“No single corporation”, the Obama administration said in an argumentation on Thursday, — even one as successful as Apple — should be allowed to flout the rule of law by refusing to help the F.B.I. unlock the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., attackers.
 |
| The Apple store at Grand Central Terminal in New York. (Wang Lei/Xinhua, Getty Images) |
The administration’s sharp tone in a new court filing drew an angry and emotional rebuke from lawyers for Apple, who accused the government of “a cheap shot” and were particularly upset about what they said was an unfair and inaccurate suggestion that the company has a special relationship with China to protect its corporate interests there.
“The tone of the brief reads like an indictment,” Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel, told reporters. “In 30 years of practice, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo.”
The unusually intense sparring between the two sides signaled an escalation in tension over a case that had already drawn attention worldwide because of the high legal and corporate stakes. The fight has been brewing since mid-February, when Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of the Federal District Court for the Central District of California ordered Apple to create and deploy an alternative operating system that would help law enforcement agents break into the iPhone in the San Bernardino case.
Apple publicly opposed the order, igniting a standoff with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. The fight has fueled a debate over privacy and civil liberties versus security, becoming a flash point in the growing tension between technology companies and the government over who can have access to private customer data and under what circumstances.
In its filing on Thursday in United States District Court in Los Angeles, the Justice Department said that Apple should be compelled to help the F.B.I. break into the iPhone and that the company should not be allowed to hide behind what prosecutors said were diversionary tactics in the court of public opinion.
Apple and its supporters “try to alarm” the court by invoking bigger debates over privacy and national security, the Justice Department said. “Apple desperately wants — desperately needs — this case not to be ‘about one isolated iPhone.’ ”
The government’s filing was a point-by-point rebuttal of a motion that Apple filed two weeks ago opposing the federal court order requiring it to break into the iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the San Bernardino attackers. Apple had argued that the court order violated the company’s First and Fifth Amendment rights, and said the government’s request oversteps a law called the All Writs Act.
In the filing on Thursday, prosecutors argued that they have sought a “modest” step in the case and that the courts, the executive branch and Congress — not Apple — share the power to decide how best to balance public safety and privacy.
“The rule of law does not repose that power in a single corporation, no matter how successful it has been in selling its products,” prosecutors wrote.
The Justice Department also offered a robust defense of the All Writs Act, which dates to 1789. The statute, used to gather evidence in thousands of cases, is an “integral part of our justice system,” prosecutors wrote.
Apple has tried to characterize that statute “as an obscure law dredged up by the government to achieve unprecedented power,” the Justice Department said. “That premise is false.”
At the same time, prosecutors played down the significance of a ruling that went against them last week in a separate but similar case in a Brooklyn courtroom. In that case, a magistrate rejected attempts by the Justice Department to force Apple to help unlock an iPhone in a routine drug case, saying that the government was using the All Writs Act so broadly that it might be unconstitutional.
The Justice Department noted in a footnote Thursday that it was appealing the Brooklyn ruling and that the order carried no weight as precedent in the California case.
In another footnote, the Justice Department’s tone also turned more ominous, suggesting that it might seek access to Apple’s source code and private electronic signatures if the company does not cooperate. That would go beyond what the government has previously requested, which is the company’s help in weakening the iPhone’s defenses rather than any direct access to the technology.
In a rebuttal to the government’s filing, Mr. Sewell of Apple said in a conference call that a number of the government’s charges in its latest brief were unfounded.
Mr. Sewell said it was the first time ever that Apple had seen the government assert that it made modifications to specifically block law enforcement officials’ access to its devices. More disturbingly, he said, federal prosecutors used unidentified sources to raise the specter that Apple has a different relationship with China than with other countries.
He said such accusations showed that the Justice Department “is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds.”
Mr. Sewell likened the Justice Department’s comments on China to Apple arguing that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted because there are rumors that the bureau was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy and citing “conspiracytheory.com” as its source.
“Everyone should beware,” Mr. Sewell said, “because it seems that disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and un-American.”
On the actual merits of the dispute, Apple’s lawyers reiterated that the government’s interpretation of the All Writs Act was simply wrong and that the authority the government seeks “is breathtaking,” essentially arguing that courts can order any private citizens or companies to do what the authorities want so long as there is jurisdiction.
Apple will have another chance to rebut the Justice Department’s case before a hearing scheduled for March 22 before Magistrate Judge Pym. No matter how she rules, the closely watched case is almost certain to be appealed to the district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and perhaps even the Supreme Court.
Source : The New York Times
Comments
Post a Comment