CU Forum
Apple v. FBI
[ San Bernardino Case ]
February 16, 2016
FBI Application for Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant
on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate 35KGD203
No. ED 15-0451M
Government's ex parte Application for Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search
"In the hopes of gaining crucial evidence about the December 2, 2015 massacre in San Bernardino, California, the government has sought to search a lawfully-seized Apple iPhone used by one of the mass murders. Despite both a warrant authorizing the search and the phone owner's consent, the government has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the iPhone's encrypted content. Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily. Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that this Court issue an order compelling Apple to assist in enabling the search commanded by the warrant."
February 16, 2016
Court Order Requiring Apple to Modify the Internal Workings of an iPhone
for the Purpose of Enabling the FBI to Access Data on the Phone
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant
on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate 35KGD203
No. ED 15-0451M
Order Compelling Apple, Inc. to Assist Agents in Search
"Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE; and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware."
[The government is seeking to require Apple to modify an iPhone in order to enable computerized access to the iPhone passcode system, in place of the usual method of typing in passcodes by hand. The government additionally wants Apple to disable the auto-erase feature of the iPhone (erases all data on the phone after 10 unsuccessful passcode attempts) and the built-in time delays between passcode attempts. Given those modifications to the iPhone, the government appears to believe it could then hook up a high-speed computer to the phone and use that computer to keep guessing and trying different passcodes on the phone until it found the right one, which would then give it access to all the data on the phone.]
February 16, 2016
February 19, 2016
FBI Motion to Compel Apple to Comply with the Court's February 16, 2016 Order
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant
on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate 35KGD203
ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)
Government's Motion to Compel Apple Inc. to Comply with Court's February 16, 2016 Order Compelling Assistance in Search
"Rather than assist the effort to fully investigate a deadly terrorist attack by obeying this Court's Order of February 16, 2016, Apple has responded by publicly repudiating that Order. Apple has attempted to design and market its products to allow technology, rather than the law, to control access to data which has been found by the Court to be warranted for an important investigation. Despite its efforts, Apple nonetheless retains the technical ability to comply with the Order, and so should be required to obey it."
February 21, 2016
February 22, 2016
February 24, 2016
February 25, 2016
Apple's Legal Response to the Court Order of February 16, 2016
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Eastern Division
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a
search warrant on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate 35KGD203
ED No. CM 16-10(SP)
Apple Inc's Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Apple, Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, and Opposition to Government's Motion to Compel Assistance
"This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe."
. . .
"There are two important and legitimate interests in this case: the needs of law enforcement and the privacy and personal safety interests of the public. In furtherance of its law enforcement interests, the government had the opportunity to seek amendments to existing law, to ask Congress to adopt the position it urges here. But rather than pursue new legislation, the government backed away from Congress and turned to the courts, a forum ill-suited to address the myriad competing interests,
potential ramifications, and unintended consequences presented by the government's
unprecedented demand. And more importantly, by invoking "terrorism"" and moving
ex parte behind closed courtroom doors, the government sought to cut off debate and circumvent thoughtful analysis."
March 1, 2016
Hearing before the House Judiciary Committee
The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans' Security and Privacy
"The widespread use of strong encryption has implications both for Americans' privacy and security. As technology companies have made great strides to enhance the security of Americans' personal and private information, law enforcement agencies face new challenges when attempting to access encrypted information. Americans have a right to strong privacy protections and Congress should fully examine the issue to be sure those are in place while finding ways to help law enforcement fight crime and keep us safe."
Length of video: 5:31:06; content starts at 34:25.
Witnesses called:
The Honorable James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Mr. Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Apple, Inc.
Mr. Cyrus R. Vance Jr., District Attorney, New York County
Ms. Susan Landau, Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
March 1, 2016
The Digital Security Commission Act of 2016
A bill was introduced in Congress to establish a National Commission on Security and Technology Challenges
The Digital Security Commission Act of 2016
"Today, more than ever before, digital security and communications technology, national security, public safety, and counterterrorism are inextricably linked; indeed, digital security and communications technology plays a critically important role in efforts to keep the United States and its citizens safe."
The bill was introduced by Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Senator Mark Warner (D-VA).
March 3, 2016
Congressional Research Service Report on Legal Issues in this Case
Encryption: Selected Legal Issues
"This report first provides background to the ongoing encryption debate, including a primer on encryption basics and an overview of Apple, Google, and Facebook's new encryption policies. Next, it will provide an overview of the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination; survey the limited case law concerning the compelled disclosure of encrypted data; and apply this case law to help determine if and when the government may require such disclosures. The next section of the report will provide background on the All Writs Act; explore both Supreme Court and lower court case law, including a discussion of United States v. New York Tel. Co.; and apply this case law to the San Bernardino case and potential future requests by the government to access a locked device.
"
March 3, 2016
Amicus Briefs in Support of Apple
Statements of 3rd parties not directly involved in the case submitted as Friends of the Court
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Eastern Division
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate 35KGD203
No. ED CM 16-10(SP)
Amazon, Box, Cisco, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nest, Pinterest, Slack, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Yahoo
32 Law Professors
Center for Democracy & Technology
Electronic Frontier Foundation and 46 technologists, researchers, and cryptographers
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and eight consumer privacy organizations
List of Amicus Briefs in Support of Apple
Amicus Briefs in Support of the FBI
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Inc., and National Sheriffs' Association
California State Sheriffs Association, California Police Chiefs' Association and the California Peace Officers' Association
Families of Victims in the San Bernardino Shooting
San Bernardino County District Attorney on behalf of the People of California
March 10, 2016
Government's Reply in Opposition to Apple's Motion to Vacate Order
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant
on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate #5KGD203
ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)
Government's Reply in Support of Motion to Compel and Opposition to Apple Inc.'s Motion to Vacate Order
"As Apple Inc. concedes in its Opposition, it is fully capable of complying with the Court's Order. By Apple's own reckoning, the corporation - which grosses hundreds of billions of dollars a year - would need to set aside as few as six of its 100,000 employees for perhaps as little as two weeks. This burden, which is not unreasonable, is the direct result of Apple's deliberate marketing decision to engineer its products so that the government cannot search them, even with a warrant. Thus, the lawful warrant in this case - issued by a neutral magistrate upon a finding of probable cause, pursuant to the procedure blessed by the Supreme Court just two years ago in
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473(2014) - will be frustrated unless apple complies with the Order. In passing the All Writs Act, Congress gave courts a means of ensuring that their lawful warrants were not thwarted by third parties like Apple."
