The 5 Biggest Reveals From Apple’s Motion To Dismiss The FBI’s Court Order

from Macworld

On Thursday, Apple filed a motion to vacate the court order compelling the company to create a hackable version of iOS that the FBI can use to break into the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.

In the filing, Apple’s main argument is that its software is protected speech, and that the government’s motion for Apple to fabricate software that contradicts its beliefs is a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights.

We read through the 65-page filing, and spotted the following revelations. 

More here.

, , , , ,

22 Responses to The 5 Biggest Reveals From Apple’s Motion To Dismiss The FBI’s Court Order

  1. Cedric Kabore February 26, 2016 at 7:21 pm #

    Apple is in a situation where they have to choose between their customers and the government interests. Apple has loyal customers and they will feel betrayed if Apple complies with the FBI’s order. Apple says that it would have to create a Government OS’ or GovtOS, for the FBI in order to cooperate with the FBI. It would also need to create an FBI forensics lab on site that Apple says could likely be used to unlock iPhones in the future, which law enforcement officials have already indicated in public statements.
    Apple’s reasoning in the brief rests on three pillars. First, that forcing Apple to write code that weakens its devices and the security of its customers constitutes a violation of free speech as protected by the Constitution. Second, that the burden the FBI is putting on it by requesting that Apple write the software and assist in unlocking the device is too large. Apple argues that it would have to create the new version of iOS, called GovtOS, which requires coding, signing, verification and testing. It would then have to create an FBI forensics laboratory on site at its headquarters and staff it. The burden would then extend to what Apple views is the inevitable onslaught of additional devices that would follow after the precedent was set. In addition to free speech, Apple argues that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause prohibits the government from compelling Apple to create the new version of iOS. Apple argues that there is no court precedent for forcing a company to create something new, like GovtOS. In this case Apple can lose everything by taking the bad decision.

  2. Michael Quinto-Lopez February 26, 2016 at 7:26 pm #

    After being informed that the government wants Apple to create a “backdoor” to their software, in order to be able to access any iPhone, this is the first time that I have read about this matter. The main reason why the government wants this hackable version of the iPhone’s software to be created is to access the phone of shooter, Syed Farook. However, if created, this will grant the government the access to any iPhone for specific purposes. As most expected, Apple has filed a motion to vacate the court order of creating a hackable version of the iPhone’s software because they believe this ridiculous court order from the government violates the rights granted by the First and Fifth Amendments. As I stated previously in an article comment related to subject at hand, I believe that Apple should stand up against the government to try and vacate this order. I believe that the court order that the government issued is clearly an overreach and violates certain rights given by the Constitution.

    In reference to this online article, it provides us with five key things learned from the motion of Apple attempting to dismiss the court order. The first thing we learn is that it will take around six to five Apple engineers and around the time frame of two to four weeks in order to create GovtOS, which is how the company calls this new software. So it’s obvious that this GovtOS is not in existence as of right now, but Apple has provided the information to the quantity of workers and time necessary. It is also learned that the government is citing the All Writs Acts of 1789 in an attempt to exclude Apple from its privileges, however, Apple states that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act prohibits the government for making Apple create this new software. The article states that the filing from Apples behalf states, “Congress declared via CALEA that the government cannot dictate to providers of electronic communications services or manufacturers of telecommunications equipment any specific equipment design or software configuration”. So basically, the CALEA states that the government cannot make Apple create any specific equipment design or software. Just by reading this, I really don’t see the government winning this case at all. So far from what Apple has stated in their filing, the information of certain constitutional acts provides as much support for Apples attempt to be victorious in this case. The article then goes to state that Apple would have to create a new whole new “hacking” department if ordered to create this new software for the government. The purpose of this new department is to update GovtOS every time that Apple’s IOS software updates and to service government requests. Apple then compares the court order issued by the government as the same as asking a pharmaceutical company to create a lethal drug to carry out death warrants. And it really is. After all this information that is gained from this article, I believe even more than before that Apple will gain the justice that they seek. The request from the government, in my eyes just seems very unnecessary. I don’t believe that the government needs to have that much access into the products owned by the people and made by a business. Hopefully, Apple continues their battle with the government pertaining to the court order issued, and it seems the Apple just might come out on top.

