A federal judge ruled that the federal Department of Justice can not invoke a law 227 years ago to force Apple to assist the FBI to join the memory of an iPhone locked, ruling that deals a setback to the government in its dispute with the company around privacy and public safety.
the decision, issued by the federal magistrate judge James Orenstein, strictly corresponds to a drug case in Brooklyn but supports the position of the company in its opposition to the order of a judge in California to assist in the design of a specialized computer program that allows the FBI to enter the iPhone related to a terrorism investigation in San Bernardino.
Orenstein rejected some arguments of the government and said that the lawyers were misrepresenting an old law “to achieve absurd and impermissible results”.
the judge rejected the government’s claim that Apple was only interested public relations saying it found no limit how far would the government to force a person or company to violate the deepest values.
said the argument that Apple should help the government because has benefited from a US company “reflects a negative image of a government that exists in part to safeguard the freedom of its citizens.”
Both cases are partly related to a written law long before the era iT, Law All Resources 1789, on whether it could be invoked to force Apple to cooperate with actions to retrieve the information contained in blocked coded phone.
“ultimately, the question to be answered in this case, and others like it across the country, is not whether the government should have the ability to force Apple to help you unlock a specific device, but if the Law of All Resources meets and many other similar issue that may arise, “Orenstein wrote. “I conclude that no”.
The opposition Apple to the government’s tactics arouses controversy nationwide around the rights to digital privacy and national security.
Thursday, the company based in Cupertino, California, formally objected to the judge’s order California and accused the federal government of trying to win “dangerous powers” in the courts and trample on the constitutional rights of the company.
No comments:
Post a Comment