Apple Files Final Response In San Bernardino iPhone Case (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In its final briefing before a court showdown next week, Apple said, "The court must consider the national debate surrounding the issue of mandating a backdoor or the dangers to the security and privacy of millions of citizens. According to Apple, the government also believes the courts can order private parties "to do virtually anything the Justice Department and FBI can dream up. The Founders would be appalled." In response to the government, Apple said, "the catastrophic security implications of that threat only highlight the government's fundamental misunderstanding or reckless disregard of the technology at issue and the security risks implicated by its suggestion." According to TechCrunch, Apple made an interesting change in its strategy in the court on Tuesday. From its article, "The tone of today's filing and subsequent call was much more cold and precise. Apple got some time to consider the best way to respond and went with dissecting the FBI's technical arguments in a series of precise testimonies by its experts. Where the FBI filing last week relied on invective, Apple's this week relies on poking holes in critical sections of the FBI's technical narrative." Edward Snowden also made a remark about the hearing. He tweeted, "Today I learned that "#Apple has way better lawyers than the DOJ."

Comments

Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye

[Shatrat]

In the meantime Apple is working on doubling down on their encryption by also encrypting the iCloud data based on the key on the device.
I've never owned an Apple product in my life, but I'm thinking about it now. It's good to see someone standing up to the growing police state, even if the only presidential candidate that even hinted at opposing it just dropped out.

Re:The sky will darken with Apple and Google lawye

[BronsCon]

All while the FBI knows how to break in, giving everybody a false sense of security.

Judge: What was the source of this information?
FBI: Uhm... a hunch?

Yeah, you see, they'd have to admit the ability in open court for it to be useful. Otherwise, they have to explain to the court how they got information that only existed in one place: on the phone. And if they make up some bullshit, while the court may buy it in isolation, that bullshit does not live in isolation, it lives in a world where the defense attorney can point out that the data the FBI claims to have only exists on the device the FBI claims they can't access, so the data is inadmissible as evidence because either the FBI is lying about the content (e.g. they made the data up because they couldn't actually get at it) or lying about how they got it.

Our legal system has its flaws; this is not one of them.