Apple: FBI seeks 'dangerous power' in fight over phone - (files answer to Court Order)

BigStory AP ^ | February 25, 2015 | By ERIC TUCKER and TAMI ABDOLLAH

[Swordmaker]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Apple Inc. on Thursday asked a federal magistrate to reverse her order that the company help the FBI hack into a locked iPhone, accusing the federal government of seeking "dangerous power" through the courts and of trampling on its constitutional rights.

The filing represents Apple's first official response since the judge's order last week and builds upon arguments voiced by the company's chief executive and supporters. It marks the latest salvo in a court fight that could create meaningful precedent and establish new legal boundaries in the policy battle between national security and digital privacy — a clash FBI Director James Comey says is the "hardest question I've seen in government."

"No court has ever authorized what the government now seeks, no law supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process, and the Constitution forbids it," Apple said.

The Justice Department is proposing a "boundless interpretation" of the law that, if left unchecked, could bring disastrous repercussions, the company warned in a memo submitted to Magistrate Sheri Pym that aggressively challenges policy justifications put forward by the Obama administration in the last several days.

[jessduntno]

“Every one of the candidates who were asked about the Apple iPhone case were under the impression it was only about opening ONE phone. They showed they were not up-to-date on what was actually going on. . . or what the very important Constitutional issues involved were. They all referred to a search warrant when there is no search warrant.”

The search warrant for the phone is definitely real. If you are saying that we have all these Republican Presidential Candidates that are not as smart as you and didn’t do any thinking about it...we really are screwed. I think most of these lawyers know what they are talking about...or should they connect with you and your little posse here? The Donald spoke about how we should be cracking this thing right now just last night.

[Chgogal]

Yesterday the idiots on The Five held up the IPone. Greg Gutfield said the IPhone was like a room with evidence. There is no difference. Really!

On Varney, there was a Special Forces guy who was a Terrorist Hunter. He sided with Apple. Varney was upset.

[Swordmaker]

perhaps what Swordmaker meant to write was "anticipated legal precedent." Otherwise, what do you think he means specifically and why do you think he is wrong specifically?

No, I wrote what I wrote because it IS being used by several courts already, both state and Federal, as a precedent to extending the use of the "All Writs Act" power to compel Apple to open other iPhones other prosecutors have in cases from drug dealers to murder. There are now FIFTEEN orders that have been presented to Apple using the San Bernardino Court Order as a precedent to justify their use of the All Writs Act.

Res Ipsae Loquitur.

Case Closed.

[Swordmaker]

A previous ruling by a court that influences subsequent decisions in cases with similar issues.

What makes you think that a ruling by a Magistrate Judge ORDERING Apple to open an Apple iPhone is not a "ruling"? Have I stepped through the Looking Glass in to WonderLand?

I just got through TELLING you that fifteen other courts of legal jurisdiction ARE INDEED USING this RULING, citing the order as a precedent, in their own orders to Apple to open other iPhones, "cases with similar issues," which meets every single criteria of the definition of a "precedent." These cases are cited in Apple's "Request to Vacate the Order" as evidence that contrary to the government's claims it would not be used as a precedent because they were only wanting the single case's one iPhone opened, it would ONLY be used for this singular instance and could not be used as a precedent, IT ACTUALLY IS ALREADY BEING USED AS A PRECEDENT! They are included in Apple's request as Exhibits. They're one of the reasons the request is 455 pages in length.

Are you having trouble comprehending the definition? Just because the Magistrate Judge's ruling was uncontested doesn't make it any less of a previous ruling!

[Swordmaker]

Maybe he was too dead to smash it? It was found in the back seat after the shootout. I mean, if you want to play "what if" games all day like this, at least reach for one that makes sense.

The other phones and computers were smashed and thrown in the lake before the shootout. Sorry, your scenario doesn't meet the smell test. Why save this one?

[jessduntno]

“The other phones and computers were smashed and thrown in the lake before the shootout. Sorry, your scenario doesn’t meet the smell test. Why save this one?”

Ummmmmm...to have a phone? What smell test, yours? Bwaaahahahaha. You’re a funny guy. Or girl. Maybe they were using it to talk to people who also had these phones and were told by them they couldn’t be hacked into! Start Killing and thrilling! We’ll talk after you clean up! Allah be praised!

Who cares? It’s a what if, like all of your shit. Or is your what if’s more carefully thought out than mine? Hahahahaha. This isn’t even fun anymore. You must be feeling a little woozy from all the possibilities flooding through that steel trap mind. See you later, Sport.

