Judicial hacktivism

1 March 2016 By Reynolds Holding

A jurist in Brooklyn says the FBI can’t force the tech giant to bypass security on an iPhone. The ruling confirms that a 225-year-old law doesn’t apply and that the hack would unduly burden Apple. It’s a roadmap for the better-known case unfolding in California and Congress.

This content is for Subscribers only

Context News

A U.S. judge in New York on Feb. 29 ruled that the FBI can’t force Apple to help it unlock a convicted drug dealer’s iPhone, giving the technology giant more ammunition in its fight with the Department of Justice over encryption and privacy.

The law enforcement agency sought access to the New York smartphone months before a judge in California ordered Apple to write new software that would bypass security features of an iPhone used by one of the shooters who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in Brooklyn ruled that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to disable the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.

On March 1, Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey are scheduled to testify before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee about the San Bernardino iPhone case.

Context News

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in Brooklyn ruled that he did not have the legal authority to order Apple to disable the security of an iPhone that was seized during a drug investigation.

On March 1, Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey are scheduled to testify before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee about the San Bernardino iPhone case.

Email a friend

Please complete the form below.

Required fields *