Apple and FBI they are fighting a battle like that. If you don't know what we're talking about, it's worth reading the following articles:
(Today, a new podcast will also air much about the subject.)
In the last post on the subject, we reported that the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking court orders to force Apple to help investigators extract information from other iPhones in cases that were not released by the media, which adds even more weight to Tim's statements. Cook (when saying that creating a backdoor for iOS it will be used not only in this case of San Bernardino, but in many others).
Other cases
For a federal judge asked Apple to provide a list of these other cases involving password-protected devices, which was released publicly (PDF) yesterday (Tuesday, 2/23).
The big difference between these cases and that of San Bernardino is that they were requested in confidence, that is, without media coverage and have no connection with terrorism.
This proves once and for all that we are not talking about a case, an iPhone, as the FBI has been arguing in its defense.
Apple's defense strategy
According to Bloomberg, Apple uses an interesting strategy to defend itself in the case. The company intends to argue in court that codes should be protected as speeches, and that a corporation / person cannot be forced to encode / speak something that violates its philosophy, its belief.
Based on First Amendment (First Amendment), Apple's idea that, just like the government cannot make a journalist write a story in its name, it cannot force the company to create a weaker security operating system in order to gain access to devices. For this, Ma hired two lawyers who are known to be good in this area to defend it: Theodore Olson and Theodore Boutrous.
That is, while the government built the whole case on the All Writs Act (issue all necessary or convenient warrants to assist their respective jurisdictions and households for customs and principles of law), Apple will defend itself using First Amendment (which basically prevents Congress and the courts from establishing an official religion or giving preference to a given religion, from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, from limiting freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to free peaceful association and the right to petitions to the government in order to repair injuries).
Furthermore, according to the Associated Press, Apple wants to take the case out of court and take it to the US Congress because, l, it has more power of influence (the famous lobbying). To top it off, she knows that in Congress the government will have a harder time getting what it wants because it has tried to talk about the legality of cryptography without success.
However, there are risks involved. Congress could, for example, create a law to force manufacturers to create backdoors in their systems to facilitate this type of investigation after all, when the discussion on cryptography took place, a terrorist attack on American soil was not on the agenda. Still, unless in my view, this would be “beneficial” for Apple as it would not only affect it * all * manufacturers would be involved and, the seriousness / breadth of the discussion would be completely different.
In addition to the risk, we also have the timing as a problem. Any kind of discussion in Congress is not resolved overnight, that is to say something that involves a topic as polemic as this.
Protests
Apple fans and privacy advocates took to the streets to protest the FBI's demands.
The protests took place in more than 50 American cities with the aim of making the people aware of the tough battle that Ma is facing.
(via TechCrunch, Business Insider, The Next Web, Cult of Mac)
