FED JUDGE BLOCKS OBAMA ADMIN FROM JAILBREAKING ALL IPHONES (1st-5th AMENDMENTS)

FED JUDGE BLOCKS OBAMA ADMIN FROM JAILBREAKING ALL IPHONES (1st-5th AMENDMENTS):

APPLE WILL ASSIST GOVT TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE WITHOUT VIOLATING PRIVACY.

Sources:  ABC News, Youtube

**** NY Judge: US Cannot Make Apple Provide iPhone Data

The U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to locked iPhonedata in a routine Brooklyn drug case, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein's written decision gives support to the company's position in its fight against a California judge's order that it create specialized software to help the FBI hack into an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terrorism investigation. Apple on Thursday formally objected to the order in a brief filed with the court.

The San Bernardino County-owned iPhone 5C was used by Syed Farook, who was a health inspector. He and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people during a Dec. 2 attack that was at least partly inspired by the Islamic State group.

Apple's opposition to the government's tactics has evoked a national debate over digital privacy rights and national security.

Orenstein concluded that Apple is not obligated to assist government investigators against its will and noted that Congress has not adopted legislation that would achieve the result sought by the government.

Orenstein said he was offering no opinion on whether in the instance of this case or others, "the government's legitimate interest in ensuring that no door is too strong to resist lawful entry should prevail against the equally legitimate societal interests arrayed against it here."

He said the interests at stake go beyond expectations of privacy and include the commercial interest in conducting business free of potentially harmful government intrusion and the "far more fundamental and universal interest ... in shielding sensitive electronically stored data from the myriad harms, great and small, that unauthorized access and misuse can cause."

"How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago," Orenstein wrote. "But that debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive."

The Justice Department said in a statement that it's disappointed in the ruling and plans to appeal in coming days. It said Apple had previously agreed many times prior to assist the government and "only changed course when the government's application for assistance was made public by the court."

Apple and their attorneys said they were reading the opinion and will comment later.

In October, Orenstein invited Apple to challenge the government's use of a 227-year-old law to compel Apple to help it recover iPhone data in criminal cases, noting that another law on the books already covered the issue.

The Cupertino, California-based computer maker did, saying in court papers that extracting information from an iPhone "could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand."

It followed up by declining to cooperate in a dozen more instances in four states involving government requests to aid criminal probes by retrieving data from individual iPhones.

In ruling, Orenstein wrote: "I believe Apple has the better argument" because the other law covering wiretaps for telecom companies "explicitly absolves a company like Apple of any responsibility to provide the assistance the government seeks here."

Federal prosecutors say Apple has stopped short of challenging court orders judicially, except in the cases before Orenstein and the California jurist who ruled about the San Bernardino shooter's phone.

"Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come," Orenstein wrote. "For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not."

APPLE INC v OBAMA ADMIN: APPLE IS RIGHT (PRIVACY)

APPLE INC v OBAMA ADMIN: APPLE IS RIGHT 

PRIVACY (1st - 5th AMENDMENTS)

Sources:  AP, The Wrap, YouTube

Relative to recent controversy between the Federal gov't (Obama admin) and Apple CEO Tim Cook via Cook's refusal to turn over Intellectual Property information on the iPhone's encryption design, Apple is right.

Why?

It's because Pres Obama's administration has proven to be so Politically-motivated, it can't be trusted to use such sensitive Technology information ONLY for America's National Security.

Perhaps Tim Cook thinks Obama's admin will use Apple's iPhone encryption design for its advantage during the 2016 election.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

But it's a sad day when the American people can NO longer trust it's own gov't.

It's also a sad day when the Federal gov't no longer supports our highest form of law, the U.S. Constitution (PRIVACY: 1st - 5th Amendments).

**** Apple v. the FBI: Where Obama, Trump, Sanders, Clinton, Twitter and Snowden Stand on Unlocking the iPhone

The world is choosing sides in Apple’s fight with the FBI on whether the company should unlock a murderer’s iPhone.

On Apple’s side are Twitter, Google, and Edward Snowden. Supporting the FBI are the strangest of bedfellows: President Obama and Donald Trump. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Republican Marco Rubio are somewhere in-between.

Here’s how the two sides are shaking out:

Here’s what’s at issue: A federal court ordered Apple to help the government unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters in December’s deadly attack in San Bernardino. But CEO Tim Cook said the request would force the company to create a key that could be used to open anyone’s iPhone.

Here’s how the two sides are shaking out:

Google

As the operator of the Android software that powers the majority of the world’s smartphones, Google is the world’s other main encrypter of phone data alongside Apple. And like Apple, it amped up measures in its software two years ago to automatically scramble information on its smartphones.

In a series of tweets, CEO Sundar Pichai called Cook’s letter about Apple’s refusal an “important post.” He noted that the court order against Apple is significantly different from the kind of access Google has previously provided for law enforcement, based on valid legal orders.

Pichai also struck a diplomatic tone, saying he was “looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue.”

Donald Trump

The Republican presidential candidate sided with law enforcement, calling for vigilance on security and “common sense.”

“I agree 100 percent with the courts,” Trump said on a segment with Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Wednesday. “Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it up.”

He rejected Apple’s argument that creating the tool to unlock the shooter’s phone could jeopardize private citizens’ rights. “Apple, this is one case, this is a case that certainly we should be able to get into the phone,” he said. “And we should find out what happened, why it happened, and maybe there’s other people involved and we have to do that.”

Sen. Marco Rubio

Trump’s Republican presidential rival took a more nuanced position. He called on Apple to voluntarily abide by the court order in the interest of being “a good corporate citizen,” but he noted the complications of the standoff during an appearance on CNN.

“I don’t have a magic solution for it today. It’s a complicated new issue,” he said.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

Both Democratic presidential candidates deferred from choosing sides during a Town Hall televised Thursday on MSNBC.

Sanders said Cook has seized on an important — but complicated — civil rights issue. Sanders said he’s “very fearful in America about Big Brother” and worried that granting the FBI access to private information could open the door to wider overreach, though he understood the national security concerns as well.

Clinton similarly weighed law enforcement’s desire to protect public safety with Apple’s worries. “Law enforcement has every reason to want to get information off of a killer’s cell phone,” she said, but added that it could lead to demands not just from “the United States government but the Chinese, Russian, Iranian governments.”

Facebook

The world’s biggest social network vowed to “fight aggressively” against government efforts that would weaken the security of technology products, while also acknowledging that law enforcement’s public safety mandate is “essential work,” according to a statement. It also emphasized its own stance that “those who seek to praise, promote, or plan terrorist acts have no place” on Facebook’s services, which include its massive social network, photo-sharing app Instagram and messaging service WhatsApp.

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniack

Wozniak stood behind the stance of his company during an appearance on CNBC, saying Apple’s brand recognition, value and profits are based on trust. He added that Steve Jobs, the late Apple CEO, would likely have fallen on the side of protecting customers’ privacy.

John McAfee

In an op-ed for Business Insider, the anti-virus software businessman — who is known for colorful proclamations and his own tangles with law enforcement — offered to help the FBI hack the iPhone to eliminate the need for Apple to create another way in.

“With all due respect to Tim Cook and Apple, I work with a team of the best hackers on the planet,” he wrote. “I would eat my shoe… if we could not break the encryption on the San Bernardino phone.”

The task would take his team three weeks, he said. “If you accept my offer, then you will not need to ask Apple to place a back door in its product, which will be the beginning of the end of America.”