Apple Legal Urged the Court to not require it to comply with the Justice Department's Request to unlock an iPhone
Last Saturday we posted a report titled "New York Court Orders Apple to unlock their Security on an iPhone (& Judge Defers Ruling in Surprising Twist)." The twist that came later that day from Judge Orenstein was that in the absence of clear legislation, he had to consider how burdensome an order would be on Apple, and noted that forcing the company to unlock phones could affect carefully considered commercial decisions on the balance between public safety and privacy." Last night Tim Cook reiterated that point during the Wall Street Journal's Live conference stating that "We think encryption is a must in today's world. No back door is a must." Cook added that "No one should have to decide privacy or security." It's being reported by Reuters late today that Apple told a U.S. judge that accessing data stored on a locked iPhone would be "impossible" with devices using its latest operating system, but the company has the "technical ability" to help law enforcement unlock older phones.
Apple's position was laid out in a brief filed late Monday, after a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn, New York, sought its input as he weighed a U.S. Justice Department request to force the company to help authorities access a seized iPhone during an investigation.
In court papers, Apple said that for the 90 percent of its devices running iOS 8 or higher, granting the Justice Department's request "would be impossible to perform" after it strengthened encryption methods. Those devices include a feature that prevents anyone without the device's passcode from accessing its data, including Apple itself.
Apple told U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein it could access the 10 percent of its devices that continue to use older systems, including the one at issue in the case. But it urged the judge to not require it to comply with the Justice Department's request.
"Forcing Apple to extract data in this case, absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand," Apple's lawyers wrote.