  3. ER February 27, 2016 at 7:21 pm #

    I agree and support Apple 100% with Apple dismissing the FBI’s court order for unlocking the San Bernardino shooting iPhones. They have the right to stand their ground and protect their company and their customers. When you sign an agreement with Apple they promise you that they will not allow other people to access your personal information. I respect them for that because I am an Apple iPhone user myself. My iPhone is not just my phone it contains much more than that. My iPhone has my credit card information my pictures my social media accounts and much much more. That being said my iPhone created by Apple is my communication to local and international parts of the world, my camera, my wallet and my laptop at times. That is all information that I don’t want anyone to axis not even the government. You can’t trust anyone nowadays. Just look at the case it involves a shooting. No one can be trusted and no one is truly safe. The fact that Apple has a special software that they are only allowed to access is truly amazing. I respect them for that and that is another reason why I purchased an iPhone. If I were to get a new phone it would be another Apple product due to the fact that I respect them much more after hearing this case. They put their foot down with the government and FBI ensure that they truly respect their customers. Respecting your customers helps you gain a brand loyalty from them. And that is exactly what Apple is doing. They’re making a great name for themselves through their customer base for protecting them.

  4. Amanda Crimarco February 27, 2016 at 9:33 pm #

    The controversy of whether or not Apple should allow the government to hack into their devices has become such a big topic of conversation. I think that it is acceptable for the company to create a hackable version of iOS that the FBI can use to break into the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. I feel as though if the FBI is using it to find out more information and possibly create safety and prevention of further acts like this, then Apple should be going along with this. I do understand Apple’s point of view when discussing the fact that it is going to be a lot of work and require more resources such as more Apple engineers. However, Apple is such a large company that I believe is able to overcome the obstacles and in turn benefit the FBI. There are so many factors that would play into a case like this that can have an effect on whether or not Apple allows the FBI to hack the phone of the shooter.
    Although I believe that Apple should find a way to help the FBI and hack into the shooter’s phone, I do understand and respect where the company is coming from when it argues that their software is protected speech and that the government’s motion for Apple to fabricate software that contradicts its beliefs is a violation of the first and fifth amendments. The company is protecting its customers and giving them the privacy that they signed up for when deciding to buy an Apple product. Along with this, as the article explains, if they do it for one case they are going to be expected to do this on a continuous basis. The whole situation is very complicated and brings up a very big dilemma for Apple and it’s customers.

  5. Danielle Miller February 27, 2016 at 10:02 pm #

    At the core of the disagreement between Apple and the U.S. government, is the question of privacy. For enforcers like the U.S. government, the need to protect innocent citizens from wrongdoers overwhelmingly trumps the need for privacy. However, technology companies like Apple are expected to create products that offer the very best protection for user data. As long as criminals use technology, there will always be conflict between the two.

    The Bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to privacy, though many Americans would argue that it should. The cellphone has quickly become the diary of yesteryear. The device now tracks our whereabouts, the sites we visit, the apps we download and private communications all have the potential to destroy lives.
    I for one applaud apple for standing up for its consumers. The fact that the government is having such a difficult time unlocking a phone, gives me hope that at least one company has taken my privacy concerns to heart.

    I’m pretty sure that ISIS is somewhere laughing at the great USA asking a private company to unlock a phone. This brings me to few questions:
    1. How is the US government going to keep this technology safe, especially when they can’t even keep their personnel data safe from hackers?
    2. How are they keeping us safe if they cant even hack and iPhone?
    3. Doesn’t EVERYONE have an iPhone?
    4. What happens if the government fails and all criminals/ terrorists use iPhones, can we even be prepared for a terrorist attack?

    This case really has me questioning the prowess of America and its super-power status.

  6. M. Bukey February 28, 2016 at 10:26 am #

    The reason Apple has had such great success with their systems and products is partially due to how personalized and protected they are. All Apple products are password encrypted, making hacking extremely difficult to near impossible, which is why so many individuals are starting to switch over to Mac books and IPhones. Apple was smart to motion for this court order to be dismissed because nothing good can come from giving the government a “back door” as means to enter their system.

    Privacy is something that has been an ongoing battle, especially with all the technology that’s out there. How far does the government actually need to go in order to keep their citizens safe? Living in a post 9-11 world has raised the issue of terroristic threats and attacks that has our government constantly on the prowl. It is not Apple’s responsibility to keep up with who is buying their products and what intents they have to use their devices. Apple has a responsibility to their customers, whether that be providing them with the latest devices and software, password encrypting their files and documents, or troubleshooting any problems that they maybe having, the government does not have the right to just come in and demand access.

  7. Harun Filipovic February 28, 2016 at 4:28 pm #

    I stand behind Apple’s motion to dismiss the court order ordering Apple to create a unique iOS that enables the government, specifically the FBI, access to the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter. While Apple sites economic difficulties that the company will face as a result of the court order, such as dedicating engineers to the task and creating a new department within the company for “in-house” hacking, I believe that the crux of the issue transcends mere economics and is much more important to the average citizen than meets the eye.
    Firstly, Apple’s current iOS and encryption protocol protects sensitive information of every iPhone user. I feel that this aspect is largely overlooked, as most people would not want private conversations, emails, and credit card information to be made available to an overzealous government. While the FBI might ostensibly be protecting individuals by attempting to gain access to the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, granting access to the FBI sets a dangerous precedent. The need for government oversight, already a debated issue with regards to the Patriot Act, will become ever-more prominent if the FBI is granted backdoor access to iPhones across the nation.
    Secondly, is the fact that Apple produced the specific iPhone in question enough to hold Apple culpable for how the phone was used and what information it might contain? Apple has stated that “The All Writs Act does not allow the government to compel a manufacturer’s assistance merely because it has placed a good into the stream of commerce” (http://www.macworld.com/article/3038355/security/the-5-biggest-reveals-from-apples-motion-to-dismiss-the-fbis-court-order.html). I believe that is a stretch for the government to ask Apple’s compliance in this regard and I hope that Apple continues to fight for their customer’s, a large portion of the American population, rights.

  8. B.U. February 29, 2016 at 2:28 pm #

    I find this article very interesting. I personally believe what Apple is doing is very honest and a good look for the company. Apple is doing everything they can to provide safety and privacy for its users and all for those who own their products. Its proven that still, the FBI cannot get into the San Bernardino shooters phone. Which in my opinion, I think we should be able to access his phone. But at the same time, the only way to do that is to have access to a tool or simply a way to hack into apple phones. And in my opinion, if there is a way to hack or get passed the privacy of the owner, that tool or process of doing so will get leaked. I believe Apple understands this as well.
    If there is a way to break into ones phone, legally or not. That process will get leaked, and or hackers will be more motivated to continue their illegal hacking because now they know that Apple devices can in fact be hacked. Think about it, if there is a new GovtOS software, which can be hacked, or better worded as “accessed” by the FBI, that means its more vulnerable than the current Apple software. And the way of accessing the phones is possible and a select few know how to do so. Well, one job firing or bad experience of one of those workers can in fact review the secret to do so. I think Apple knows that if there is a hackable software, it will be hacked. Their current software has been proven to work, so why change it?

  9. Morgan Cole March 2, 2016 at 11:58 am #

    The current Apple VS the FBI situation is currently taking over all of the media (when it is not covering the upcoming election) and everyone has their own opinion towards it. The two conflicting sides are as followed: Apple should do what the FBI requests because it is a case of terrorism and can protect our country, OR Apple should not comply because it goes against their policy and morals. The opinion of this controversial topic differs depending who you talk to, but personally I have to take Apple (and the author of this article)’s side.

    The main issue that bothers me regarding this is that the government is forcing Apple to go against their first and Fifth Amendment rights, their software is protected speech. Though the government is requesting this info, Apple is not in trouble and the government is not presenting a warrant therefore Apple is not legally required to comply.

    This whole situation puts Apple in a bad place. Creating the new OS would require a whole team of engineers and weeks of their time. It would also require Apple to create an in house hacking unit, as they would become an “arm of law enforcement” if they comply with the governments order. This unit will be used solely to assist the government every time they request to get information from a suspect’s iPhone. A lot of Apple’s time and money would be wasted towards assisting the government, which is not why their company exists.

    Apple has no control over the iPhone user and what he or she chooses to do with it. By complying with the FBI, they are going against everything they stand for and put their whole company at risk.

  10. Debbie Barbiero March 2, 2016 at 6:03 pm #

    Apple is known for the loyalty of their customers and the mutual trust they have with one another. The fact that they put the development of their product at their top priority to benefit their consumers, shows how loyal Apple is to them. However, the fact that this new software is going to need up to 10 Apple employees and 4 weeks to create and test, makes me feel that customers may get the idea that they are not being put first, especially because this software that is distracting so many employees and taking so much time, is violating their privacy in the first place.

