ACLU Filing Brief Supporting Apple Against Order to Help Unlock iPhone
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — The American Civil Liberties Union will file a friend-of-the-court brief today supporting Apple’s legal fight against a court order to help the FBI unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters.
The brief argues that the order is unconstitutional and goes beyond the authority of the law the government is relying on, the All Writs Act. The brief calls the government’s effort unprecedented because it would for the first time force a technology company to create software designed to weaken the security of its own devices.
“This case is not about a single phone — it’s about the government’s authority to turn the tech companies against their users,” said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The security and privacy of millions of Americans hangs on the trust we place in the companies that make our devices. If the government succeeds in forcing the companies to exploit their users’ trust, it will have set back digital privacy and security in this country by decades.”
The brief points out that Congress has deliberately withheld the authority to require technology companies to bypass their devices’ security features.
“If the government prevails, then this case will be the first of many requiring companies to degrade the security and to undermine the trust in their products so essential to privacy in the digital age,” the brief says. “For the many users who rely on digital devices to secure their information and communications, including members of vulnerable populations who rely on mobile devices to access the Internet, this burden would be severe.”
The brief also notes that the Fifth Amendment limits the nature of the assistance that law enforcement can compel people or companies to provide.
“The government’s theory threatens a radical transformation of the relationship between the government and the governed,” the brief says. “Law enforcement may not commandeer innocent third parties into becoming its undercover agents, its spies, or its hackers.”
On Monday, a federal magistrate judge in Brooklyn denied the government’s request to force Apple to unlock an iPhone for a drug investigation. In that case, the phone used an older version of iOS that Apple could unlock without new software. The judge ruled that an order forcing Apple to unlock the phone would exceed the government’s authority under the law, and that any other interpretation of the law would likely violate the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Today’s brief is at:
/apple-amicus-brief
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22346%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FdLVVDpKMpO8%3Fautoplay%3D1%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20thumb%3D%22%2Ffiles%2Fyt_vid16-apple-fbi-thumbnail2.jpg%22%20width%3D%22580%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
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.