Apple has filed a response to the court order to try to get the FBI to back down from putting their own back-door into Apple software. Apple is relying on the precedences set in a 1970s case rejection of United States v. New York Telephone. The prominent order of this case is The All Writs Act, where a judge can order something done despite any clear congressional mandate.
Theodore Boutrous (Apple Lawyer) -
"Apple is a private company that does not own or possess the phone at issue, has no connection to the data that may or may not exist on the phone, and is not related in any way to the events giving rise to the investigation. This case is nothing like New York Telephone Co., where there was probable cause to believe that the phone company’s own facilities were 'being employed to facilitate a criminal enterprise on a continuing basis."
Apple is arguing that the court is taking The All Writs Act much too far and that Apple's 1st and 5th Amendment rights are being violated. Boutrous continues "The Act is intended to enable the federal courts to fill in gaps in the law so they can exercise the authority they already possess by virtue of the express powers granted to them by the Constitution and Congress."; not grant itself a new authority.
If the order is allowed to stand, then there is no stopping federal or local governments from pursuing more complicated orders, going beyond just unlocking the phones. It would also set a dangerous precedence for other governments to go after other companies, slowly chipping away at our privacy rights.
What do you think of the US Court order forcing Apple to unlock iPhones? Let us know in the comments.
Don't forget to share this story if you like it so that we can keep producing more content for you!
0 comments:
Post a Comment