TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:
[*]There is only one SAFE way to write such a hack, and that is for the FBI to (of course, observing all the proper chain of custody standards) give the phone to Apple, have Apple write a ONE TIME USE hack, have Apple crack that ONE phone's security, and then when that ONE phone's data has been recovered, destroy the existing copy of the hack so that it cannot be used in the future. (* There is a problem with this which I will detail below.)

* Item #7 assumes that Apple's systems are 100% secure from intrusion. Once word has gotten out that Apple were cooperating in the manner described in item 7, how long would it take before hackers worldwide overwhelmed Apple's digital infrastructure in attempts to access and steal the "tool"?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: [*]The FBI wants Apple to rewrite their iOS to include such a hack.

Excuse me TAM, but I don't see that anywhere in the writ.
The post by Apple says this is the case, but I don't see in the writ.
Perhaps there is another document that they haven't posted.
According to the way I read it, the writ applies to only to this one particular phone [ON SUBJECT DEVICE].

I am tired today so if you care to answer, please do in five sentences or less.

(1) Apple's claim is that acceding to the FBI's remain will create a de-facto back door for iOS. (2) If Apple is falsely claiming to be under pressure to build the FBI a back door, that will become apparent in court, won't it? (3) And that is where this is headed.....to court. (4) The outcome will prove them to be either telling the truth, or lying, will it not? (5) My gov't lies to me all the time, but as an Apple user, I've never been lied to by Apple.

(6) That's six sentences, including this one.

The Annoyed Man wrote: [*]The FBI wants Apple to rewrite their iOS to include such a hack.

NotRPB wrote:If the order is issued under the All Writs Act
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... iPhone.pdf
(it says it is)
AND IF
the only time an All Writs Act applies is:
"The absence of alternative remedies — the All Writs Act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act

and a tool existed such as a request for production from a non-party (F.R.C.P Rule 34) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34

or

a Subpoena (F.R.C.P. Rule 45. Subpoena) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45
exist to request Apple to produce a thing...
then
isn't the All Writs Act the incorrect tool?

I believe in Texas, it used to be that such a request would probably be beyond the scope of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure/permissible discovery, as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not require the production of any document not currently in existence ... I could be wrong, have not looked into this much, so probably am wrong..I do recall that point being sustained in Federal Court also, but can't recall the caselaw, been way too many years ago for my memory.
IANAL

order that Apple Inc. create a special version of its iOS operating system, with certain security features removed