    In addition to this, the All the Writs Act cannot even be used against Apple in this case due to a previous case in 1994 which stated that the government cannot do this type of thing. This makes me wonder what the government will go to next in order to get their way. Also, I find it interesting the analogy used with pharmaceutical companies creating lethal drugs. The analogy makes perfect sense to me as this software could and will have major implications if created.

  11. TC March 3, 2016 at 7:30 pm #

    “On Thursday, FBI Director James Comey admitted that this case “will be instructive for other courts.”” The FBI director said it himself, this case is merely used to set a precedent for future cases, like mentioned in the article. The government is simply trying to gain access for its own interests. Apple did the right thing and is fighting for our second amendment rights by filing to dismiss the court order. If they allow the FBI to access the phone of Syed Farook, all of us, as in iPhone users, are potentially at risk.
    Our lives are stored on our phones, thankfully iPhone users rely on the added security benefits Apple provides. Apple along with Microsoft, Google, and Facebook are all going to support Apple in this case, creating this one of the most important cases of the year and for cyber privacy. My personal opinion is that the FBI needs to step back and reorganize their approach. They come out saying that this is about just one phone but behind the scenes they are asking for a lot more. This case would have never happened if they went to an outside company to get into the phone, people have hacked newer iPhone it just takes time. I personally doubt this will rule in the FBI’s favor but this is America so you never know.

  12. Timothy Wagner March 3, 2016 at 8:28 pm #

    I could only imagine being in apple’s current situation. This has to be driving the legal experts wild. The government is asking apple to choose between them and their customers. Honestly, I do not believe that the government should have even asked Apple to get into the phone. You immediately put them between a rock and a hard place. Apple has loyal customers and some companies even use Apple products to help them run their businesses. I don’t thing that congress sees what type of effect they could really cause for Apple. Most of Apple’s customers are loyal being that they only use apple products. Why? Because they are secure, safe and fast. Taking away the secure and safe part the only thing Apple has going for their products is the speed behind them. Congress could cause a major issue if they force them to hack into the phone due to the loss of customers and potential loss in sales. Many people are very unhappy with the issue and personally, I don’t believe that people would want to have their personal information on a phone that can easily be hacked by the government and what is a smartphone where you can’t keep personal information.

    If you personally own a phone and you do something crazy with it why is that company’s responsibility to hack into that phone? It is no longer the developing companies phone anymore. Technically the person that owned that phone is no longer alive today. I feel as if Congress is really wasting their time. Apple is not going to budge by any means. They are listening to their customer that are saying do not open the phone. I agree 100% with what the article is saying that whatever is on the phone is someone’s freedom of speech. We have the right under the first amendment to say what we want and I myself use my phone to say what I want to whether it be in the form of a text message, email or phone call. Why would congress want to take away that right just to be able to get into a phone in which there could be no information on? Who is to say that this terrorist has any information on that phone in the first place? I am sure that anyone doing such a crazy event would not intentionally leave any information on it that they would want to be hidden from law enforcement and the government. I personally believe that the government needs to give up. Apple is not going to give them the information that they want. The article makes a great analogy stating, “This order is like forcing a pharmaceutical company to create a lethal drug.” This statement is really true and more than likely will never happen.

  13. Judah March 4, 2016 at 3:18 pm #

    The ongoing battle between Apple and the FBI has come to a very interesting point. Apple has officially filed a motion to vacate the FBI’s case. The article discusses five revelations found in the 65-page filing. The first is apple would need to create new software, taking up to 4 weeks to complete. The second is the exclusion of apple from the All Writs Act, where Apple is claiming that congressional approval is necessary. The third is Apple is stating that, making them write a back door is like asking a pharmaceutical company to create a lethal drug for governmental executions. The fourth point is that apple would need to create a department with the sole responsibility to work with the government hacking these phones. And lastly Apple feels that since it does not own the phone, or possess the data that is on the phone, Apple has no accountability.
    This battle between Apple has been going on for a while and the implications are known. I feel that Apple brings up some valid points and it will be interesting to see how this case pans out. Apple being the company that it is, they will not bow to the government. The importance of this case is obvious and I feel that the case is gaining traction. The lives of millions of people are stored on their phones, and having the FBI be able to access that at any time, to me, seems wrong. I do not believe that the courts will rule in favor of the FBI and I hope that they don’t. If they do say good bye to the freedoms that we enjoy, and the privacy that we, as a people, have come to love and appreciate.

