Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Swordmaker

Someone needs to that this stuff to the Supreme Court so we won’t need to jerk around getting an answer in the future.


3 posted on 11/20/2017 3:05:29 PM PST by Vermont Lt (Burn. It. Down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Vermont Lt
Someone needs to that this stuff to the Supreme Court so we won’t need to jerk around getting an answer in the future.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled on such All Writs court orders as was used in the San Bernardino terrorist case on what they can and cannot be used to order . . . and their ruling was what Apple was relying on in refusing to follow such an order.

Apple argued that it was inappropriate to require Apple to do what the FBI was asking them to do which was to what came to be termed an FBiOS, a version of iOS that would allow bypassing the inherent, built-in security which prevented anyone but the user from accessing the encrypted data. The US Supreme Court had ruled in a previous case that such an order was only appropriate to require a business to do something the business normally did in the course of their daily business, but not to do something they did NOT normally do. Apple did not normally create custom operating systems to order, nor did they routinely decrypt customer's data, even for the customer who had forgotten his/her password, etc. Consequently, under the law, the All Writs court order was completely outside Apple's normal business and not something an All Writs court order or the court had the power to require.

22 posted on 11/20/2017 5:02:37 PM PST by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you racist, bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson