
Justice Dept.’s Latest Legal Filing in Apple Case - lucio
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/business/document-motion-to-compel-apple-compliance.html
======
rubyfan
This seems like a well crafted attack on Apple (perhaps the highest profile
tech company publicly supporting consumer encryption). The revelation earlier
this week that the pass code changed while under government custody seems to
point to this being a witch hunt.

The "just this one time" argument doesn't hold up for me. This is a battle
over public opinion and government powers. That they picked the San Bernardino
case to issue this order on is not a coincidence.

There is essentially no way to win this for privacy. If Apple wins, government
will make the case for more funding to break into devices tech companies
refuse to assist on. If the government wins this will be the tip of the ice
berg on the government compelling corporations to whatever ends.

~~~
cbuq
I've never believed in a conspiracy theory except for this case.

The government clearly wants to hack more than this one phone. The government
clearly waited for the next terror attack to launch this attack on privacy and
encryption.

------
jrapdx3
The document is fairly easy to parse, even for us non-lawyers. The filing
reiterates the government's position, that Apple has unlocked phones in other
cases, has the ability to comply with the court order, and Apple's marketing
or business concerns or effect on shareholders are irrelevant to the matter.

In reading the document it seemed to me that the outcome may hinge on whether
compliance would be considered "burdensome" to Apple. The government asserts
that modifying the software (for this one instance and no other) is more or
less trivial, therefore Apple really has no grounds for refusal.

Some comments on HN have suggested the software isn't so simple to produce,
but not something I know enough about to speculate. Perhaps Apple's reply to
the court will shed some light on this aspect. Fascinating to watch this chess
match play out.

I'm guessing in the end the court order will stand and Apple will need to
comply. Maybe Apple surmises the same. It's reasonable to believe their
protests will garner ongoing public sympathy while cooperating with the FBI
under compulsion of the court.

~~~
rogerthatt
For those of us that aren't aware, do you know much about the instances where
apple has unlocked phones in the past? I was not aware of this!

~~~
osolo
It's been reported that Apple unlocked phones 70 times in the past. But all
those instances were for phones with older versions of iOS that were pre-
encryption.

~~~
MaysonL
It's been _falsely_ reported that Apple unlocked phones 70 times in the past.
See Matthew Panzarino's article in TechCrunch:
[http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-
unlocked-7...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-
unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/)

------
idbehold
Why doesn't Apple simply write some "buggy" software that "accidentally" wipes
the contents of the phone?

~~~
ivraatiems
Because that'd be extremely transparent and cheating the U.S. Government in a
legal matter isn't going to help anyone long term. They'd just use it as more
evidence that they need more control.

~~~
idbehold
How could they ever prove the difference between a bug and malicious intent?
If they want control over the process then don't ask Apple to do it for you.

Also, Apple wouldn't be able to test it well because the custom OS was written
to only work on that specific phone (not the model of phone, the defendant's
phone).

------
macmac
This does appear to undermine Apple's argument that the Order could have wider
security implications. As such Apple is allowed to do what is necessary to
retrieve the passcode in-house, and destroy all software/hardware related to
the process thereafter. It of course sets a unwelcome precedent, but that
appears to be it.

~~~
jameshart
Sounds like if that process were followed a defense attorney would be free to
argue that there was no way to prove any evidence produced from the decryption
had not been completely invented in the process.

~~~
macmac
Why would that be? If they are handed the passcode, the device could be
decrypted in the presence of the defence, and verified by their experts.

~~~
spdustin
Who exactly is "the defense" right now?

~~~
macmac
Good point. The defence would be the defence for anyone implicated by the
recovered information. The government would be prudent to undertake the
decryption in a way that would not permit such a defence to question its
authenticity.

