Connect with us
Pawleys Front Porch

USA

Good News In FBI Vs. Apple Case

Published

on

RULING AFFIRMS RIGHT TO ENCRYPT …

We’ve written several times now on the big battle brewing between the federal government and tech giant Apple.

This is a major case … featuring some tall tales being told by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is trying to force Apple to provide it with a universal encryption key capable of unlocking all iPhones, iPads and iPods.

As lovers of liberty, we adamantly oppose the government’s effort to bypass such a fundamental privacy protection …

So does U.S. magistrate judge James Orenstein of New York – who ruled against the government this week in a similar case involving efforts to compel Apple to “assist” another criminal investigation.

Orenstein ruled that the government’s reliance on a vague 1789 statute known as the All Writs Act does not “justify imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government’s investigation against its will.”

Then he took it a step further …

“The implications of the government’s position are so far-reaching – both in terms of what it would allow today and what it implies about congressional intent in 1789 – as to produce impermissibly absurd results,” he wrote.

Orenstein added that the FBI’s argument “reflects poorly on a government that exists in part to safeguard the freedom of its citizens – acting as individuals or through the organizations they create – to make autonomous choices about how best to balance societal and private interests in going about their lives and their businesses.”

Amen to that …

Apple has refused to comply with the government’s order – arguing that the creation of a master iPhone unlocking program was “too dangerous to create.”

We agree … it’s certainly far too dangerous a tool to hand over to the people have been spying on us for years without warrants and storing our data without our permission …

“Such universal access is far too dangerous to entrust to the government given its track record on mass surveillance and other violations of individual liberty,” we wrote last month.

Let’s hope the courts keep ruling this way …

***

Comments