While Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, was quick to respond to the initial court order demanding Apple asset the Federal Bureau of Investigation in accessing an iPhone 5c, an official response had yet to appear.
That time has finally arrived, in light of hearing that a hearing in front of the congressional hearing has a date of March 1. Apple has officially responded to the initial court order, and, unsurprisingly, filed to vacate the original motion. Apple has said that it shouldn’t be forced to unlock the iPhone 5c in question, by any means, but including through a modified or insecure version of iOS.
“In short, the government wants to compel Apple to create a crippled and insecure product. Once the process is created, it provides an avenue for criminals and foreign agents to access millions of iPhones. And once developed for our government, it is only a matter of time before foreign governments demand the same tool.”
Apple, for its part, is maintaining the stance that this case is not simply about one phone, but potentially all phones moving forward. While this is something that the Director of the FBI, James Comey, has argued against, it’s something that Apple has maintained is the case right from the get-go. The Department of Justice has said that it’s not seeking a backdoor into iOS, but simply a key to access this one particular phone in this one particular case.
However, it’s come to light that the DoJ is requesting access to more than 10 additional iPhones.
Apple’s language in comparing this situation to others is also a bit elevated, this time around comparing the FBI’s demands to that of a pharmaceutical company be forced against its will to create drugs to assist in a lethal injection:
“Under the same legal theories advocated by the government here, the government could argue that it should be permitted to force citizens to do all manner of things “necessary” to assist it in enforcing the laws, like compelling a pharmaceutical company against its will to produce drugs needed to carry out a lethal injection in furtherance of a lawfully issued death warrant.”
In closing, Apple says that the process should be done through a process, and not through a court order:
“Society is still debating the important privacy and security issues posed by this case. The government’s desire to leave no stone unturned, however well intentioned, does not authorize it to cut off debate and impose its views on society.”
You can read the full 65-page document filed by Apple through the source link below. You can read up on Apple vs. the FBI right here.