DOJ Seeks Orders to Force Apple to Unlock 12 More iPhones as FBI Claims It's Not Trying to Set Precedent

POST

MAIL

Posted February 23, 2016 at 6:24pm by iClarified

The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing court orders to force Apple to assist investigators in extracting data from another 12 iPhones, reports the WSJ. The news comes as the FBI claims its demand that Apple hack the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone will not set a precedence.

The other phones are evidence in cases where prosecutors have sought, as in the San Bernardino, Calif., terror case, to use an 18th-century law called the All Writs Act to compel the company to help them bypass the passcode security feature of phones that may hold evidence, according to a letter from Apple which was unsealed in Brooklyn federal court Tuesday.

The letter from an Apple lawyer to a federal judge lists the locations of the other phones: Four in Illinois, three in New York, two in California, two in Ohio, and one in Massachusetts.

Despite FBI Director James Comey's claim that "the San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message, it's quite clear that the agency chose this specific situation to battle over because it would garner the highest possible public support and set a precedence for future cases. It's considered by many to have been a smart first move.

“They’ll come up with a reason why for every single phone,” said Chris Finan, a former White House security adviser who, while in government, said he opposed this tactic. But as a strategic matter, he said, “It’s tactically brilliant.”

New York City's police commissioner, William J. Bratton, and the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., both voiced their criticism of Apple saying that they currently possess 175 iPhones that they can not unlock. When asked if he would want access to the those phones should the FBI prevail in the San Bernardino case, Vance said: “Absolutely right.”

Apple has hired Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. and Theodore B. Olson, partners at Gibson Dunn, as outside counsel to help it defend the security of its devices and its users data.

If you're just learning about the situation you can find more details in Apple's FAQ. Please follow iClarified on Twitter, Facebook, or RSS for updates.

Read More

DOJ Seeks Orders to Force Apple to Unlock 12 More iPhones as FBI Claims It's Not Trying to Set Precedent

Follow iClarified

Tjp - February 26, 2016 at 12:22am

The big problem is they are asking for something Apple doesn't have. It clearly cannot require a company provide an as of yet non existent tool, at the companies expense. Apple could set a precedent that due to the expenses involved, creating a one off iOS version, limited by court order to a single phone, that they should be compensated for their efforts, including loss of critical staff on the main iOS releases, loss of market share as schedules slip, and compensation for testing including recreating the target device so as not to overly endanger the target device. And ask for exemption from liability if the government effort fails. Since the government appointed lawyer in the iBooks case pulled over 1000 an hour and Apple will need additional council to oversee compliance with the court order, that's likely over a a couple million dollars they should charge the government for performance of this court order. And that likely will discourage others from pursuing this avenue. Asking for a general purpose tool is not viable as it would be exposed to misuse and the government is not requesting it, by their own requests. This will require skilled engineers, testers, and the enveloping management structure for the tools development, as well as legal council overseeing the effort.

Reply · Like

Great - February 26, 2016 at 12:04am

If the Govt wins, then the next step is for all to provide backdoors. That means banks, hospitals, all hand phone os makers, everyone! That is the end of encryption!

clown - February 25, 2016 at 3:04am

Why you think they required new cars to have black boxes. When someone gets in accidents they, plug in device and download your speed, stops etc. They don't require your approval to take the device from the car, and they use your own car against you. Similar to onstar, . You can request the data, but you never get it even though you bought the car,

garybizzle - February 24, 2016 at 5:40pm

Resist Tim Cook! Resist!

4235fc6 - February 24, 2016 at 5:48am

Fuc|< the USA government. I really hope Apple doesn't give in to it.

paulMOGG - February 24, 2016 at 1:36am

How about the people of the USA demanding that all the ' secrets' that the government FBI Etc are hiding have a back door so that they the public can go online and see what's going on in the 'secret world' of the USA Now that would be a good idea as its the usa citizens country not the governments !

clown - February 24, 2016 at 1:05am

I want my car to go 200 mph, but it has speed governor on ot. Why wont gm unlock the pcm so i can go 200mph. It is my car.

ChiChi - February 23, 2016 at 7:49pm

Hmmmm...with another 12 iPhones needing to be unlocked and potentially another 175 in New York, apparently the FBI is not trying hard enough to not look like they are setting a precedence...@-@

Raymond A. - February 23, 2016 at 7:08pm

Lol the funny part is that the white house denied that the FBI was seeking a backdoor? And now this, what was the point of even denying it and then forces apple to unlock 12 phones. (http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/269779-white-house-fbi-not-seeking-apple-backdoor-in-terror-case)

Camfella - February 23, 2016 at 6:59pm

Just one phone! They said, LOL!

Dan - February 23, 2016 at 6:32pm

Tim was right, they need the back door NOT just to one phone but to plenty

Butterspider - February 23, 2016 at 6:46pm

Yup. Once that threshold is crossed, there's no going back.

justabrake - February 23, 2016 at 6:32pm

I hope apple doesn't assist Gov. Overstepping again

Janice - February 23, 2016 at 7:45pm

Apple tends to be pretty resistant to Federal government reach. You should read about the canary that they use to tell their users if they are safe. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/apple-takes-strong-privacy-stance-in-new-report-publishes-rare-warrant-canary/

King Rollo - February 23, 2016 at 8:47pm

Wel of course they should. Apple are being bloody minded about it. These are serious cases and key evidence is being locked in an Apple safe..

gamerscul9870 - February 23, 2016 at 10:10pm

Not a chance will apple willingly give u pro defeat the purpose of security!

Tjp - February 26, 2016 at 12:41am

King, it requires a huge expense on Apple's part. Who pays? In the US there exist protections against the government takings without compensation. There are other constitutional arguments against the FBI request. Say you had a complex safe, that required a three dimensional key, that the safe owner could 3D print and set to be the key needed to open the safe. The safe is very secure and after several wrong keys are used will set fire to the safe contents, and if other breakin attempts are made will set fire to the contents, completely destroying them. Now, can the government legitimately require the safes maker to create a tool that would weaken the safes security and allow government safe crackers the ability to open the safe. No such tool exists now. The expense to create one can be estimated but is actually unknown. The safes are essentially one of a kind, so the tool must be made for that safe only, and not others of the same general model, and the tools very existence will potentially affect all owners of that model safe, past and present, wreaking havoc on the perceived security of the safe. The contents of the safe are unknown. The safes user had a personal set of safes, all destroyed in anticipation of them coming into government hand. But the work safe was left undamaged. Should the safe manufacturer make the tool for the government, whether at their own expense or not, knowing millions of other instances of those safe models will now be compromisable. And further the Safe manufacturer might be found liable if an unauthorized safe cracking event occurs using the knowledge of the new tool.