Apple pushes back on FBI "backdoor" order. What would Scalia say ?

[CincyDem]

FBI wants to look at the data on San Bernardino shooter's work phone. Unfortunately it's got a passcode and the county (his employer) set it to erase the phone after 10 incorrect passcode guesses. That rules out a computer driven guessing game. So the FBI gets a California court to enforce a 1789 law seeking to force Apple to create a backdoor code they can use get access to the information.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35591988

Apple's response...not so fast guys. Before we even think about if it's possible, we have to ask if this is something that we really want to unleash into the world. Given the tone of their letter, it doesn't sound like Apple will be complying anytime soon.

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

And I predict that at the end of 5-days, Apple will say "redesigning out operating system is an undue burden" (one of the defenses to the All Writs Act of 1789...a catch all used to force anything not covered under any other statue). Then the California court says...nope, ya gots to do it. Especially since the White House has opined that Apple's letter explaining what might happen is an over reaction - they just want the capability to look into one phone and they promise the capability won't be used anywhere else.

Given the players (White House vs. Apple) and the topic (domestic terrorism) this one probably makes it to the Supremes quickly. Can't wait to see how it plays out with only 8.

I sure hope privacy wins the day on this one.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. "Geeze, it's hot in here!"

That's what he'd say these days.

[yeoman6987]

2. He'd be on apples side if he kept his previous ruling on this the same

[madfloridian]

3. I have mixed feelings.

Fourteen people were murdered that day. It's not just an ordinary everyday event the FBI is looking at. If I had lost a loved one that day I would want to know who else might be connected and involved.

Yet I see the need for whatever privacy we can get in these times.

[longship]

4. It does not matter. He's gone.

But if I were Apple no way would I abide by that order. I'd fight it to the Supreme Court, and if I lost there, I would still not comply.

It is a matter of principle.

[CincyDem]

5. I agree.

I think Apple wins in the 9th Cir and the FBI appeals resulting in at worst at 4-4 tie and at best a 6-2 win for Apple (with Thomas and Alito dissenting).

Even if Apple "loses" I think they step back and, as a matter of principle, say "we're not smart enough to do this". They can assign 10-15 folks to do and, amazingly, they're just not smart enough.

Compliance with the letter of the law but leaving privacy intact.

Who knows...it'll be fun to watch. I can't recall a push back on the gov't this public and this principled.

[longship]

6. Well, once something's encrypted, no back door is going to help.

If one cannot open the phone without wiping it, it does no good to have a back door.

It very well may be that this is beyond technical solution.