Apple just won a major decision in New York State court that will influence the FBI's federal case demanding Apple break its encryption code on iPhones. The same issues were before a judge who ruled against the government. Stop the madness! Leave Apple alone to do its job.

::::::::

Apple Computer just won a case in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York that addresses the issues in the San Bernadino murders in early December. While the New York decision may not be binding, it clearly outlines the rationale for the federal case regarding the California murders. The FBI wants Apple to write original code to bypass encryption since there is no backdoor into the iPhone right now.

Three observations on the FBI's efforts:

1) The FBI needs to do its job without ruining security on cell phones for everybody in the world using Apple products. It won't stop with Apple by any means possible.

2) The federal government cannot force a corporation or individual to do work against the will of the corporation (other than to follow regulations and laws on the books). This is a 13th Amendment case, at least. The precedent set would allow the government to force any federal contractor to do additional work to bring the originally completed work in line with national security needs -- at full cost to the contractor. In fact, it would apply to any business the government asks to enhance a product or service for national security needs.

3) Apple is by far the most successful company in the United States, a world leader in information technology and systems. If the FBI wins in court, it will take away the huge security advantage Apple provides its customers. It will hurt market share and sales. It will significantly harm our best company.

This is just another manifestation of the inverted pyramid of intelligence n this country. The higher up the power ladder, the less intelligent the people. There's nothing wrong with the masses and the truly creative faction in this country. There is something very wrong with the rulers. They are severely challenged and ruin rather than enhance the work of the people.

Stop those who contribute nothing other than negative outcomes and failed policies.

Michael Collins

Government Can't Force Apple to Bypass iPhone Lock Screen, New York Judge Rules

By Andrew Crocker and Parker Higgins

Electronic Frontier Foundation February 29, 2016

Creative Commons 3.0

While the government has argued that its extraordinary invocation of the All Writs Act is not intended to set a precedent, Judge Orenstein properly recognizes what is at stake. In particular, he casts shade on the very constitutionality of the government's interpretation, describing it as virtually unbounded:

The government's position also produces a wholly different kind of absurdity: the idea that the First Congress might so thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution that many of its members had personally just helped to write or to ratify. Its preferred reading of the law -- which allows a court to confer on the executive branch any investigative authority Congress has decided to withhold, so long as it has not affirmatively outlawed it -- would transform the [All Writs Act] from a limited gap-filing statute that ensures the smooth functioning of the judiciary itself into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers by delegating to the judiciary a legislative power bounded only by Congress's superior ability to prohibit or preempt. I conclude that the constitutionality of such an interpretation is so doubtful as to render it impermissible as a matter of statutory construction. [Emphasis added.]

The government has repeatedly denied that there's a thread running through each of these cases, and claimed that each All Writs Act order pertains to just one device. Orenstein makes quick work with that argument, connecting those cases and the ongoing (and unsuccessful) government push for new legislation to grab new search powers and crypto backdoors. Where the government cannot get legislation, it seems intent to just reinterpret the law:

It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been ... shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking.

Although the New York and San Bernardino cases differ in the technical details of what the government wants Apple to do, Orenstein's order is bound to be instructive in the California case because of its thoroughly reasoned analysis of the All Writs Act's limits. In particular, Orenstein argues persuasively that Apple's decisions to implement robust security features in iOS must be viewed against the backdrop of congressional inaction. Under current law, Apple's choice to design its software this way is entirely legal; indeed some members of Congress have introduced legislation to protect the right to uncompromised encryption.

And that's not the only way in which Orenstein acknowledges the ongoing national debate. Earlier this month, in a motion to compel Apple to comply with the San Bernardino order, Department of Justice attorneys claimed the company's opposition "appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy." Maybe so, writes Judge Orenstein, but that is hardly cause to require Apple to compromise the security of its devices.

In considering the burden the requested relief would impose on Apple, it is entirely appropriate to take into account the extent to which the compromise of privacy and data security that Apple promises its customers affects not only its financial bottom line, but also its decisions about the kind of corporation it aspires to be. The fact that the government or a judge might disapprove Apple's preference to safeguard data security and customer privacy over the stated needs of a law enforcement agency is of no moment: in the absence of any other legal constraint, that choice is Apple's to make, and I must take into account the fact that an order compelling Apple to abandon that choice would impose a cognizable burden on the corporation that is wholly distinct from any direct or indirect financial cost of compliance.

In any case, it is clear that Judge Orenstein views the government demands as a question of constitutional significance. He reserves his strongest words for the conclusion of the order, which takes the government to task for attempting to short-circuit a critically important national debate:

How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago. But that debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive. It would betray our constitutional heritage and our people's claim to democratic governance for a judge to pretend that our Founders already had that debate, and ended it, in 1789.

We're pleased to see a federal judge recognize the value of that ongoing conversation, even as the government would bypass it entirely.

Authors Website: http://www.opednews.com/author/author3863.html

Authors Bio:

Researcher, writer DC Area Attack on Syria - Struggle for Turkey - Attack on Libya - The Money Party = Survival - End Times - Obama Administration - Politics and Policy - Election fraud - Pennsylvania Sexual Abuse Scandal - Murdoch press scandals