DOJ: Apple's arguments in San Bernardino case 'corrosive'

The Hill ^ | 3/10/16 | Katie Bo Williams and Julian Hattem

[Nachum]

The Department of Justice on Thursday accused Apple of willfully obstructing the FBI’s efforts to access the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, in what appeared to be an escalation of the simmering legal battle.

"The government and the community need to know what is on the terrorist's phone and the government needs Apple's assistance to find out," prosecutors wrote in a new motion urging a federal judge in California to force Apple to comply with its demand.

Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym last month ordered Apple to build a piece of software disabling a security feature on the phone to allow investigators to hack into it. Apple has opposed the order with its own motion to vacate, claiming that the government’s request would set a dangerous precedent and undermine users’ privacy.

The tech giant argues that forcing it to create new software that doesn't already exist and which it considers harmful would inappropriately broaden the scope of the law on which the government is basing its case.

Apple has primarily cast its decision to oppose the California court order as a defense of privacy rights — a position the Justice Department pushed back against in its filing.

“Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights: the courts, the Fourth Amendment, longstanding precedent and venerable laws, and the democratically elected branches of government,” prosecutors wrote.

[Stanwood_Dave]

"Or would that be Involuntary Servitude??"

Personally, I would say when a person / company is forced (via the threat of guns the U.S. Gov. owns) would be simple slavery. But the more I think about it (The government is letting the Apple people go home at night, unlike slavery) I guess Involuntary Servitude is correct.