As the battle over encryption rages on between Apple and the U.S. government in San Bernardino, Calif., a similar one is unfolding in New York. Though the locations are different and the scales are vastly disproportional, the results of this case will have a major effect on the ongoing San Bernardino case and others in the future.
The battle in question involves the All Writs Act from 1789 and whether it can apply to the government's requests to have Apple grant it the means to access encrypted data stored on personal devices.
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in Brooklyn ruled last week that the act can't be used as a basis to compel the tech giant to help authorities access a person's encrypted data. This ruling followed New York authorities' requests to have Apple help them access data on a drug dealer from Queens.
The All Writs Act is important for prosecutors because that is what they're relying upon in their fight against Apple in California, where a judge ordered the company to unlcok an encrypted phone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, who, along with his wife Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and injured 22 others in San Bernardino last Dec. 2.
Turning to a higher judge overseeing the matter, the Justice Department on Monday cited the California ruling as a precedent to argue that the All Writs Act can be used to compel Apple to unlock phones. Additionally, it argued that Apple has complied with similar judicial orders in the past and is only choosing not to help now because of the publicity the California case is getting.
"In light of the debate that has recently come to surround this issue, it is worth briefly noting what this case is not about. Apple is not being asked to do anything it does not currently have the capability to do," the filing reads.
"Apple may perform the passcode-bypass in its own lab, using its own technicians, just as it always has, without revealing to the government how it did so. Therefore, granting the application will not affect the technological security of any Apple iPhone nor hand the government a 'master key.'"
For its part, Apple said last month that it has always agreed to extract data from older locked phones when served with a lawful court order. The key difference here is that since the Brooklyn case involves an iPhone running iOS 7, no new software would need to be created. This wouldn't be the case with the San Bernardino case since the iPhone in that case uses iOS 8.
Due to that and the fact that Orenstein questioned the court procedure used by the Justice Department, Apple determined that it would be in its best interest to stop accepting the government's requests in such cases.
"[The judge in the case] ruled the FBI's request would 'thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution' and we agree. We share the Judge's concern that misuse of the All Writs Act would start us down a slippery slope that threatens everyone's safety and privacy," Apple said.
