And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.It's been an incredibly interesting week for Apple, to say the least. … While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control. “The FBI may use different words to describe this tool,” Cook writes, “but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. ”Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor.” -Tim Cook While Apple has assisted “when the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession,” complying with subpoenas and search warrants as required by law, the company doesn’t have your passcode, and refuses to build a backdoor into iOS to get around tha passcode security, even for this case. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” it reads in part. “A line must be drawn here: The government must not be allowed to force tech companies to undermine the security of their own products, especially with nothing but a vague catch-all statute that’s over a century old to back up its argument,” he added.Īpple has up to five business days from the receipt of the order to appeal to the court if it finds that compliance with the ruling could be “unreasonably burdensome.” Apple released a statement signed by Tim Cook just hours after the news broke. The company is right to fight the order, Bankston said. The All Writs Act gives federal courts the authority to issue orders that are “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” but civil rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation point to a Supreme Court order that set limits to the use of the statute, including requiring that a court cannot use it to bypass other laws or the Constitution, or require third parties to assist in ways that would be “unreasonably burdensome.” The phone used by Farook runs iOS 9 and the company still has the ability to assist the government despite its claims that it has written the software differently, it added. It was not evident from the outside of the device whether the auto-erase function had been enabled.Īpple has the ability to bypass the password on some of its devices, including turning off the auto-erase function, and it would not be unduly burdensome on the company to do so as it is in the business of writing software code and would be reasonably reimbursed for its effort, according to the government filing. The officials said that they could not make attempts to crack the password because of a user-enabled auto-erase function in the device that would erase all encrypted data after 10 failed tries. District Court for the Central District of California that despite a warrant authorizing the search and permission of Farook’s employer, who owned the phone, law enforcement had not been able to access encrypted content on the device because of its passcode.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |