FBI

Jonathan Zdziarski:

We, as everyday Americans, should also encourage the idea of warrant proof places. The DOJ believes, quite erroneously, that the Fourth Amendment gives them the right to any evidence or information they desire with a warrant. The Bill of Rights did not grant rights to the government; it protected the rights of Americans from the overreach that was expected to come from government. Our most intimate thoughts, our private conversations, our ideas, our -intent- are all things our phone tracks. These are concepts that must remain private (if we choose to protect them) for any functioning free society. In today’s technological landscape, we are no longer giving up just our current or future activity under warrant, but for the first time in history, making potentially years of our life retroactively searchable by law enforcement. Things are recorded in ways today that no one would have imagined, even when CALEA was passed. The capability that DOJ is asserting is that our very lives and identities – going back across years – are subject to search. The Constitution never permitted this.

Matthew Panzarino:

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.

“But compelling minimal assistance to surveil or apprehend a criminal (as in most of the cases the government cites), or demanding testimony or production of things that already exist (akin to exercising subpoena power), is vastly different, and significantly less intrusive, than conscripting a private company to create something entirely new and dangerous. There is simply no parallel or precedent for it,” reads the filing.

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office:

Effective immediately, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office will discontinue providing iPhones as option for replacements or upgrades for existing employees. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery announced the decision today, first communicated to applicable staff on Sunday, February 21, citing Apple’s recent refusal to cooperate in unlocking an encrypted iPhone used by individuals involved in the recent San Bernardino shootings.

“Apple’s refusal to cooperate with a legitimate law enforcement investigation to unlock a phone used by terrorists puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety,” Montgomery said. “Positioning their refusal to cooperate as having anything to do with privacy interests is a corporate PR stunt and ignores the 4th Amendment protections afforded by our Constitution.”

There are currently 564 smartphones deployed throughout the office, 366 of which are iPhones.

This just gets better and better.

William J. Bratton and John J. Miller:

The phone in the San Bernardino case stopped uploading data to the cloud about six weeks before the killings. That suggests there may be information inside the device that was deliberately concealed. That could include the identities of terrorists who influenced or directed the attack; such information, if pursued, could prevent future plots. Or the iPhone might contain nothing of value. It is Apple’s position that we should never know.

The phone could also contain the plans of the Death Star, but since the FBI screwed this up, we might not ever find out if they’re on there.

John Paczkowski:

The Apple ID password linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of the device, senior Apple executives said Friday. If that hadn’t happened, Apple said, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible.

The FBI has claimed that the password was changed by someone at the San Bernardino Health Department. Friday night, however, things took a further turn when the San Bernardino County’s official Twitter account stated, “The County was working cooperatively with the FBI when it reset the iCloud password at the FBI’s request.”

This is either ridiculous or planned. I’m thinking they should know what they’re doing, so the latter seems a better fit. Especially since the iPhone in question has probably little to no relevant information.

Matthew Panzarino:

The Apple executive also noted that no other government in the world — including China — has ever asked it to perform the kind of iPhone cracking that the FBI is asking it to do. But, if it were to comply, those requests would surely not be far behind.

This is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. I am starting to wonder if the US will not actually make ‘unbreakable’ encryption illegal, to solve all their headaches.

Jonathan Zdziarski:

Not only is Apple being ordered to compromise their own devices; they’re being ordered to give that golden key to the government, in a very roundabout sneaky way. What FBI has requested will inevitably force Apple’s methods out into the open, where they can be ingested by government agencies looking to do the same thing. They will also be exposed to private forensics companies, who are notorious for reverse engineering and stealing other people’s intellectual property. Should Apple comply in providing a tool, it will inevitably end up abused and in the wrong hands.

Matthew Panzarino:

If I had to bet, Apple is probably working double time to lock it down even tighter. Its reply to the next order of this type is likely to be two words long. You pick the two.

Despite my being delicate in the title, I assume that Panzer had two entirely different words in mind.