[Swordmaker]

The search warrant for the phone is definitely real. If you are saying that we have all these Republican Presidential Candidates that are not as smart as you and didn’t do any thinking about it...we really are screwed. I think most of these lawyers know what they are talking about...or should they connect with you and your little posse here? The Donald spoke about how we should be cracking this thing right now just last night.

How much of an id10t are you? Apple WAS NOT SERVED A SEARCH WARRANT for the iPhone!

This is NOT a 4th Amendment issue. Apple is not withholding anything THEY have custody of, ZERO. Apple did receive a search warrant for the iCloud files the terrorists had stored on Apple servers. Apple provided those to the authorities. Apple has been cooperating with the FBI all along.

Apple NEVER got a search warrant for the iPhone, id10T. Apple was ordered by a court to do work they are unwilling to do, work that will destroy something of inestimable value that Apple has worked for years to build. That is NOT a search warrant by any stretch of the imagination. This is NEW LEGAL TERRITORY and if you think it is somehow a SEARCH WARRANT you are DEAD WRONG.

Every single candidate approached it as if Apple had been served a SEARCH WARRANT for data they hold, which Apple was refusing to turn over, an entirely different thing that is actually going on. It was plain that they did not have a clue the Court Order was NOT a Search Warrant from the tenor of their statements. I have no doubt they have not paid any proper legal attention to the actual elements of this case because their plates are full of campaigning.

Both Cruz and Rubio VOTED AGAINST allowing the encryption to be violated on mobile devices when it came up for vote last summer in the Senate in the Communications for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) legislation. Why would they hold a DIFFERENT position now? CALEA also PROHIBITED law enforcement from requiring any modification or specific hardware or software be installed on ANY telecommunications hardware:

CALEA itself makes the use of the All Writs Act unlawful because a law enforcement agency is trying to order ". . .a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment . . . to require a design of a feature, a service, and a specific configuration . . ." The FBI is violation of the Federal CALE Act. CALEA also intentional excludes "information service providers", like Apple, from the scope of its mandatory assistance provisions which exclude the use of the All Writs Act. CALEA addressed requiring "backdoor" access in mobile devices, debated the issue, and declined to include such backdoors. CALEA specifically precludes the government from mandating such "backdoors" to device encryption. Once Congress has addressed an issue, the All Writs Act can only be invoked when Congress has NOT addressed an issue, and the Courts are prohibited from doing an end run around the will of Congress! Congress DID INDEED address such backdoor's around encryption, so the courts cannot address the issue, it is OFF LIMITS, and an All Writs Act order is therefore null and void.

Ben Carson looked the most uncomfortable with it, and looked as if he were about to say something more principled, but decided to just go with the safe approach.

[jessduntno]

“How much of an id10t are you? Apple WAS NOT SERVED A SEARCH WARRANT for the iPhone!”

Never said they did. Notify the posse.

[jessduntno]

“Ben Carson looked the most uncomfortable with it, and looked as if he were about to say something more principled, but decided to just go with the safe approach.”

One of your best “what ifs” to date.

[jessduntno]

“How much of an id10t are you? Apple WAS NOT SERVED A SEARCH WARRANT for the iPhone!”

Well, for one, I know how to spell idiot. For another, I never said that the warrant was issued to Apple. Notify the posse. My observation was about the warrant, not the writ. Check the text. This is getting less and less fun. You aren’t even coherent anymore.

[jessduntno]

“I just got through TELLING you that fifteen other courts of legal jurisdiction ARE INDEED USING this RULING, citing the order as a precedent, in their own orders to Apple to open other iPhones, “cases with similar issues,” which meets every single criteria of the definition of a “precedent.”

Calm down, Bubba. This was a preliminary request for a number of options that Apple could offer to help with the phone that was legally obtained through a warrant. Apple was given 5 days to respond. Where are the links to all this “precedent” that has now been established? On the web? In your fantasy scenario? Where?

[Swordmaker]

Who cares? It's a what if, like all of your shit. Or is your what if's more carefully thought out than mine? Hahahahaha. This isn't even fun anymore. You must be feeling a little woozy from all the possibilities flooding through that steel trap mind. See you later, Sport.

No, mine are more thought out because I obviously know more about it than you do. I know more about how the iOS ecosystem works, and I've read the orders and the appeals, including all attachments and exhibits. It's obvious you haven't. You are a latecomer to all of this.