  14. Michael Colasurdo March 4, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    Apple has recently come under intense scrutiny by the Federal Government over creating a backdoor entrance to its IOS software for the iPhone. In this article, Apple presents some of the reasons as to why it should not have to comply with the governments request. The five main reasons listed in this article were that it would require a large amount of work to create, that Apple is excluded from the All Writs Act, that Apple would need to create a new hacking department, that Apple is not accountable for the use of the iPhone, and that forcing Apple to do this is like a pharmaceutical company being forced to make a lethal drug for the public. Apple has a very strong argument against the government in three of the five reasons stated. The first strong point I think the make is how this new software would take time to create and every time a new version of this software would need to be created the work to create it would multiply each time. This would eventually grow to the point where it would slow Apple’s ability to grow as a business and meet the demand for its products. The next point made by Apple is about the All Writs Act. The All Writs Act clearly states that that government cannot influence an electronics company in the creation of its software, which the government is clearly attempting to do. The last point that I believed to be a strong argument was that Apple is not accountable for the way people use the phone and they should not be responsible for anything that the customer has done. This makes perfect sense because in purchasing the iPhone from Apple they no longer own the phone. Its ownership has transferred from the provider to the seller and you are free to do with it what you wish. If I take my phone and throw it against the wall and crack the screen I can’t go a blame Apple for it. I was the one who knowingly broke it so it’s my fault not theirs, and this issue with Apple is not different. They were not at fault for the shooting and shouldn’t be held responsible for it.

  15. Sawyer Warzybuk March 4, 2016 at 6:02 pm #

    I find it preposterous that this case is still going on. I agree with Apple on this ordeal. Apple should not be held responsible for the shooting. As stated in the article, Apple says they are not accountable for anything a customer has done to their merchandise. The simile in the article claimed that this is like General Motors being forced to comply because the shooter drives one of their vehicles. The most important debate from this injunction is the All Writs Act. I believe that the government is going against this act by warranting Apple to comply; because of this law, the All Writs Act does not allow the government to influence a company. If Apple does comply to this, it is going to cause a mayhem of cases ordering Apple to hack into phones. Apple claims that each coding for their software will take two to four weeks and will have to be destroyed after its use to prevent it being misused. This will take up a lot of time and money for Apple, who is not part of the government in any sort.

  16. M.A March 5, 2016 at 4:37 pm #

    For the past few weeks, Apple and FBI case has been a major topic whenever I check the new on my phone. This article has changed my mind about the whole situation about this case. At first, I was confused in wither Apple should do what the FBI asked, or in any similar sensitive situations. Apple is well known for its loyalty and security for its customer. Opening a backdoor for the government will create a new perspective about Apple. Apple’s products users may not use certain feature that it provides such as iCloud. In this case, I would be in Apple’s said in

    Creating GovtOS is a huge investment that Apple would take time to make it operate properly. It is going to take time because it would be a complicated operating system. That will lead to a lot of concerns in Apple users minds, about private and secure their information and files would be. In addition, forcing Apple to do so is a violation of the First and Fifth Amendment Rights. That gives Apple the power to refuse what the FBI asked. Other than that, Apple is looking at the case from a business point of view, in terms of the expenses what will be accrued. The example for that is mention in the article that Apple has to establish a new department within apple to assist the government. That will cost Apple a huge amount of money.

    As final thoughts, Apple has the complete rights in not opening a backdoor for the government. Apple has granted all customers the security and privacy so that its products could be reliable to use. People have their credit card information on the phone, and opening the backdoor would create another view about that. Also, If apple comply with the government orders, it will open a gate for other companies to ask the same. If this process happened, it would take Apple’s money and time for just one phone, at the moment.

  17. MP March 5, 2016 at 6:01 pm #

    I completely agree with apple dismissing the FBI’s court order. There is no need for Apple to break the trust they have established with their consumers. They are know for their encryption that protects a user’s phone and the data on it. Taking on this new backdoor would cost time and money, considering they’d need to pay a couple employees over the course of a few weeks to do it. Yes Apple is big enough that it wouldn’t kill them to do this, but this backdoor software would make a whole new department. In addition to that time and money, if consumers lose their trust in apple, apple would then lose more money with people not buying their products.

    I also agree with them comparing it to creating a lethal drug. The government can’t just decide they want to disregard the privacy of the consumer. The government is limited in their powers for a reason. I think this would hurt consumer’s view on the government too. I also think that comparing this situation to creating a lethal drug is a bit dramatic, which could cause it to lose some accreditation. Creating a lethal drug would physically kill people. Creating this back door would not kill anyone and just involves their phones. When this is over dramatized, it causes the claims to lose value. I hope that in the future Apple will not have to build this backdoor and lose the trust of their consumers.

