Apple’s first hearing in the San Bernardino case, in which it’s resisting a request from the FBI to create a new version of iOS to let law enforcement hack an iPhone 5c used by shooter Syed Farook, is scheduled for March 22. But friend of the court—or amicus—briefs are due to federal Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym by the end of the day Thursday, and several key organizations have filed in support of Apple’s tough defense of encryption.
Google, Facebook, and Microsoft plan to file a joint brief in support of Apple, according to sources cited by Reuters. And already, briefs have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Access Now and the Wickr Foundation; ACT/The App Association; and a group of iPhone security and applied cryptography experts including (among others) Bruce Schneier of Harvard and Jonathan Zdziarski.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association, Internet Association, and i2 Coalition (all industry groups Apple is not a part of) are filing a joint friend of the court brief today as well. It will argue that the government’s request under the All Writs Act “conflicts with existing laws like CALEA that limit government access to categories of encrypted data,” and that the demand to create new technology “is unprecedented under the more than 200 year history of the All Writs Act.”
Apple has compiled a page that links to PDF versions of the briefings and will update it as more come in.
Why this matters: Apple is taking a bold, principled stand in this case because it believes that losing could set a precedent that makes strong encryption essentially illegal. While this particular case is about a terrorist attack everyone agrees is horrific and should be investigated, it’s important for others in the tech industry to lend their support and point out the larger implications for the industry and our society as a whole.
Still, this support wasn’t a given. According to the New York Times, “Several executives at tech companies supporting Apple said they were worried that Apple had picked a fight that could end up backfiring on the rest of the industry.”
Letters to the court
Anyone wishing to provide a legal brief must first apply for permission to file, but Pym has also received some “letters to the court” in support of Apple’s position. One letter (PDF) is even from Salihin Kondoker, the husband of one of the shooting’s victims (his wife Anies was shot three times but fortunately survived).
It’s a fascinating read. Kondoker slams the FBI (“I’m very disappointed in the way they’ve handled this investigation”), calls for stronger gun laws (“It was guns that killed innocent people, not technology”), and expresses doubt that anything useful will be on the iPhone anyway. Like the shooter, Anies Kondoker was issued an iPhone by her employer, San Bernardino County. According to her husband, she didn’t use it for personal business, since the phones’ GPS and communications could be tracked by the County. “This was common knowledge among my wife and other employees,” he wrote.
Interestingly, Kondoker wasn’t on Apple’s side to begin with, but as he read more about their position, he started to agree.
When I first learned Apple was opposing the order I was frustrated that it would be yet another roadblock. But as I read more about their case, I have come to understand their fight is for something much bigger than one phone. They are worried that this software the government wants them to use will be used against millions of other innocent people. I share their fear.
For more on this case, start with our FAQ, the key takeaways from Apple’s motion to dismiss, Apple’s small victory in a different but related case in New York, Tim Cook’s interview with ABC News, and this case’s possibly disastrous implications on encryption and privacy.