My theory about why they may have kept this iPhone is to use the GPS for their escape or for directions to their next attack. That doesn't mean it has anything probative on it. I think Farook was comfortable using it for the turn-by-turn voice directions in Maps, which he would have frequently used to find work destinations in his job as a field inspector for Occupational Health inspections. One possible interesting thing to learn would be the next destination he may have requested.

As I said earlier, all the phone calls made from and to this iPhone are known, as are the searches which were done on the browser. These were available from Verizon's records. Nothing untoward was seen, except a few phone calls to his wife on her KNOWN phone. The email on the iPhone was only work related. Again, nothing untoward. They know they had burner phones for which they apparently do not know the even the phone numbers much less who they called or when. THOSE are the phones they smashed and threw the components into a lake. Only unidentifiable smashed parts were found. . . along with smashed computer parts. They took the considerable time to smash those computers and phones, but NOT this one?

From what I've heard, which is actually unsubstantiated rumor in this instance, they know they went to the lake by tracing the GPS location history of this iPhone from Verizon triangulation data. . . and were curious why they went there.

[Swordmaker]

Well, for one, I know how to spell idiot. For another, I never said that the warrant was issued to Apple. Notify the posse. My observation was about the warrant, not the writ. Check the text. This is getting less and less fun. You aren’t even coherent anymore.

The point was that every one of the candidates was concerned about enforcing a search warrant and assumed that Apple was defying a search warrant served on them. A search warrant was not served on Apple. Ergo, they were responding to a question that was NOT germane to the situation at all. . . and therefore their answers prima facie had to be non sequiturs. My answers are completely coherent. You are misapprehending my comments, thats all; just as you don't understand the issues inherent in this case.

[jessduntno]

“A search warrant was not served on Apple.”

Geez, don’t bust a gut, slick. They weren’t asked about the warrant they were asked about Apple v FBI. They all said break the code. Sheesh. Concentrate, man.

[faithhopecharity]

With full respect for you and all here, could I please be removed from this item’s mailing list? There is a technical reason on this end whereby such long items are messing up our machine, is all... Thanks very much!!!

[Swordmaker]

Calm down, Bubba. This was a preliminary request for a number of options that Apple could offer to help with the phone that was legally obtained through a warrant. Apple was given 5 days to respond. Where are the links to all this “precedent” that has now been established? On the web? In your fantasy scenario? Where?

No, a court order is NOT any kind of "REQUEST".

"A court order is an official proclamation by a judge (or panel of judges) that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing, a trial, an appeal or other court proceedings. Such ruling requires or authorizes the carrying out of certain steps by one or more parties to a case. A court order must be signed by a judge; some jurisdictions may require it to be notarized."

". . .offer to help. . ."? Are you serious? A Court Order is designed to COMPEL the recipient to do something they supposedly have no intention of doing. When you receive a speeding ticket with a means of appealing, do you think its just a REQUEST for you to offer to pay merely because it says you can appear and explain why you should't have received the ticket? No, Jessduntno, it's an ORDER compelling you to Appear or PAY. Again you do not know what you are reading.

No wonder you waffle on everything. You are completely clueless on the meaning of every English word we use in normal discourse.

[Swordmaker]

With full respect for you and all here, could I please be removed from this item’s mailing list? There is a technical reason on this end whereby such long items are messing up our machine, is all... Thanks very much!!!

No problem Faith.

[faithhopecharity]

Thanks very much! Appreciated,

[jessduntno]

“No wonder you waffle on everything. You are completely clueless on the meaning of every English word we use in normal discourse.”

And you have written a novel in the past two days and are just finding this out? Once agin, you are wrong. The paste up you did yourself was giving Appla a menu to choose from in ways that could be of help. A writ is not a command, it precedes the court order after the respondent indicates a willingness to comply. Then the hammer falls.

Read your own post, Sparky.
And, as usual, consult with the posse, ok?

[jessduntno]

“This should have been worked out between Apple and the government. Apple should’ve simply opened this up and given them what was on this machine. This is the worst case for Apple to be contesting. Dead guy, terrorist, the iPhone isn’t owned by the guy, it’s owned by the company. The company has given permission to open it. It’s the worst possible case. It’s a loser going after the Supreme Court. I think what Apple is doing is, from the point of view of their customers, they’d rather fight and lose than give in. I think that is a mistake.” - Alan Dershowitz