  18. Billy Vorrius March 7, 2016 at 4:02 pm #

    This has been the most interesting article yet, because it actually shows legal proof that Apple is not affiliated in the All Writs Act of 1789. Not only this, but they have legal protection from Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Specifically, the government cannot dictate the manufacturers or electronic equipment to any software configuration. This exact wording is clean and cut for this case: The government cannot dictate the software configuration, meaning they cannot request a backdoor. However, there is most likely a loophole where the government can still request access to devices that counters this Act. The main document I would believe that the FBI can argue is the Patriot Act, which fights against terrorism. Even if this Act denies the government’s request for “GovtOS”, the Act most likely expires or has expired, and when it does Congress will deny to reassign it if the FBI wants access that bad.
    The other two main reasons I believe this request will not be in favor of the Court is that Apple is not responsible for how their product is used. This makes perfect sense, victims of car accidents do not sue the maker of the car if the driver had hit them and it was their fault and not a faulty mechanic within the car. Apple has the same reasoning: they are not responsible for how the phone is used. You don’t see schools suing Apple for a shooting that had occurred. Apple’s devices are meant for harmless communication and social networking after all. Another reason that caught my eye is that Congress explicitly said that Apple is excluded from the All Writs Act, since in 1994 they gave them protection with the CALEA. Since the government is citing the All Writs Act in their argument, it makes their argument completely faulty. Basically, any company or building is in the All Writs Act, which says that people have to comply for the necessary aid in respective jurisdictions under the principals of law. If Apple were included in the All Writs Act, the government can simply use the Patriot Act in their argument with the All Writs Act to make Apple and force them to comply to make GovtOS. The argument would be that the safety from terrorism (the necessary aid), and the Patriot Act would be under the principals of Law. Since terrorist Acts are associated with phones, this would be a good argument for the government to use. However, unfortunately for them they gave Apple protection. So, evidently Apple is safe. My question is if this Act does expire and is not renewed, will the government have a legal argument to force apple to create GovtOS? With all of the readings and blogs I have read, it seems that the government really wants this proposal to go in their favor. If the protection Act of Apple is not renewed, the government will most likely get their proposal over time.

  19. Michael W. Alescio March 8, 2016 at 10:43 am #

    I have been reading about this case for the past month, and continue to remain on Apple’s side. This article gives five good reasons why everyone should be on Apple’s side and why the government is wrong. First, GovtOS would take 10 Apple engineers four weeks to create. Apple would have to take employees and pay them to comply with the government’s demands. They would have to create a completely new software system that would essentially break into the software they already built for their consumers in which they always prided themselves with security. This is simply not fair to make Apple pay extra money for more hours of their employees and breaking their own security.
    Congress has said that companies like Apple are actually excluded from the All Writs Act. Apple has had previous incidents with similar cases in which the judge has ruled All Writs Act not able to be used against Apple. What the government has been trying to do of late, is use this Act and Apple is not responding with the dismissal of it and also the enacting of Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. This is a very smart move by Apple. Now the government will have to use another way to continue this case onward.
    This order is like forcing a pharmaceutical company to create a lethal drug. Apple made the following point which obviously is somewhat exaggerated. But is it also somewhat true? I think so. Essentially what the government wants Apple to do is carry out lawfully issued death warrants. It seems like many of the governments wants seem to be unconstitutional, and just do not make sense. The general body of people are miss interpreting this case. The government does not just want this one iPhone unlocked, they want a software to unlock all future criminals’ phones. In the news, it may seem like the government is just in it for the one phone, but there is a bigger picture here.
    If forced to comply, Apple will have to create an in- house hacking unit. As I talked about before, it would take an entire staff of people to create this new software. Since Apple is not just looking for this one phone’s unlock, there would also be future phones the government would like to access. So Apple would then have to create a new unit, that they refer to a in house hacking unit, nonetheless they are pretty spot on. Essentially what they would be doing is creating a unit that works directly with the government, paid at by their expense to comply with whatever needs the government may have. This would not be a cheap matter.
    Just because Apple created the iPhone doesn’t imply accountability for how it’s used. In the end, Apple does not even own the phone used by the Cupertino shooter. It was actually a government owned phone. The government is actually more connected with the phone then Apple themselves are. Apple wants no part of this case because they do not see how they should be at fault here. They sold the phone yes, but they had no connection with the shooter’s phone otherwise. They privatize each individual phone to keep their consumers safe. Complying to the governments demands would go against many things Apple has worked so hard to create, and is simply not just.

