ACLU Asks Federal Court for Basic Information About Massachusetts Case Similar to FBI v. Apple
BOSTON — In a case raising questions similar to those in FBI v. Apple, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today filed a motion in federal court to make public basic information about a case suspected to involve a government attempt to use the All Writs Act of 1789 to compel Apple to unlock an encrypted device in Massachusetts.
"Transparency is more important than ever now that the government has dropped its request to force Apple to access data on a locked iPhone in the San Bernardino case," said Jessie Rossman, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The FBI would have us believe that their recent attempt was exceptional, but it was not. Research conducted by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the national ACLU revealed yesterday more than 60 cases in which the government invoked the All Writs Act to attempt to conscript Apple or Google to break into personal electronic devices. Going back as far as 2008, these requests span more than 20 states."
In the cases the ACLU identified, many of the individual documents — including All Writs Act applications and orders — are sealed, but the existence of these documents is almost universally made public. In contrast, a government affidavit filed in a Massachusetts case references a request to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone, but the public case docket contains no other entries associated with such a request, not even an All Writs Act application or an order. The absence of these entries suggests that there may be a sealed docket sheet listing these items. Making any such sealed dockets public — or divulging that they do not exist — would reveal whether the government filed a formal All Writs Act application against Apple, whether the company opposed it, and whether the court granted it.
"We are taking this action in order to better understand how government authorities have attempted to use the All Writs Act of 1789 to defeat 21st-century technology," said Matthew Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "We hope this case will inform the ongoing public debate about digital security taking place in Massachusetts and across the country."
"Hundreds of millions of ordinary people worldwide rely on secure technology every day for business transactions and personal communication. Our national debate over this critical issue must take place in full public view," said Carol Rose, ACLU of Massachusetts executive director.
For details about the All Writs Act cases revealed by the ACLU, go to:
/blog/speak-freely/map-shows-how-apple-fbi-fight-was-about-much-more-one-phone
For details about the ACLU of Massachusetts motion to unseal, go to:
For more information about the ACLU of Massachusetts, go to:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.