Tech titans line up for Apple
Big names back company in battle over iPhone access
A wave of tech
SAN FRANCISCO companies that includes the industry’s biggest names filed court statements backing Apple in its battle with the federal government over access to a killer’s iPhone.
Twitter filed an amicus brief in a group that includes Airbnb, LinkedIn and eBay. AT&T and Intel each filed pro-Apple briefs, while Mozilla says it is part of a consortium planning to file by Thursday’s deadline that includes Google, Facebook and Snapchat.
“(The government request) is an overreach, the government is asking a tech company to undermine years of security,” Mozilla chief legal officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told USA TODAY.
Apple is getting broad technology support for its refusal to comply with an order from a judge in California who said Apple should help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by one of the killers in the San Bernardino mass shooting in December. Apple says it would need to write new software to override encryption on that iPhone, creating an opening that
other governments and criminals could exploit.
“This case isn’t simply about letting the FBI pick the lock to a dead terrorist’s phone. It’s about whether governments can conscript private companies to disable security features built into their devices,” said Ron Bell, general counsel at Yahoo.
A coalition of top law enforcement officials in California offered its support to the FBI, arguing that Apple’s privacy concerns are “misplaced.”
“Law enforcement is not asking this court to compel the locksmith (Apple) to give them a master key to unlock all locks built by this locksmith,” asserted attorneys representing the California Sheriffs’ Association, the California Police Chiefs’ Association and the California Peace Officers Association.
The filings argued the FBI’s request threatened customers’ data privacy and risked overreach. The outpouring, including from some — such as phone company AT&T — that had been less vocal in their support early on, indicated Silicon Valley sees a government win in this case as a serious threat to global trust in its products.