"This is not a case about one isolated iPhone,'' the filing says. "No court has ever authorized what the government now seeks, no law supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process, and the Constitution forbids it."
<https://www.scribd.com/doc/300521994/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-Declarations>
Quite readable, for a legal document.
More on the timing of events, from AppleInsider:
<http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/27/fbi-contacted-apple-received-data-related-to-san-bernardino-case-3-days-after-shooting->
As noted in the declaration of Lisa Olle, manager of Apple's Global Privacy & Law Enforcement Compliance Team, law enforcement officials contacted the company's 24-hour emergency call center on the afternoon of Dec. 5, three days after Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in a self-proclaimed act of terrorism.…On Dec. 5, Apple handed over two parcels of information after receiving legal notice seeking subscriber information (likely iCloud subscriber data, though it's not specified in Olle's declaration) attached to three names and nine specific accounts. A day later, Apple received a search warrant for emails, messages and other information associated with three separate accounts. Another request on Dec. 16 sought information related to one name and seven different accounts. Apple was able to provide same-day turnaround on each of the three requests.As for the iCloud account attached to Farook's iPhone, Olle states the official search warrant was served on Jan. 22 seeking the same communications and customer information requested in December. Apple complied and on Jan. 26 provided the government with whatever data it had in its possession.It was later revealed that the FBI ordered the San Bernardino County Department of Health, Farook's former employer and owner of the iPhone 5c in question, to reset the associated Apple ID password on Dec. 6 without first consulting Apple. Company representatives, including CEO Tim Cook, said the move was a misstep as it nullified the possibility of using iCloud's automatic sync feature to procure a backup without unlocking the device.…"Throughout the investigation, I and other Apple representatives, including a senior engineer, continually made ourselves available to the government, on a 24/7 basis, participating in teleconferences, providing technical assistance, answering questions from the FBI, and suggesting potential alternatives for the government to attempt to obtain data from the Subject Device," Olle's declaration reads.
…
In a footnote to Apple's legal response, filed yesterday, the company said:
The government obtained the Order without notice to Apple and without allowing Apple an opportunity to be heard. [...] But this was not a case where the government needed to proceed in secret to safeguard its investigation; indeed, Apple understands that the government alerted reporters before filing its ex parte application, and then, immediately after it was signed and confirmed to be on the docket, distributed the application and Order to the public at about the same time it notified Apple. Moreover, this is the only case in counsel's memory in which an FBI Director has blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Jim Saklad <jimdoc@icloud.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (5) |
.
__,_._,___