|
 The high-stakes fight between Apple and the government burst into
the open last week when the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
obtained a court order requiring Apple to write new software and
take other measures to disable passcode protection and allow access
to shooter Rizwan Farook's iPhone.
The clash has driven to the heart of a long-running debate over how
much law enforcement and intelligence officials should be able to
monitor digital communications.
Arguing that the court should throw out the order that it issued
last week, Apple said in its brief on Thursday that software was a
form of protected speech, and thus the Justice Department's demand
violated the constitution.
"The government's request here creates an unprecedented burden on
Apple and violates Apple's First Amendment rights against compelled
speech," it said.
Apple also contended that the court was over-stepping its
jurisdiction, noting that Congress had rejected legislation that
would have required companies to do the things the government is
asking Apple to do in this case.
"No court has ever authorized what the government now seeks, no law
supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process,
and the Constitution forbids it," Apple said in its filing.
The government argues that the All Writs Act, a broad 1789 law which
enables judges to require actions necessary to enforce their own
orders, compels Apple to comply with its request.
But Apple argued in its filing that prosecutors wrongly applied a
key U.S. Supreme Court case, which involved a telephone company, to
the San Bernardino situation. Since Apple is not a utility, and
because Congress declined to force companies like Apple to build
"backdoors" into their products, Apple said it should not be forced
to help the government hack into the San Bernardino iPhone.
The Justice Department won the order from the federal court in
Riverside, California last week, without the company present. The
judge allowed Apple to respond in the brief on Thursday, and a
hearing is scheduled for next month.
Some of the largest tech companies appear to be lining up behind
Apple. Google and Facebook will both file briefs supporting the
iPhone maker, said several sources familiar with the matter who were
not authorized to speak publicly about it. Microsoft will file a
friend-of the-court brief as well, company President Brad Smith said
in congressional testimony Thursday. Twitter also said it will sign
a brief in support of Apple.
In a statement responding to Apple's filing, the Justice Department
said its approach to prosecuting crimes has not changed.
"The change has come in Apple's recent decision to reverse its
long-standing cooperation in complying with All Writs Act orders,"
department spokesperson Melanie Newman said.
While much of Apple's argument is that the All Writs Act does not
apply, the free speech and due process claims could prove helpful if
the company wants to attract the attention of the Supreme Court,
said Jill Bronfman, director of the Privacy and Technology Project
at University of California Hastings College of the Law.
"It always does help to mention the Constitution," she said.
[to top of second column] |
If the San Bernardino order is upheld, Apple said, it could leave
individuals and business vulnerable to an unlimited array of
government directives.
"Under the same legal theories advocated by the government here, the
government could argue that it should be permitted to force citizens
to do all manner of things 'necessary' to assist it in enforcing the
laws," Apple said. It gave examples, "like compelling a
pharmaceutical company against its will to produce drugs needed to
carry out a lethal injection in furtherance of a lawfully issued
death warrant or requiring a journalist to plant a false story in
order to help lure out a fugitive."
Apple also laid out the resources it believes would be necessary to
comply with the government's request, saying it would likely require
a team of up to 10 Apple engineers and employees for as long as four
weeks.
Complying with the request would also likely lead to "hundreds" of
more demands from law enforcement, Apple said.
"Responding to these demands would effectively require Apple to
create full-time positions in a new 'hacking' department to service
government requests," the company said in the filing.
Earlier on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey told a congressional
panel that court approval of the FBI's request was "unlikely to be a
trailblazer" in other cases.
While the case "will be instructive for other courts," larger policy
questions about reasonable law enforcement access to encrypted data
will likely need to be resolved by Congress and others, Comey said.
Shares of Apple were barely changed and closed up less than 1
percent at $96.76.
Apple also raised the specter of courts ordering it to help in other
cases in other ways, such as writing computer code that would turn
on an iPhone microphone to help surveillance.
The company also criticized the Justice Department for publicizing
the order, which would normally have been filed under seal.
"This is the only case in counsel's memory in which an FBI Director
has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that
the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield
critical evidence about other suspects," the company said.
Apple CEO Tim Cook said in an interview on Wednesday with ABC News
that the company was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court
if necessary.
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
