Apple General Counsel Blasts Justice Department For Crazy Filing
from the no-love-lost dept
It must be admitted that the Apple/FBI fight over iPhone encryption has had much more "outside the courtroom" drama than most cases -- what with both sides putting out their own blog posts and commenting publicly at length on various aspects. But things have been taken up a notch, it seems, with the latest. We wrote about the DOJ's crazy filing in the case, which is just chock full of incredibly misleading claims. Most of the time, when we call out misleading claims in lawsuits, the various parties stay quiet about it. But this one was apparently so crazy that Apple's General Counsel Bruce Sewell called a press conference where he just blasted the DOJ through and through. It's worth looking at his whole statement (highlights by me):First, the tone of the brief reads like an indictment. We've all heard Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch thank Apple for its consistent help in working with law enforcement. Director Comey's own statement that "there are no demons here." Well, you certainly wouldn't conclude it from this brief. In 30 years of practice I don't think I've seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case.Somehow, I don't think Apple and the DOJ will be exchanging holiday cards this year. Apple's reply brief is due on Tuesday. I imagine it'll be an interesting weekend in Cupertino.
For the first time we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it. An unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple rather than confront the issues in the case.
Or the ridiculous section on China where an AUSA, an officer of the court, uses unidentified Internet sources to raise the spectre that Apple has a different and sinister relationship with China. Of course that is not true, and the speculation is based on no substance at all.
To do this in a brief before a magistrate judge just shows the desperation that the Department of Justice now feels. We would never respond in kind, but imagine Apple asking a court if the FBI could be trusted "because there is this real question about whether J. Edgar Hoover ordered the assassination of Kennedy — see ConspiracyTheory.com as our supporting evidence."
We add security features to protect our customers from hackers and criminals. And the FBI should be supporting us in this because it keeps everyone safe. To suggest otherwise is demeaning. It cheapens the debate and it tries to mask the real and serious issues. I can only conclude that the DoJ is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds....
We know there are great people in the DoJ and the FBI. We work shoulder to shoulder with them all the time. That's why this cheap shot brief surprises us so much. We help when we're asked to. We're honest about what we can and cannot do. Let's at least treat one another with respect and get this case before the American people in a responsible way. We are going before court to exercise our legal rights. Everyone should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: all writs act, bruce sewell, doj, encryption, fbi, litigation
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We found the lawyer that has been snoozing the most folks! Right here at Apple no less!
I am sure that Apple, and this lawyer in particular, has been the purveyor of some very nasty smear briefs of it own when it came time to defend its IP against Joe Public!
I believe what the FBI is doing should be considered Treason, but I hardly feel sorry for Apple as the knife turns in its back. They have been in bed with the fed for a long time now... I hardly feel sorry for them getting their comeuppance.
We were fucked before hand and we will be fucked even more no matter how this all shakes out. Apple never cared about us, it only cares what this might do to its bottom line. This you can guarantee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, they deliberately made changes to block Government unrequested access.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds like somebody hasn't been paying attention to the last 15 years. Welcome to the party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I didn't know that the DOJ and FBI were sponsoring a BBQ.
What's being served?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An Important Distinction
This is the great duality of any government entity. The "great people" he refers to are the boots on the ground, agents that do all of the heavy lifting within both the DOJ and the FBI. They are the end nodes on the organizational chart, if they even show up there at all.
After you elevate past a certain level, you cease to find useful people, and start coming across bureaucrats. Make no mistake. Comey and his ilk are not law enforcement. They're politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
ONLY the last 15 years???
Maybe it's accelerated and more noticeable but stuff like this has been happening long before, as far back as Prohibition and the ordaining of the income tax.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's likely in that guys 30 year career he wrote similar briefs when litigating. Again, this is just Apple using public opinion, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: -- Cheap Attempt
First, the tone of the brief reads like an indictment. We've all heard Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch thank Apple for its consistent help in working with law enforcement. Director Comey's own statement that "there are no demons here." Well, you certainly wouldn't conclude it from this brief. In 30 years of practice I don't think I've seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case.
For the first time we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it. An unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple rather than confront the issues in the case.
Or the ridiculous section on China where an AUSA, an officer of the court, uses unidentified Internet sources to raise the spectre that Apple has a different and sinister relationship with China. Of course that is not true, and the speculation is based on no substance at all.
To do this in a brief before a magistrate judge just shows the desperation that the Department of Justice now feels. We would never respond in kind, but imagine Apple asking a court if the FBI could be trusted "because there is this real question about whether J. Edgar Hoover ordered the assassination of Kennedy — see ConspiracyTheory.com as our supporting evidence."
We add security features to protect our customers from hackers and criminals. And the FBI should be supporting us in this because it keeps everyone safe. To suggest otherwise is demeaning. It cheapens the debate and it tries to mask the real and serious issues. I can only conclude that the DoJ is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds....
We know there are great people in the DoJ and the FBI. We work shoulder to shoulder with them all the time. That's why this cheap shot brief surprises us so much. We help when we're asked to. We're honest about what we can and cannot do. Let's at least treat one another with respect and get this case before the American people in a responsible way. We are going before court to exercise our legal rights. Everyone should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Next, contrary to Apple’s stated fears, there is no reason to think that the code Apple writes in compliance with the Order will ever leave Apple’s possession. Nothing in the Order requires Apple to provide that code to the government or to explain to the government how it works. "
Outright LIE. The only way they could guarantee that the techniques and code involved in this exploit would not get out would be to never, ever, use any of the evidence obtained from the phone (if there's any even there to begin with, and there almost certainly isn't) in court.
Otherwise, any defence lawyer is fully entitled to quiz Apple thoroughly on how the evidence was extracted, to insist his own forensics experts review how it was done, and so on.
There's no way an Apple expert witness (and you guarantee one will be summoned) can go on the witness stand and say 'Sorry, how we did it is a secret. But trust us, it's all OK.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They are better business people than Trump.
They've done some dirty deeds in the past, but not as much or as bad as Clinton.
And a *free iPhone for everyone should make them more loved than the Bern.
*at the tax-payers' expense, of course... they aren't idiots
\s or is it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Each of these will turn, at least in part, on the others. For example, if the FBI wins the political fight and gets the legislation they want, the court battle will likely be moot. Whether or not they get that legislation is at least partially dependent on the results of the elections, etc.
We've just seen the finish of the opening, and now we're seeing the beginning of the middle game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inexperienced general counsel
I guess this guy hasn't been doing much litigating
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: An Important Distinction
DOJ is weighing in on this issue with ferosity and very little factual content. That seems like a sign of an unhealthy close personal relation rather than a professional legal one between DOJ and FBI. The government should go after the ball, rather than the player, if they are to get involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
META Page Formatting Problem [was Re: Re: ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that the government gets away with it more because people are more accepting of them being blithering idiots, but somehow expect Businesses to be better than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The same thing as saying drop trousers so we can verify the smell of a small child is not on your genitals or else we will know for sure you are a supporter of the terrorists and pedophiles if you refuse to co-operate.
Truly "nothing new is under the sun!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Surveillance Video
Surveillance Cameras are scattered across the entire property.
Apple wants to verify the official story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]