Apple's legal arguments in iPhone encryption case

February 26, 2016
Apple offers a range of arguments in its motion to dismiss the order requiring it to help the FBI access an iPhone belonging to
Apple offers a range of arguments in its motion to dismiss the order requiring it to help the FBI access an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino attacks

Apple offers a range of arguments in its motion to dismiss the order requiring it to help the FBI access an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino attacks.

Here is a summary of the 65-page brief filed in California federal court:

— On the 1789 All Writs Act, which gives the courts wide authority to help law enforcement, Apple said the law does not allow for "a roving commission to conscript and commandeer Apple."

— Apple argues the Justice Department's legal efforts seek to gain authority the government was unable to obtain from Congress, by forcing the company to create a "back door" for .

— The case could set a precedent: "The government says: 'Just this once' and 'Just this phone,'" Apple's lawyers write. "If this order is permitted to stand, it will only be a matter of days before some other prosecutor, in some other important case, before some other judge, seeks a similar order using this case as precedent."

- Apple said it has acted responsibly by handing over data in its possession but that the order would require it to build a new "government OS" with weaker security, in violation of its constitutional rights.

- It is more complicated than simply handing over data: Apple says it would need to either develop a detailed protocol to enable the FBI to carry out a "brute force" hack and provide documentation that might need to be produced in court, if anyone were prosecuted with evidence found on the phone. Apple would need to "create full-time positions in a new 'hacking' department" to service government requests.

- Arguing constitutional rights, the brief says the government would be "conscripting Apple to develop software that does not exist and that Apple has a compelling interest in not creating."

- Also on constitutional grounds, Apple said writing software is protected free expression and that forcing it to create new software would be "compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment."

Explore further: US escalates fight with Apple over iPhone in attacks probe

Related Stories

Apple: Congress, not courts, must decide

February 24, 2016

Apple Inc. will tell a federal judge this week in legal papers that its fight with the FBI over accessing a locked and encrypted iPhone should be kicked to Congress, rather than decided by courts, The Associated Press has ...

Apple asks judge to vacate order on locked iPhone

February 25, 2016

Apple Inc. on Thursday asked a federal magistrate to reverse her order that the company help the FBI hack into a locked iPhone, accusing the federal government of seeking "dangerous power" through the courts and of trampling ...

Recommended for you

Plans for self-driving cars have pitfall: the human brain

July 19, 2016

Experts say the development of self-driving cars over the coming decade depends on an unreliable assumption by many automakers: that the humans in them will be ready to step in and take control if the car's systems fail.

How to build a 1,000mph car (by the scientists behind it)

July 22, 2016

It was a staggering feat, a car that went faster than the speed of sound. On October 15 1997, Andy Green travelled across the Black Rock Desert, Nevada, in the Thrust SSC at 763.035 mph, or Mach 1.02. Two decades on, that ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.