It is a statement of intent from the highest reaches of FBI authority. If Apple was under the impression that they could not petition for a clarification or modification of the court order, then they are a bunch of fools who need to fire their lawyers.
Look, idiot. Come is not testifying in that court. He did not write the Court Order. He did not petition for the Court Order. He was not the attorney who requested it. The Department of Justice is doing that. It doesn't matter what the Director of the FBI intended. He did not write the COURT ORDER. . . and neither the FBI nor the DOJ submitted a petition for a modification of the COURT ORDER in over six weeks the Court Order lay there on the table which says a lot more about their intent than all your fictional protestations of their intent.
Let me repeat DiogenesLamp:
You have been told this by numerous Freepers. . . yet you still can't get it through your neutronium thick skull to your pea sized brain. Only the Court Order matters, not what somebody totally not involved with the actual investigation says. Comey is an administrator, not an Attorney involved with this case, nor an IT specialist, and certainly not a prosecuting attorney who knows the rules of evidence. Comey also stated that they FBI planned on requiring Apple to use the technique to open OTHER devices while the other agents said it only needed to open ONE iPhone. Which is it, Dignenes??? One or many?
Comey said even more in his sworn testimony before Congress that directly contradicted the sworn testimony submitted to the Court to get the Court Order. So which is true of those? Comey's or the agents' who applied for the court order? It can't be both. Are you one of those people who can believe two directly and distinctly false things before breakfast and then swear both are false by lunch? Of course you are. You do it all the time right in these fora.
What Comey said is in fact implied in the court order. It's under that section where they said Apple could use any means they wanted to accomplish the task.
It is implicit in the order that Apple has complete control over the process, you just refuse to read it that way because this interpretation makes Apple inc look like a bunch of Screaming fit throwers, which in fact is exactly what they were.
WOW! You assume a Court Order can be read the way you want to read it. "Implicit" means that it "implies" something. Look it up. Lawyers go to school for many years to learn how to write things CLEARLY to avoid writing unclearly to make things EXPLICIT, not "implicit." You are just wrong. A COURT ORDER cannot "imply" anything. An order from a court is either EXPLICIT, or it doesn't exist. There is no middle ground. The rules of law state that any law or court order MUST be read narrowly, not widely or loosely, nor should anything NOT in it be imputed to it or assumed to be there that is not. Otherwise, the parties would be forever bothering the court for more instructions on what to do as they keep disputing what the court meant with muddy language. . . similar to your muddy thinking.
You assume a lot. Where is the part in the court order that says Apple gets to keep the evidence???? Where does it say they get to keep the iPhone 5C after unlocking it????? WHERE? Oh, where, oh font of everything factual about this court order, is this mythical permission to keep the evidence in perpetuity?
Do NOT post a link, post the actual words—the exact, verbatim words in the Court Order—you claim are there. Don't obfuscate, don't post a link to the director's, or any other third party person's statement, post the exact words from the DAMN COURT ORDER, Diogenes. SHOW US THE WORDS.
You won't. Because you can't. It doesn't exist.
This one i’m going to skip without reading. I’ve heard enough screeching from cult-kooks to know it isn’t worth the trouble to actually pay them any heed.