Apple has filed a reply brief to the Department of Justice's opposition of its motion to vacate an order that would force the company to build a backdoor into the iPhone.
Last week, the DOJ filed what Apple viewed as a hostile brief opposing its motion to vacate. Apple lawyer Bruce Sewell said, "Everyone should beware, because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Now the company has filed its official and last response before meeting the FBI in court on March 22nd. The brief counters many of the arguments made in the DOJ's brief.
Almost 90 years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis, reflecting on the “progress of science” beyond wiretapping, famously warned that “[t]he greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 474, 479 (1928). In this case, the government’s motivations are understandable, but its methods for achieving its objectives are contrary to the rule of law, the democratic process, and the rights of the American people. The Court should vacate the order and deny the government’s motion to compel.
You can read the full reply brief below. If you want to learn more about the debate over encryption and why it's important, watch John Oliver's recap here
Please follow iClarified on Twitter, Facebook, or RSS for updates..
[via BI]
Last week, the DOJ filed what Apple viewed as a hostile brief opposing its motion to vacate. Apple lawyer Bruce Sewell said, "Everyone should beware, because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Now the company has filed its official and last response before meeting the FBI in court on March 22nd. The brief counters many of the arguments made in the DOJ's brief.
Almost 90 years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis, reflecting on the “progress of science” beyond wiretapping, famously warned that “[t]he greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 474, 479 (1928). In this case, the government’s motivations are understandable, but its methods for achieving its objectives are contrary to the rule of law, the democratic process, and the rights of the American people. The Court should vacate the order and deny the government’s motion to compel.
You can read the full reply brief below. If you want to learn more about the debate over encryption and why it's important, watch John Oliver's recap here
Please follow iClarified on Twitter, Facebook, or RSS for updates..
[via BI]