FBI IN A ‘DANGEROUS POWER’ GRAB: APPLE
Apple on Thursday called the FBI’s demand that it unlock a dead terrorist’s iPhone a grab for “dangerous power” — and asked a judge to deny the government’s request.
The tech giant’ s move in the closely watched legal battle came as FBI boss James Comey appeared to backtrack from earlier comments that Uncle Sam’s demand is limited to just the iPhone 5C used by terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook.
“Whatever the judge’ s decision is in California, it will be appealed and it will be instructive for other courts,” Comey told the House Intelligence Committee .“There may well be other cases that involve the same kind of phone and same kind of operating system .”
Apple had maintained as soon as Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered it to write new software to allow the FBI unlimited tries to uncover Farook’ s passcode that it would unleash what Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said would be many more requests for such assistance.
“The government says :‘ Just this once’ and ‘Just this phone,’ ” Apple wrote in a court filing Thursday. “But the government knows those statements are not true.”
It was Apple’s first official legal salvo in the escalating case that has rattled the nation from Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill.
The dispute could become along, drawnoutbattle going all the way to the Supreme Court, legal experts say. At stake are crucial questions over where to draw the line between digital privacy and national security.
Indeed, Comey, in his Hill testimony, called the escalating case “the hardest question I’ve seen in government.”
In a Feb. 21 blog post, Comey insisted the FBI was only interested in cracking the confiscated iPhone of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist.
“We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land,” Comey wrote last weekend.
Cook claimed this week on ABC News that complying with the FBI’s request would force it to create the “software equivalent of cancer.”
In its Thursday 36page court filing. Apple also invoked its First Amendment rights, arguing that computer code is akin to free speech.
The Cupertino, Calif., company likewise accused the FBI of seeking a “boundless interpretation” of the law.
“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 claimed.
Some encryption experts say it’s impossible to build a software tool to crack Farook’s iPhone that wouldn’t also work on multiple iPhones. The feds have countered that Apple could retain and destroy the software once its investigation is over.
On Thursday, Comey rejected concerns that the software could get “out in the wild.”
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which last week dismissed Apple’s vocal resistance as a “brand marketing strategy ,” countered on Thursday that Apple had reversed “its longstanding” cooperation with gov ernment requests.
In the meantime, technology behemoths Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter said they will support Apple.
A hearing is scheduled for next month.
The particular legal issue is actually quite narrow. … We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode..
— Comey, on Feb. 21 ThereT may well be other cases that involve the same kind of phone and same kind of operating system.
— Comey, on Feb. 25