This one time, this specific case, Apple pushed back. They need to be commended for that, but let's not forget all the other times (and there are very many) when they (and all tech companies) just handed over the data when given a valid warrant.
What made this case different was that it was not about a simple warrant for data held by Apple.
Apple has already given them Farook's iCloud backups, just not recent ones since they don't exist. If Alice was murdered, and Bob was circumstantially implicated, but had an iPhone that had some kind of data recorded that placed him at the time and location of the murder, what law exists for Apple to protect Bob's data if that data was uploaded to Apple for backup purposes?
Sure, it would be nice for Apple to oppose even "valid" warrants for iCloud data backups, because I trust them to keep my data safe on my device, so why should I have a reduced expectation of privacy when using their services. After all, they have billions in cash in some Scrooge McDuck mansion just waiting to be spent on lawyer fees, right? /s
I agree that the second case - court order to create new software - is a lot more obvious and clear, and deserves opposition in court.
The reason I'm being so pedantic is that it's important to disagree with the notion that corporations should roll over in any situation that involves claims of terrorism. Lots of people think that, but it throws away an important part of our legal system.
I'm not saying they're wrong to obey court orders.
I'm saying that people will be saying that Apple fight against court orders when in fact they don't usually fight the court orders. They normally give out the information.
When warrants are clearly legal, there is nothing they can do to fight them.
They only give out the information they are legally forced to do, and are doing everything in their legal and technical power to reduce that as much as possible.
The idea that the Govt can only issue "valid" warrants is flawed. The Government is just people, and like everyday citizens like myself, we're perfectly capable of breaking laws, either unintentionally (eg, giving a lift to a friend who has undisclosed controlled substances on their person (state dependent)) or intentionally (eg, murder).
Remember, the requirement for a warrent doesn't apply to non-US persons outside the USA. Us europeans have no protection from the 4th amendment for data held in US servers. And in fact, the US gov is trying to claim we don't have protection if it's held in a non-US server run by a US company!
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which sounds like all people should have the same protection from unlawful searches ... as I'm a conditional law novice can someone briefly outline why this doesn't stand, what removed the protections for "all people" (note the preceding section refers to citizens, so all people is clearly a distinct class).
Is it that the federal nature of the FBI means they are above state law?
Specifically it says:
> With regard to EU citizens, the [US] Supreme Court has held that foreign citizens resident abroad are not covered by the Fourth Amendment.
It appears to be based on this Supreme Court case[2]: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/51921... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...
However, the FBI must abide by the 4th amendment, which specifies that warrants are needed for searches. The issue of whether data of foreigners located on US soil is subject to warrant-less search/inspection is a matter of interpreting the 4th amendment.
And the interpretation is that a warrent isn't needed. The 4th doesn't protect me.
If the 4th requires warrants and the 14th requires state to treat all people as having equal protection under the law in their jurisdiction I don't see where the FBI can go [legally speaking] to do warrantless search of foreign nationals.
In short, how then can a State allow the FBI to operate within its jurisdiction in a way that doesn't provide all people equal legal protections. The State would have to prevent the FBI from operating?
Thanks for any further insights.
Remember when Snowden first revealed the Prism program? All the tech companies issued similar statements saying they want to tell people more, but did not have permission from the US government. For example, Apple said,
> Like several other companies, we have asked the U.S. government for permission to report how many requests we receive related to national security and how we handle them. We have been authorized to share some of that data, and we are providing it here in the interest of transparency. [1]
Also, I'm sure Yahoo would've loved to rally support from its users when the government was threatening to fine them $250,000 per day for refusing to hand over data, but they were not allowed to tell anyone [2]
I do believe the government was doing what they thought was right to protect public safety. However, they don't understand technology. Ted Lieu is about the only guy in Congress who does. We need a bit more representation there to have our voices heard, whether through electing Congressmen with CS backgrounds, independent lobbying like the EFF, or just better tech reporting and questioning in the White House daily briefs.
The existence of the FISA courts is something we should be scrutinizing more. Former NSA Director Hayden pointed out in one interview that we're the only country who has such secret courts. With these courts, democracy is circumvented. Currently, the public is not able to participate in the discussion of what's right on some major issues that have far reaching impact.
[1] http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
My understanding is people who are serious about security do not currently depend on Apple. Those folks use open source software and build it themselves. That said, I'm still interested in defending Apple's position (and not necessarily Apple) because I want our government to understand how to maintain public safety. Relying on access to people's phones, going forward, is not the right way to do that. You could argue that I am advocating privacy, but I'd say I am more in support of security.
There are extremists within any group. These folks do not want to bother fighting the government for rights because they think the public is too dumb and the government will win that fight. In thinking this way, they become apathetic themselves.
They're not all bad. Some of them contributed a lot to free software. But some times the ideas are toxic and hold people back from their best.
For example, many believe Snowden deserves a full pardon, and anything short of that is wrong. Well, Snowden himself has said he would return to face a fair trial. So it seems we are divided on some issues, and that can weaken our side in fighting for digital rights.
My response to these types of comments is precisely - when it is demonstrated that people make laws rather than governments in collusion with corporations - then I will pay attention.
Why the focus on property rights? Much libertarian thought is expended on equating freedom to how you/others interact with property. It hardly gives credence to other man made rights that should be equally, if not more, recognized.
When you look at the group of people it dogmatically and absolutely resolves, and who funds think-tanks promoting the ideology, it is the well-propertied.
I find it hard to believe that all other freedom can be derived from and ensured by deifying property rights.
That's interesting, since the National Laboratories employ tens of thousands of people who not only use Linux, but use Linux at work. Perhaps you should let the FBI know about this so they can revoke their security clearances?
> My response to these types of comments is precisely - when it is demonstrated that people make laws rather than governments in collusion with corporations - then I will pay attention.
This sounds like an excuse to selectively not follow any laws you don't like. The core law surrounding warrants in the US, which is sufficient for a lot of cases (no All Writs Act or FISA needed), are in the Constitution and some very early bills. Were these also made by collusions between the government and the corporations?
Plus, extremely large and powerful companies do not play by the same rules as the rest of us. You aren't going to see the government risk serious economic damage just to enforce some laws. Wall Street is a case in point. When huge companies decide whether to fight unjust laws or acquiesce, their choices have a major impact on the political equation.
For many years all tech companies have, as expected, complied with warrants. We don't expect otherwise.
Now, in this one case, Apple is fighting the warrant.
And some people are saying "Look how great Apple is; they really care about your privacy".
Well, no, not really. Apple isn't as bad as some, but they still gather too much data and they still (as they should) obey any warrant they're given.
Hate or support the game, not the player. Stand up for ideas, not people.