![]() ![]() If Feng's phone had iOS 8 or later installed-as 90 percent of iPhones do-this entire issue would likely be moot. In the government's own filing, dated October 30, 2015, prosecutors said that the investigation was not over and that it still needed data from Feng's phone. Judge Orenstein then asked the government why the issue of Apple's compliance was not pointless given the guilty plea. Nine days later, defendant Jun Feng pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. At the time, bringing Apple into a case like this was new. The New York case began back in October 2015, when Judge Orenstein invited Apple to tell the court why it felt that the government could not compel it to unlock a seized phone. But because such rejection can take many forms, only one of which (and arguably the least likely in most circumstances) is outright prohibition, the government's argument here is manifestly irreconcilable with the statute. In short, whatever else the AWA's "usages and principles" clause may be intended to accomplish, it cannot be a means for the executive branch to achieve a legislative goal that Congress has considered and rejected. ![]() Apple hopes, however, that that Riverside judge will be "persuaded" by the decision, according to a company executive who was granted anonymity on a call with reporters. The ruling, the first of its kind on the topic, has no legal bearing on the outcome of the California case as they are proceeding in different federal judicial districts. US Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that what the government was asking for went too far. There are several related AWA cases involving unlocking Apple devices that remain pending nationwide. ![]() However, on both coasts, Apple is fighting the government's attempt to use the same law, known as the All Writs Act-an obscure catchall statute that dates back to the 18th Century. Last week, Apple formally challenged that order, and the outcome is pending. In the California case, federal investigators asked for and received an unprecedented court order compelling Apple to create a new firmware to unlock the device. It pre-dates Apple's current battle with the government over a locked iPhone 5C that belonged to one of the shooters in the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino-that case is due to be heard in court next month in nearby Riverside, California.īy contrast, the San Bernardino case involves an iPhone 5c, running iOS 9, which Apple says it cannot unlock. This case involves a drug dealer who has already pleaded guilty.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |