Facts of the Case
On December 2, 2015, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook committed an act of terror, killing 14 people and injuring an additional 21 people. The couple was later linked to the terror group ISIS, prompting the FBI to attempt to gather information from Farook’s employer issued phone. The FBI pursued the US District Court of Los Angeles, which subsequently issued an order asserting Apple must provide “reasonable technical assistance” in unlocking the phone by providing three manners of assistance: allowing the government to enter more than 10 passcodes without the phone’s data being wiped, enabling automated entries rather than manual entries, and ridding of the gradually increasing delay system that occurs when multiple wrong
…show more content…
At first glance, it appears the All Writs Act was designed specifically for cases like Apple v. FBI, as it enables the government to request Apple to assist them. However, other cases that have applied the Act have created new ideas and precedent regarding the authority of the government in requesting assistance from a device manufacturer.
Application of the Law The most notable precedent regarding the All Writs Act comes from the 1977 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. New York Telephone Company (NYTC). After the FBI attained probable cause to believe two telephones were “furthering” an illegal gambling enterprise, a District Court granted them access to install pen registers. These pen registers, which record the numbers dialed on outgoing calls, were intended to provide the FBI all necessary “information, facilities, and technical assistance” needed. The FBI asserted it needed the telephone company’s assistance, and although the telephone company was willing to provide some assistance, it refused to furnish facilities and provide technical assistance. After the case made it through an array of appeals, the Supreme
On February 16, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) obtained an unprecedented court order in the San Bernardino shooting case that would have forced Apple to design and deliver to the DOJ software capable of destroying the encryption and passcode protections built into the iPhone.1 The DOJ asserted that this order was simply the extension of a warrant obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search the shooter’s iPhone, which had been locked with a standard passcode.
The events of the San Bernardino shooting were a tragedy. 14 people were killed, and another 22 were injured when a married terrorist couple staged an attack on a Christmas party. This was an unmitigated catastrophe, but it spawned one of the most important security debates in recent memory. The FBI wanted to unlock one of the suspects phones, but were unable to do so because of security measures on the phone. The FBI wanted to brute force the password lock on the iPhone, but device would wipe itself after 10 failed attempts to unlock the iPhone. Thus, the FBI asked Apple to create an intentionally insecure iOS update, specifically for this iPhone, in order to bypass the security restrictions. Apple disagreed with the FBI, and tried to avoid helping the FBI in such a way, arguing it would undermine the purpose of security itself. Overall, Apple has the best argument, both legally and as a matter of public policy.
the titles of books an individual has purchased or borrowed or the identity of individuals who have purchased or borrowed certain books. The Patriot Act authorizes the use of devices to trace the telephone calls or e-mails of people who are not suspected of any crime. American citizens and permanent legal residents’ investigated and sought information on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
As the late Frank Herbert once said, “Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Federal electronic wiretapping and supervision dates to the Wiretap Act of 1968, and has only increased in the following decades. Organizations such as the National Security Agency have been empowered by FISA (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts) to bypass the authority of the Supreme Court in determining constitutional validity on searches. Government Surveillance is unjustified because it infringes upon personal freedoms, does not guarantee safety, and is not a vital necessity.
The paper will examine the creation of back-doors for cellular devices and if that act would violate civil liberties, relating specifically to Apple and the FBI.
