same as Congress making a law forbidding an order to decrypt, and the All Writs Act should not apply".
As much as I'd prefer Apple to win, their argument that Congress NOT passing a law is the same as Congress passing the opposite law is a bit silly. The fact that Congress didn't pass a law making cardboard legal is NOT the same as Congress passing a law making cardboard illegal.
The All Writs Act should be repealed, but it hasn't been. Courts have "interpreted" in such a way to trim it down to Constitutional scope. It FEELS like this use of it SHOULD be unconstitutional, but how so? The Constitution basically says the police have to get a warrant before they can search the phone. They did get the warrant.
Is this a taking of Apple's property (resources) without due process? We're watching the due process, so I don't see any specific clause of the Constitution which forbids it. In my analysis, the All Writs Act, though a bad law, is law and does give the court the authority.
Everyone knows the Feds already have it. Apple knows they have it. The Feds want presidence so every other company will willingly step in line.
If the FBI wins, everyone in the USA will be insecure, and everyone else in the world will buy an iOrange phone from China.
The constitution says "We the people,,,". not "We the paranoid cops...".
I'd rather be free than safe.
"The ruling is not binding in any other court" "Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones." So he is saying, OK if you want it, put it in law explicitly and see how the voters react to it.
More like "change the law that says you can't".
In the section of CALEA entitled “Design of features and systems configurations,” 47 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1), the statute says that it “does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer —
(1) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Apple has already given the data away to marketers.
^ TROLL
You're right, they don't give away data, they sold it. Probably for twice what it was worth because they put in a shiny folder with an apple logo on it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u