You can read Apple's motion to vacate in the encryption battle online - and you should

This is not an Android vs. Apple thing. It's not an FBI vs. Apple thing either. It's bigger than that, and will have lingering effects on each and every person using technology for the foreseeable future. I stand with Apple, but more importantly I stand for privacy — mine, yours, everybody's.

I'm here, writing on iMore, because I care as much about the recent iPhone encryption lawsuit — and it's outcome — at least as much as everyone else here.

And I'm here to ask something of you. A pdf file of Apple's motion to vacate in the USG v Apple case in full has been posted online. Read it. I'm not a lawyer, but I see a lot of very important issues here that need addressed. Apple says it better than I ever could:

This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe. The government demands that Apple create a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users' most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance. The All Writs Act, first enacted in 1789 and on which the government bases its entire case, "does not give the district court a roving commission" to conscript and commandeer Apple in this manner. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). In fact, no court has ever authorized what the government now seeks, no law supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process, and the Constitution forbids it.

We're part of the hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe. I'm glad Apple is standing up for us all.

Read the Apple motion to vacate (.pdf file)

Jerry Hildenbrand

I'm an RHCE and Electrical Engineer who loves gadgets of all kinds. You'll find my writings across Mobile Nations and you can hit me on Twitter if you want to say hey.

  • Read through it this afternoon. For a legal document, though long, and a bit repetitive it is a very easy to understand document. I second Jerry Hildebrand's recommendation, and suggest anyone with an interest in their topic to set aside 30 minutes or so to review this filing.
  • Thanks Jerry, for jumping over from android central and writing one for iMore.
    I wish people would understand what is happening here. Tim is correct. This back door would be a cancer for everyone, and if they can force apple to do it, they can force Any company to do it.
    They are asking apple to write software to destroy their business. period. The bad guys WILL hack the gov and get the back door and then, who will buy an iPhone knowing it has Zero security. And that ANY bad guy can get in and get their Credit card from Apple pay, their home addresses, their frequent locations and a Lot more. Tim brought up a good point on the ABC interview. The gov wants to use this back door, every day, forever on every case in america. divorce cases, local robbery cases and more.
    How would people like it if they got pulled over and using "reasonable suspicion" could hook the phone to the cops computer and it download every single thing on your phone.
    People can say "that would never happen" but here we are with apple being FORCED to write software that allows just that.
    If apple writes this software. the company will die and Android will be the only choice left.
    I don't care what anyone says, this Will destroy apple as a company if they are forced to write this software. Not sure is Android is encrypted or not, but if they force apple to break that, they can force google, microsoft, blackberry, 1Password, etc etc etc etc etc etc to do the same.
  • So true, it would set extremely bad precedent. No smartphone would be safe anymore, after all the Android devices kind of work the same way. Sent from the iMore App
  • Thank you Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others!! #StandWithApple If you too would like to stand with Apple's stance on privacy, then add your name to the petition
  • Pretty funny that this is likely all due to the FBI being plain stupid. On page 11, it seems clear that the FBI allowed or actively changed the iCloud password associated with the phone and thus rendered automatic backup useless. If they hadn't done that, then this would all be unnecessary.
  • This is all just Apple playing the martyr and you're just sheep lined up to support them as usual. Really pathetic to see how this generation is ready to act like a company gives a **** about you. Probably the most ignorant and naive generation in history!
  • So you're on the side of the fence that would prefer to intentionally relinquish all of your personal information to the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc and unintentionally relinquish it to God knows who else? Apple is a business. There's clearly no disputing that making money is priority number one. But customer satisfaction and making money aren't always mutually exclusive. In this case they're doing the right thing and it can only help their sales. It's win win for the company and its consumers. Why all the hate just to perpetuate you're disdain for the company (and with it its consumer base) even when they're standing up for their customers? Note: I am not one of their customers. But that may change because of how they've been handling this nonsense. ~TheRealFixxxer
  • He is nothing but a troll. Ignore him.
  • I'm with Apple 100% on this but I think some of their recent statements are a bit weird, a bit over the top, and kind of counter productive. Particularly the literal comparisons to a "cancer" and to a request to "create poison." I know the computer industry literally lives on hype, but those statements are (to me) unprofessional and childish. Perhaps they should let the lawyers do their job and save the colourful (and deeply silly) language for later?