Before you think that this story is about THE iPhone that we’ve been talking about for the last couple of weeks, it doesn’t. But it does have a connection to that you’ll see in a second. This story relates to a situation where Apple was asked to help authorities gain access to an iPhone seized as evidence in a drug trafficking case in New York. At the time, Apple explained that while it could technically unlock the iPhone in question because it was running an older version of iOS, being forced to comply with the order could “substantially tarnish the Apple brand.” Yesterday, Judge James Orenstein, who is presiding over the New York case, decided in favor of Apple. Here’s the details via TechCrunch:
The ruling is clear and concise, making the case that the All Writs Act cannot be stretched to cover the blanket license to compel private companies to extract customer data from locked devices that the government wants. The document makes a strong argument that there needs to be legislative ruling on the breadth of the All Writs Act. It even brings into question whether this interpretation of the AWA would be in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Now, I’m a computer geek and not a lawyer, but this must get the attention of the FBI and the US Government as it could be used to influence the case involving the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. That case will be in the spotlight today as Apple’s general counsel Bruce Sewell will testify before a congressional Judiciary Committee today. And what he’s going to say, at least up front is already online.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
This entry was posted on March 1, 2016 at 8:52 am and is filed under Commentary with tags Apple. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Apple Wins Fight In NY To Not Be Forced To Unlock An iPhone
Before you think that this story is about THE iPhone that we’ve been talking about for the last couple of weeks, it doesn’t. But it does have a connection to that you’ll see in a second. This story relates to a situation where Apple was asked to help authorities gain access to an iPhone seized as evidence in a drug trafficking case in New York. At the time, Apple explained that while it could technically unlock the iPhone in question because it was running an older version of iOS, being forced to comply with the order could “substantially tarnish the Apple brand.” Yesterday, Judge James Orenstein, who is presiding over the New York case, decided in favor of Apple. Here’s the details via TechCrunch:
The ruling is clear and concise, making the case that the All Writs Act cannot be stretched to cover the blanket license to compel private companies to extract customer data from locked devices that the government wants. The document makes a strong argument that there needs to be legislative ruling on the breadth of the All Writs Act. It even brings into question whether this interpretation of the AWA would be in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Now, I’m a computer geek and not a lawyer, but this must get the attention of the FBI and the US Government as it could be used to influence the case involving the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. That case will be in the spotlight today as Apple’s general counsel Bruce Sewell will testify before a congressional Judiciary Committee today. And what he’s going to say, at least up front is already online.
Share this:
Like this:
Related
This entry was posted on March 1, 2016 at 8:52 am and is filed under Commentary with tags Apple. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.