March 15, 2016
Apple's Reply to Government's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Vacate Order
United States District Court
Central District of California
Eastern Division
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant
on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate 35KGD203
ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)
Apple Inc.'s Reply to Government's Opposition to Apple Inc.'s Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents Search
"The Justice Department and FBI are seeking an order from this Court that would force Apple to create exactly the kind of operating system that Congress has thus far refused to require. They are asking this Court to resolve a policy and political issue that is dividing various agencies of the Executive Branch as well as Congress. This Court should reject that request, because the All Writs Act does not authorize such relief, and the Constitution forbids it."
March 21, 2016
Government's Application to Delay the Hearing set for March 22, 2016
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant
on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate #5KGD203
ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)
Government's ex parte Application for a Continuance
"On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook's iPhone. Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook's iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from
Apple Inc. ("Apple") set forth in the All Writs Act Order in this case.
Accordingly, to provide time for testing the method, the government hereby requests that the hearing set for March 22, 2016, be vacated. The government proposes filing a status report with the Court by April 5, 2016."
March 22, 2016 -- [Postponed - see above March 21, 2016]
A hearing is scheduled on this day for the court order to Apple to assist the FBI
March 28, 2016
Government's Request to Drop the Case
United States District Court
for the Central District of California
In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant
on a black Lexus IS300, California license plate #5KGD203
ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)
Government's Status Report
"The government has now successfully accessed the data stored on Farook's iPhone and therefore no longer requires the assistance from Apple Inc. mandated by Court's Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search dated February 16, 2016.
Accordingly, the government hereby requests that the Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search dated February 16, 2016 be vacated."
March 28, 2016
Complete Statement by Apple Following Government's Request to Drop the Case
"From the beginning, we objected to the FBI's demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. As a result of the government's dismissal, neither of these occurred. This case should never have been brought.
We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated.
Apple believes deeply that people in the United States and around the world deserve data protection, security and privacy. Sacrificing one for the other only puts people and countries at greater risk.
This case raised issues which deserve a national conversation about our civil liberties, and our collective security and privacy. Apple remains committed to participating in that discussion."
[ New York Case ]
February 29, 2016
A Ruling in a different, but similar case [New York case]
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
In Re Order Requiring Apple, Inc.
to Assist in the Execution of a
Search Warrant Issued by this Court
Memorandum and Order 15-MC-1902 (JO)
"The government seeks an order requiring Apple, Inc. ("Apple") to bypass the passcode security on an Apple device. It asserts that such an order will assist in the execution of a search warrant previously issued by this court, and that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) (the "AWA"), empowers the court to grant such relief. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the government has failed to establish either [1] that the AWA permits the relief it seeks or that, even if such an order is authorized, [2] the discretionary factors I must consider weigh in favor of granting the motion. . . .
[Therefore, ] the government's motion is denied."
March 7, 2016
Government's Request to Court to Issue Order
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by the Court
Docket Nos. 15-MC-1902 (JO), 14-CR-387 (MKB)
The Government's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Application for an Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Law Enforcement Agents in the Execution of a Search Warrant
"This is a routine application asking the Court to order a third party to assist in the execution of a search warrant. The Department of Justice has made the same application, for the same assistance, from the same company, dozens of times before. Federal courts around the nation have granted these applications. The company has complied every time. Until now.
. . .
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court
grant the government's application and issue the proposed order"
April 8, 2016
Government's Letter Informing the Court Its March 7, 2016 Application is Not Moot
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant
Docket Nos. 15-MC-1902, 14-CR-387
Government's letter in response to the Court's March 29, 2016 Order
"The government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's March 29, 2016 Order requiring the government to notify the Court as to whether it intends to modify its March 7, 2016 application. The government does not intend to modify its March 7, 2016 application. The government's
application is not moot and the government continues to require Apple's assistance in accessing
the data that it is authorized to search by warrant. ECF No. 30 at 41."
April 19, 2016
Hearing before the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Deciphering the Debate Over Encryption:
Industry and Law Enforcement Perspectives
"We are meeting today to consider the deceptively complex question: Should the government have the
ability to lawfully access encrypted technology and communications?"
Opening Statement - Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Tim Murphy
Background Memo on Hearing
Length of video: 4:01:16; content starts at 46:36.
Witnesses called:
First Panel
- Amy Hess, Executive Assistant Director for Science and Technology, Federal Bureau of Investigations;
- Thomas Galati, Chief, Intelligence Bureau, New York Police Department;
- Ron Hickman, Sheriff, Harris County Sheriff's Office, on behalf of the National Sheriff's Association; and
- Charles Cohen, Commander, Indiana Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
Second Panel
- Bruce Sewell, General Counsel, Apple, Inc.;
- Amit Yoran, President, RSA Security LLC;
- Daniel Weitzner, Director and Principal Research Scientist, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) Decentralized Information Group (DIG), Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and
- Matthew Blaze, Associate Professor, Computer and Information Science, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania.
