View Full Version : Federal judge: Apple doesn't have to unlock iPhone in N.Y. case

02-29-2016, 05:17 PM
A federal magistrate in Brooklyn, New York, has denied the government’s application to force Apple to help law enforcement gain access to an iPhone belonging to a man who pled guilty in a meth conspiracy.

The ruling is likely to bolster Apple’s resistance in California to a separate FBI request that the company help investigators circumvent security features on an iPhone used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino shootings.
Story Continued Below

In the New York case, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein rejected federal prosecutors’ claim that a 1789 law authorizes the government to obtain a court order seeking to bypass a passcode-lock on an Apple phone.

“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,” Orenstein wrote.

Apple originally cooperated with prosecutors in the Brooklyn case, but reversed course after Orenstein asked the company’s lawyers to weigh in with a formal legal position.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/federal-judge-apple-doesnt-have-to-unlock-iphone-in-ny-case-219999#ixzz41bNVJzGF

02-29-2016, 05:20 PM
The FBI should be focused on Hillary.

03-01-2016, 12:18 PM
The FBI should be focused on Hillary.

If the FBI is actually concerned about terrorism and US safety, this is true. ISIS didn't create their weapons out of thin air.

03-01-2016, 02:43 PM
FBI should have been focused on the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank, then scrutinized the actions of every single senator and congressman and president, not the little people. Where the fuck was the FBI on that one? Oh, they were in on it? Figures...

03-01-2016, 08:58 PM

Does anyone else think that if this goes the other way, it would actually create an incentive to have a Black Market Phone, IE, Apple hardware, but rooted and their OS replaced entirely by an "underground OS"? As usual, making anything illegal only creates a black market for it, and if privacy is made illegal, it will still be had, but only from those who find their morality is in direct contradiction with the law.

But, what do you guys think?

03-02-2016, 08:01 AM
FBI: We Screwed Up Trying to Unlock Phone

(NEWSER) – Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell clashed with FBI Director James Comey at a congressional hearing on encryption Tuesday—and the latter man admitted that the hearing was taking place because the FBI messed up. Comey, who is trying to force Apple to unlock the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, said at the House Judiciary Committee hearing that FBI agents reset the password to try to obtain data from the device but ended up locking themselves out, the New York Times reports. "There was a mistake made in the 24 hours after the attack," he said. Sewell said that if the FBI had followed Apple's advice, "the very information that the FBI is seeking would have been available, and we could have pulled it down from the cloud."

As the hearing addressed the broader issues involved, Comey denied that the FBI wanted to create a "back door" to Apple devices, saying that there is already a door and they are "asking Apple to take the vicious guard dog away and let us pick the lock." Sewell countered that the FBI "is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products," the AP reports. But both sides agreed on one thing: The question of whether privacy concerns outweigh public safety concerns in cases involving encryption should be settled by Congress, not the courts. (On Monday, Apple was handed a victory in a separate case involving a locked iPhone.)


03-02-2016, 09:30 AM
The FBI does not need Apple to back into the phone to get information. It knows where the information is. But it can't access the information without revealing that they are doing exactly what they swear they are not doing, namely, collecting metadata on everyone. Asking for a court order is simply a way to be able to disclose facts they obtained in bulk, without a warrant.

Again, Rand was right. The government did not stop the attack even though they had data and eyewitness reports to indicate a plot was in the making.