  20. Joshua Gavin March 9, 2016 at 10:49 pm #

    The article touches on the pitfalls of creating a government backdoor into an apple device. Apple talks about how such software does not currently exist and would need to be created from scratch taking away from its newer endeavors. The article then goes to touch on the fact that the government is using an act enacted in 1789 to procure said data, and Apple is actually under protection from a different act enacted in 1994. The article then goes on to list serval more examples of how what the government is asking Apple to do is not only highly unethical, but seriously immoral as well. An example of this is comparing what the government is asking apple to do is the equivalent of the government asking a pharmaceutical company to make a lethal drug; it goes entirely against the companies values.
    I think that the article raises some very good and interesting points. The one I find most interesting is that the government is clearly grasping at straws with this case using laws that are from the USA’s inception to try and gain access to these devices. Clearly if there was any basis for procuring said data from Apple then the FBI would not have to dig so deep to get the software developed. Playing Devil’s advocate though you could argue that if the American public is not breaking any laws then they should not be worried about the government using said software to oppress them.

  21. Liz Martinez March 10, 2016 at 6:29 pm #

    This article I found to be kind of annoying. This same argument has not only flooded social media, but has been taking over the news, and now even private blogs. While I see the severity of the case at hand, it does get a little annoying when people get so heated about something which they really have no control over.
    First of all, you can’t hold the creator of a piece of machinery responsible for the public’s bad intentions. Many guns have been produced, and yet no one has come after the creators of them during murder trials blaming them for the crimes committed with their inventions. By this logic, how can Apple be responsible for criminal intentions, or solving lawmaker’s problems?
    By forcing apple to create something which would universally unlock any phone, they set precedent for violations of privacy. This would also enable others outside of law enforcement, such as hackers and conn men, to be able to get into the public’s personal phones. This would not only allow them to steal personal information, pictures from these phones, but would also potentially allow them to hack into their social media accounts, which could lead to many many more hacked accounts.
    Not only does the Federal Bureau of Investigation have control of private information but they have control the Apple Bank. Many apple users place their credit card, debit card and banking information on their phones. Giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation the privilege to have control over people banking account can lead to more crime. Even through someone in the Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn’t mean that they are not corrupt like that people using them. Violating their privacy can cause in uproar with the community. Banking account information is important and shouldn’t be allowed to be shared to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Aside from all of these privacy issues, you still have the issue that Apple is a publically traded company. This means that a great deal of its finances come from the investments of the public. In exchange for their financial support, they are given partial ownership in Apple in the form of Stocks, and therefore have a say in what Apple creates. Because the Federal Bureau of Investigation is attempting to force Apple to create something, they would be decreasing Apples finances, because many stock holders may not appreciate being told to invest in something which could potentially be used against them later on.
    In conclusion, Apple realistically has no obligation to create something which would decrease the public’s general privacy. While many may disagree over such a politically tense subject, especially now, when political views are at their most potent, due to the upcoming election, there is still irrefutable evidence to support that Marshmallow Peeps are the most delectable delicacy on this, or any other planet. At the end of the day, I would rather write five articles about Marshmallow Peeps, than on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s capacity to invade our privacy.

  22. Alejandro Gonzalez April 9, 2016 at 10:11 pm #

    It amazes me that the government is still trying to get apple to make them a backdoor for this phone. The government knows exactly how to get into it but want Apple to give them the “hack” so that they have a precedent to do it to other phones without warrants. This is a great article that shows how ridiculous the government is being and what would come out of this if apple complies.

    The government is claiming that companies like Apple and Google and exempt from the All Writs act of 1789. The All Writs act simplifies says that if the government say you have to do something, you are required to do it. This is an insane and outdated law that needs to be either removed or completely reformed. The article says that making apple do this is like forcing a drug company to create a lethal drug. Its only okay if they make it “only” for the governments use. This is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Just because Apple made the product, does it mean that they are 100% compliant to how it is used. What I use my phone for is mine truly and has nothing to do with apple. I’m glad that Apple is being so strong-headed for this issue. It is a win for privacy if they manage to stick to their ideals.

Leave a Reply