Apple Files Motion To Dismiss The Court Order To Force It To Unlock iPhone, Citing Free Speech Rights
and They Still Want Apple to Comply Mike Masnick / Techdirt : We Read Apple's 65 Page Filing Calling Bulls**t On The Justice Department, So You Don't Have To Timothy B. Lee / Vox : Here's Apple's best argument against hacking the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone Jesse Hollington / iLounge : Apple files motion to dismiss court order in FBI iPhone hacking case Socialnomics : Apple Throws Out Court Order Shawn Knight / TechSpot : These are the most liked / least liked tech CEOs Wired : Apple to FBI: You Can't Force Us to Hack the San Bernardino iPhone Chance Miller / 9to5Mac : Report: Google, Twitter, Facebook, & Microsoft to file court motions officially supporting Apple in FBI fight Re/code : Apple Files Its Motion to Throw Out Court Order to Hack San Bernardino iPhone Andrew Cunningham / Ars Technica : Here's how Apple would build crypto-cracking software for the FBI Luke Dormehl / Cult of Mac : All 5 GOP presidential candidates back FBI against Apple Steven Loeb / VatorNews : Lead developer from secure messaging app Signal joins Apple Nick Farrell / TechEye : Apple boycotted for aiding terrorists JC Torres / SlashGear : Apple files its response to court order, Google, Facebook to follow Zac Hall / 9to5Mac : Apple officially responds to court request to comply with FBI in San Bernardino iPhone case Dave Mark / The Loop : Apple's legal strategy, in a nutshell PYMNTS.com : Apple Asks Judge To Toss FBI Request BuzzFeed : Apple Asks Judge To Remove Order To Help Crack Terrorist's iPhone Rob Attrell / MobileSyrup.com : Apple files official motion to vacate FBI court order to help unlock iPhone Cyrus Farivar / Ars Technica : Apple tells court it would have to create “GovtOS” to comply with ruling Jack Purcher / Patently Apple : Apple Files to Vacate Order on Shooter's iPhone While a Congressman States Apple Risks having Blood on their Hands Dawn Chmielewski / Re/code : Apple Accuses Justice Department of Trying an End-Run of Congress on Encryption Russell Brandom / The Verge : Apple pushes back on iPhone order, says FBI is seeking ‘dangerous power’ USA Today : Apple files motion denying FBI request Eric Born / The Tech Report : Apple moves to vacate court order requiring it to unlock an iPhone Guardian : FBI director admits Apple encryption case could set legal precedent Amit Chowdhry / Forbes : Apple Reportedly Plans To Make iPhones Less Hackable As The FBI Case Becomes More Complicated Alex Fitzpatrick / TIME : This Is the Most Shocking Argument in Apple's Motion Against the FBI Cody Lee / iDownloadBlog.com : Apple officially responds to court, asks it to vacate order to help FBI Stephen Schenck / Pocketnow : Apple formally responds to FBI unlock order, as Microsoft voices its support for Apple Jerry Hildenbrand / iMore : You can read Apple's motion to vacate in the encryption battle online - and you should Apple Inc. : APPLE INC'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER COMPELLING APPLE INC. TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH … Wall Street Journal : Apple Files Motion Opposing Order to Unlock iPhone Grant Gross / ITworld.com : FBI director: Apple encryption ruling could lead to more requests Juli Clover / MacRumors : Apple Files Official Motion to Vacate Court Order, Says FBI Seeks ‘Dangerous Power’ New York Times : Apple Asks Court to Vacate Order to Unlock iPhone Scott Ard / Silicon Valley Business Journal : After making case with the public, Apple asks court to throw out an FBI request to build iPhone “back door” John Gruber / Daring Fireball : Apple's Motion to Vacate FBI Order Jordan Novet / VentureBeat : Apple files to vacate order, says ‘the Constitution forbids’ what FBI seeks Tech Insider : Apple fights back against creating ‘GovtOS’ for the FBI Oscar Raymundo / Macworld : Apple files motion to vacate FBI court order, claiming a violation of its constitutional rights Kif Leswing / Business Insider : Here's how Apple says it would create ‘GovtOS’ if it loses its battle against the FBI Alyssa Newcomb / ABC News : Apple Files to Vacate Court Order in San Bernardino iPhone Case Edvard Pettersson / Bloomberg Business : Apple Says U.S. Can't Force It to Unlock Terrorists's iPhone Tweets: Christopher Mims / @mims : Apple says code is speech. Bu if code is a form of speech then why isn't a machine a form of speech? http://www.nytimes.com/... Zed / @zedshaw : Code is Speech, relevant case law http://en.m.wikipedia.org/... and Citzen's United says Corps get it too. http://www.wired.com/... SecuriTay / @swiftonsecurity : Apple's filing on the iPhone order is utterly fantastic. Amazingly well written. Don't read news, read the source: https://www.documentcloud.org/ ... Matthew Panzarino / @panzer : Apple also argues that if order stands, precedent is set for gov to force iPhone's mic and camera to record secretly http://twitter.com/... Danny Sullivan / @dannysullivan : Google already has past cases supporting its 1st amendment right to have code determine search results. If Apple wins, Google wins further Tony Romm / @tonyromm : Apple says DOJ legal theory here could also allow gov to seek “a journalist to plant a false story in order to help lure out a fugitive” !!! Trevor Timm / @trevortimm : Apple not pulling any punches in the opening of its new brief just filed with the court. http://www.scribd.com/... http://twitter.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
A week after Apple publicly opposed the court order and called the government's request a demand for a backdoor, the company has escalated from objection to legal action, filing a motion to vacate the order entirely. The filing leans on a First Amendment argument — that code is speech and the government cannot compel Apple to write it — plus the claim that the Justice Department is attempting an end-run around Congress on encryption policy.
The dispute did not start here: Apple and the US government have been at odds over iPhone encryption since the debut of iOS 8, which hardened default device encryption. What makes this filing consequential is that it forces a court to adjudicate the compelled-code question rather than letting it stay a public-relations fight.
First-order effects
- Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Microsoft are reportedly preparing motions officially backing Apple, turning a two-party standoff into an industry-wide legal front against the Justice Department.
- Apple's top lawyer Bruce Sewell now has to defend the free-speech theory in court while simultaneously fielding congressional questions about foreign demands — including Apple's refusal of China's request for source code.
Second-order effects
- If the motion stalls the order, the FBI's fallback is technical rather than legal: forensics researchers have outlined a possible NAND-mirroring approach by an external firm to brute-force the shooter's PIN without Apple's help.
- Other governments will read the outcome as a price signal for their own demands — Apple's documented refusal of China's source-code request shows the company is already applying one consistent answer across jurisdictions.
Third-order effects
- If the compelled-code argument holds, encryption policy gets pushed back to Congress, where it arguably belongs under Apple's end-run accusation — replacing courtroom compulsion of specific vendors with (or deferring to) actual legislation.
- The episode hardens a structural split between device makers, whose security posture becomes a trust asset they defend legally, and law-enforcement agencies, which invest in independent exploitation capability as insurance against vendor non-cooperation.
The trend: Governments and device makers are locked in a widening contest over encryption defaults, with courts becoming the battleground where compelled cooperation versus vendor-controlled security gets decided.