The Writs of Assistance were warrants that allowed officials to search for material that they had found to be smuggled in any citizen’s home, even without their given permission or a reason to do so.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed, deciding en banc a narrow interpretation was proper because “the plain language of the CFAA “target[s] the unauthorized procurement or alteration of information, not its misuse or misappropriation.” Id. at 863. The court also noted if Congress intended the statute to apply to
Mr. Cook confirmed, in the interview with David Muir, that there is indeed a precedent, “Millions of Americans had their credit card information stolen last year [...] the smartphone that you carry probably has more information about you than any other devices, so millions customers could get hurt.” On the other hand, the FBI is proposing the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. Based on “Legal Information Institute” from Cornell University of Law School, the All Writs Act means “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” If the government can demand Apple to unlock a customer’s iPhone using the All Writs Act, it would have the power to authorize Apple to build surveillance software to intercept private conversations, and even access health records without an individual’s knowledge. Apple does not only care about privacy, but also about public safety. Apple has provided the FBI all the information on the phone that it could early in the investigation; they also suggested that the FBI connect the phone to a familiar network so the phone would be able to backup to iCloud. However, the FBI directed the county to reset the iCloud password, which inhibits the phone to backup any information to the iCloud. If one of the hackers knew what the new software could do, he or she could easily hack into anyone’s phone. Although Mr. Cook found out about the lawsuit through the media rather than personally, he mentioned that Apple is still doing everything to help the FBI in different ways to find more information on Farook’s
Apple should be forced to unlock an iPhone or not. It becomes a controversial topic during these years. Most of them are concerned with their privacy and security. Darrell Issa is a congressman and has served the government since 2001. Recently, he published “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent” in Wired Magazine, to persuade those governors worked in the Congress. It is easier to catch administrators’ attention because some of them want to force Apple to unlock the iPhone. Darrel Issa focuses on governors because he thinks they can support the law to make sure that everyone has privacy. He addresses the truth that even some of the governors force Apple to hack iPhones when they need people’s information. He considers maintaining people’s privacy as the primary purpose. He also insists that Apple should not be forced to use their information which could lead people’s safety. In “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent,” Darrell Issa uses statistics and historical evidence to effectively persuade his audience of governors that they need to consider Apple should force to hack or not because it could bring people to a dangerous situation and forget the purpose of keeping people’s privacy.
The Patriot Act is lengthy and encompasses many issues but its primary purpose was to protect the American Public. I will focus this paper to how the surveillance aspect affects the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and collection of Metadata.
tried to build a new version of iOS, it would not have Apple’s encryption key to verify it. Apple has stated that the F.B.I. could ask Verizon the network Mr. Farook’s phone was under that could be used to give the F.B.I. more information that was on the phone.The government also could ask for information from the app makers who created some of the apps that were on Mr. Farook’s phone.But Apple had said that the F.B.I. probably had already done that.Apple is most worried about is all the request that the F.B.I. could potentially ask for in the future.So the real question here is how far can the law officials go in forcing a third party to help in surveillance?Apple had said that they will continue to help law officials with their cases as they have always done and we will continue to whenever the information from their products can help and as the threats and attacks on our nation become more common and more complex. This case has raised issues which deserve a national talk about our civil liberties, and our collective security and privacy.Given how common smartphones and tablets are just means that problems with technology won’t ever smaller or
The signees concede with the government, FBI, and U.S. citizens regarding terrorism. They agree all of them “want to take aggressive steps to reduce the threat of terrorism” suggesting that the authors can see both sides of the argument so Lynch will listen to their request for an end to the FBI’s efforts to force Apple to create the software.
On December 2, 2015, Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik walked into a federal building and killed 14 people and injured 22. The couple fled in an SUV and later got into a shootout with police officers and was killed in their vehicle. I don’t want to take away anything from the victims of this horrible tragedy, but this set the stage for the huge battle between a tech giant in Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). During the FBI investigation, it was discovered that the male suspect Rizwan Farook had in his possession a locked IPhone-5C running the iOS 7 operating system. The FBI quickly discovered that this phone would be very difficult to unlock, so they decided to turn to Apple for help in solving this issue.
The power of the courts has been expanded since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Since the assault we have seen many new laws, policies and acts come into effect, as well as the development of new agencies. This paper will evaluate at how federal courts have evolved since 9/11, how the Patriot Act has played a part in the growth of all laws on the local level, and how the FISA Act effects fight against terrorism.
The United States district courts are the general trial courts for the United States. In the district courts both civil and criminal cases are filed in. Each state has at least one district court in it but there could be more than just one. All of the district courts in the United States lie within the boundary of a single jurisdiction. The district courts can be divided into four different types of categories. Those categories are civil, criminal, juvenile, and magistrate. Civil cases are things that involve divorces, child custody, child support or anything that is 25,000 dollars or less. Most criminal cases involve misdemeanors or are less serious crimes and those cases usually do not have a jury with them. Juvenile cases involve those who