Skip to main content

Apple follows up earlier motion to vacate FBI court order with formal objection in order to guarantee appeal

Apple-Store-Sydney

Shortly after yesterday’s Congressional hearing, Apple filed a formal objection to the court order instructing it to assist the FBI in breaking into an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

Apple had previously filed its mandatory response, in which it called for the court to vacate the order. This was a 65-page detailed document setting out the reasons the company believed the order should not have been granted. The document filed yesterday was rather shorter …

It was simply a two-page filing in which Apple formally objected to the order referencing the reasons already provided in its earlier response.

In an abundance of caution, to the extent Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and/or Local Civil Rule 72-2.1 are applicable in this case, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), by and through its counsel of record, hereby formally objects to the Court’s February 16, 2016 Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search (ED No. 15-451M, Dkt. 19) for the reasons set forth in Apple’s Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, and Opposition to Government’s Motion to Compel Assistance (ED No. CM 16-10-SP, Dkt. 16).

Although a follow-up hearing had already been scheduled by the court for March 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, it could technically have been argued that Apple had waived its right to appeal by failing to submit a formal objection to the ruling. This is why Apple states that it is simply filing the objection “in an abundance of caution.”

Via NBC. Photo Distan Bach (cropped).

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. AeronPeryton - 8 years ago

    I can just see Tim Cook as a Navy Admiral ordering his fleet to open fire while he stands at the head of the bridge sipping tea.

    • 89p13 - 8 years ago

      IMO – Maybe you should get your eyes checked!

    • alexandereiden - 8 years ago

      If this is putting Tim into a strategist position, then I agree. If it is to say he’s not doing much, then I disagree. However I’d still love to see the FBI trying this with Steve Jobs.

      • AeronPeryton - 8 years ago

        The sentiment is that Tim is a master tactician that is not afraid to go to war. He is certainly not doing nothing. To continue the analogy, all the other ships are on his.

    • malcolmtucker1 - 8 years ago

      I think your right.

      Still, a similar case has occurred in the past. The State of California has a law on the books which allows licensed locksmiths to create keys for cars.

      What’s interesting about the laws passed in 2007 is that the car and automobile manufacturers didn’t want anyone other than the dealerships to create car keys that authenticate and enable immobilizer technology.

      BMW and other car manufacturers challenged the law but the law stands on the books today.

      So, it’s an interesting court case because you could be an executive or employee at Apple, leave your car keys at a bar, and California Law enables a vehicle owner to have keys made when lost. But when it comes to IPhones, if you loose your passcode, your stuck with having to buy a new iPhone and restore the data if you want your data back. 😀👍

      • AeronPeryton - 8 years ago

        Cars are not nearly as replaceable as a phone is. And in this case, the users are dead and the owners already shot themselves in the foot with their mishandling of the device in the first place.

        Basically, San Bernardino and the FBI found the terrorists’ car unlocked and running idle. They then proceeded to turn off the engine, lock the car, throw the keys down the sewer, then began barking at Apple to make a device that allows them to open and start every car they make.

  2. 89p13 - 8 years ago

    With all the “Legal Power” that Apple employs, I hope they continue to do everything that’s legal to have this issue settled in the light of the public courts.

    Too many times, our government has reverted to “going dark” to get what they want – but are not always entitled to – out of the public and courts eyes. As I see this whole issue, it’s about American’s seceding yet more of the rights granted to us by the documents that America is founded on, by a government that wants to be the Ultimate Big Brother by hook and by crook!

    Thank you Tim Cook and Apple for shedding the light on this fight and for standing up for our American rights.

    • rhonindk - 8 years ago

      I hope the FBI doesn’t decide to drop it’s “warrant” and allows this to proceed. We need this settled and encourage the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to look at realistic solutions.

  3. alexandereiden - 8 years ago

    I’d like to see the FBI try this against Steve Jobs… Jobs would wipe the floor with the FBI.

    • Robert - 8 years ago

      Apple just did!

      Compare the briefs and Apple’s is far stronger. Read the New York judges decision and he decides in Apple’s favor of the basis of about 7 different legal arguments. Even in Congress there was much obvious support for Apple.

      • Ben Lovejoy - 8 years ago

        Watch this space for my assessment of the hearing battle …

      • rhonindk - 8 years ago

        Take a look at the ACLU’s amicus curiae brief they filed in support of Apple’s stance. Kind of lengthy but heavily detailed.

  4. Robert - 8 years ago

    I would like to see Apple shift the argument away from privacy. Whilst privacy is very important this case should not be framed as ‘privacy vs security’ it should be primarily argued as ‘security vs security’. That way the argument is easier to balance and more objective.

    • rhonindk - 8 years ago

      That is a challenge. Apple has repeatedly stated it is about privacy, civics, security, and public safety. The FBI and predominately the majority of news articles keep focusing on the privacy aspect only.

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear