Skip to main content

Apple Responds to DOJ

 Yesterday Apple Inc. (Apple) filed its response to the Department of Justice (DOJ)'s demand that it decrypt an accused terrorist's iPhone.  For those not following the details of this case, here is a brief summary of the legal dispute:

The government's case for compelling Apple to decrypt the phone is the All Writs Act, a law that allows judges to issue writs necessary to enforce the law.  This Act was interpreted by the1977 Supreme Court case US v. New York Telephone, in which the Court ruled that the All Writs Act allowed a judge to order the phone company to comply with a special kind of wiretap even though Congress had not passed a law authorizing that particular wiretap.  The DOJ is invoking this argument given that the Federal government has so far declined to pursue legislation requiring companies to provide the government with backdoor access to consumer electronics.

The public now has a preview of the other side of the caset: Apple's motion lays out an argument that this case does not involve facts equivalent to those of New York Telephone and that creating new software would be unduly burdensome; more significantly, makes a case that statutory protections written telecommunications providers are the appropriate laws to apply in this case, and not the All Writs Act.

Given the rapid advancement of technology and its incorporation into everyday life, the precedent this case will set when the question of which law is appropriate is finally settled will likely have significant implications for the development of technology and popular culture in America.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spying and International Law

With increasing numbers of foreign governments officially objecting to now-widely publicized U.S. espionage activities, the topic of the legality of these activities has been raised both by the target governments and by the many news organizations reporting on the issue.For those interested in better understanding this controversy by learning more about international laws concerning espionage, here are some legal resources that may be useful.

The following is a list of multinational treaties relevant to spies and espionage:
Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (1874).Although never ratified by the nations that drafted it, this declaration is one of the earliest modern examples of an international attempt to codify the laws of war.Articles 19-22 address the identification and treatment of spies during wartime.These articles served mainly to distinguish active spies from soldiers and former spies, and provided no protections for spies captured in the act.The Hagu…

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …