ShareThis Page
Justice Department withdraws another demand for Apple’s help |

Justice Department withdraws another demand for Apple’s help

The Washington Post
| Saturday, April 23, 2016 11:00 p.m

For the second time in less than a month, the Justice Department has backed off using the courts to force Apple to help it gain access to a locked iPhone in an investigation.

On Friday, it told a federal court in Brooklyn that it no longer needs Apple’s help in pulling data from a drug dealer’s iPhone after someone came forward with a passcode.

In California, 3 12 weeks ago, the government abandoned a bid to compel Apple’s assistance in helping unlock a terrorist’s iPhone after a third party sold the FBI a method to crack the device.

In both cases, the government had asserted Apple was the only entity that could provide the technical assistance.

Legal analysts and industry lawyers are divided on whether the discovery of alternatives undermines the Justice Department’s case in seeking similar court orders in the future.

“It’s going to be a much tougher putt for the government the next time this happens,” said Craig A. Newman, a partner at Patterson Belknap who chairs the firm’s data privacy group. “The Justice Department has now shown that workarounds exist without forcing Apple to break into its own devices. Intentionally or not, the bar just got higher and the government will be hard-pressed to argue again that Apple is its only alternative.”

But Michael Sussmann, a partner at Perkins Coie who represents tech firms, disagreed. “There will be phones the government just can’t gain access to, and they’ll be able to say truthfully, ‘We need the data and we have no way to access it,’ ” he said. “The fact that in these two cases they found a way in or got lucky won’t change that.”

Nonetheless, said Ira Rubinstein, a senior fellow at New York University School of Law’s Information Law Institute, “In future cases, the government may have to show it has exhausted alternative methods of breaking into a locked device.”

Rubinstein, former associate general counsel at Microsoft, added that the court may wish to hear from independent security researchers before deciding whether to compel an unwilling firm to provide assistance.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.