Source: https://vi.scribd.com/doc/304897662/Apple-Counter-Response-To-Justice-Department
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:49:40+00:00

Document:
A 26 page filing from Apple arguing against the Justice Department's position on the San Bernardino iPhone unlocking case.
Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search.
evidence and argument as the Court may permit.
/s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1290 (9th Cir. 1979).
dream up. The Founders would be appalled.
Constitution, the Court not only can consider this broader context, it must do so.
more safewith unbreakable end-to-end encryption.).
Going Dark], not through an unprecedented All Writs Act proceeding.
deny the governments request and vacate the order.
The Government Misconceives The All Writs Acts Scope And Purpose.
England and America have a common law origin.).
government. Id. Rather, it function[s] as a gap filler, In re Apple, Inc., -- F. Supp.
appropriate. Pa. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985).
venditioni exponasis not limited to that which it would have had in the year 1789.
provide decryption services to the government. Opp. 20 (citing United States v.
written in cipher, on the ground that he might incriminate himself. 25 F. Cas. at 39.
Court did not require the clerk to decipher the letter.
to create software so that the FBI can hack into the iPhone has no common law analog.
cannot be specifically enforced . . . .) (citing Poultry Producers of S. Cal., Inc. v.
provides authority to make new law or invent new writs.
Co. v. Ripley, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 339, 358 (1870).
doctrine by assailing a strawman (Opp. 78), ignoring governing law and salient facts.
AWA standards have long been litigated. Opp. 78 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.
left to the courts and must be answered by Congress. Ex. EE at 3 [Encryption Hrg].
The Government Cannot Invoke The All Writs Act Here.
The Government Cannot Use The Act To Circumvent CALEA.
particular facts under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Vieth v.
under the Equal Protection Clause are well developed and familiar, 369 U.S. at 226.
See also Vieth, 541 U.S. at 311 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
quoting United States v. Koyomejian, 970 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
domestic video surveillance, such surveillance need only be authorized under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 41 and consistent with the Fourth Amendment).
company, for ability to provide services).
order does not bear at all upon the operation of those programs. Opp. 12 n.3. Not so.
Apple to design specific new software with specific capabilities.
York Telephone analysis. Opp. 16.
information services providers from the scope of its mandatory assistance provisions.
communications are stored on the device.
decryption programs the company does not already possess.8 47 U.S.C. 1002(b)(3).
as Apple) to be subjected to it. The government fails to address this truism.
with this clear statutory prohibition. See United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S.
159, 176 (1977) (relying on the fact that the proposed action was consistent with . . .
Congress has prohibited it through a specific statute.
or maintained on that service or in electronic storage by the provider. Id.
does not mandate decryption of communications that are not in Apples possession.
Congress Refused To Grant The Power The Government Seeks.
inaction alone, but from inaction joined with action.).
id. 3123(b)(2), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), id.
party may be required to produce information to or assist law enforcement.
and the administration have so far refused to provide [that authority].
Ex. EE at 5 [Rep. Conyers, Encryption Hrg].
Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 58889 (1952).
Congress thought existing legislation already encompassed the proposed enactment.
New York Telephone And Its Progeny Do Not Authorize The Order.
Apple Is Far Removed From This Matter.
activity, which is not ongoing but ceased months ago.
briefing and without confronting New York Telephones far removed analysis.
equating Apple to a feudal lord demanding fealty from its customers (suzerainty).
to the complex)); or (3) using the third parties facilities (In re Application of the U.S.
that case has no bearing on the remoteness of a third partys connection to a case.
The Order Would Impose Unprecedented And Offensive Burdens.
Touch-Tone Decoder and a Terminating Trap (Penn Bell), 610 F.2d 1148 (3d. Cir.
the burden imposed under a completely different framework for civil discovery.
where Apple would be required to create an entirely new operating system.
was not, because the company regularly employ[ed] such devices. 434 U.S. at 174.
Apple has never built, and would find it offensive to build GovtOS.
requests for access to the contents of Apple devices. Id. 6.
The idea that Apple enhances its security to confound law enforcement is nonsense.
that ensures hackers do not tamper with the software on automobiles. Id. 1415.
were not just trying to get into one phone.).
all users of Apple devices simultaneously.
personalization occurs as part of the installation process after the iOS is created.
it on another device of the same model.
misuse and abuse of the forensic capabilities this Court is ordering Apple to create); id.
interests of hundreds of millions of users.19 Dkt. 82 [Experts amicus brief] at 15.
foreign agents flows from [Apples] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .
computers into believing the malicious code was trustworthy).
enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. 5.
The Government Has Not Demonstrated Necessity.
is nothing of any value on the phone.).
The Order Would Violate The First Amendment And Due Process Clause.
the First Amendment.); United States v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1127 (N.D.
removal of barriers from Farooks iPhonewith an incidental effect on speech. Opp.
content of the speech[,] and laws imposing such mandates should be consider[ed] . . .
viewed the flag, as the display had a communicative element).
offensive to the objecting party).
on free speech is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S.
recruiters on equal terms as others. This is a stretch to say the least.
deems dangerous. See Dkt. 16-33 [Neuenschwander Decl.], 18, 27-28.
fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.
wholesale derogation of Americans right not to speak.
individual . . . autonomy).
By: /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
Resh v. Hetzner et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.