[cryptome] USG v Apple EDNY Amicae Curiae Submission

  • From: douglas rankine <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:19:48 +0000

see url: https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-edny-030.pdf

Notwhstanding John's observations about various vested interests, wannabes and lookalikes coming to take a bit of the Apple, chewing the same things in different ways; using or abusing the concept of Amicus curiae for their own purposes, as well as that of society in general; I feel that there is some value in at least taking note of them, if not reading some of them. In that way one builds up a picture of the extent, size and depth of the problem and what interests are at stake for the various actors, businesses, corporations, industries involved. It also helps with extending ones understanding of that area of law, and law in all societies is a very important part of managing a nation state, just as much as politics, political theory, philosophy and economics; whether a nation state is a so-called democracy or a fascist one, whether with a written constitution or an unwritten one, or where there is a separation of powers of the state within the system, or not. All states have a couple of things in common, law and law enforcement, dictatorship and costs of enforcement or not, and what or which principles of law are more important or have a higher priority. Even Hitler's gang had its limits.

There is also the question of prediction, the more intensely one studies a subject, hopefully, the more one understands, and, eventually, with increasing certainty, develops the ability to predict the outcome or some of the outcomes at least. (though like absolute encryption...there isn't absolute accuracy...:-). As Karl Marx once said, it is about predicting trends, and look where that got the Marxists...:-). Thank goodness Marx never became a Marxist...:-).

In this particular case, a conviction of a drug peddler has taken place, but a warrant under the All Writs Act is still being applied for against Apple, because there is allegedly more information on the phone which cold lead to other criminal suspects.

In this case, from what I understand now, of the plea by the government, it is based on the wrong application of the law regarding the All Writs Act. The Act does not replace the law, it helps in situations which are not covered by law. According to the latest law suit between USG v Apple, Apples lawyers submit quite a cogent argument that Apple is covered by the provisions of CALEA, which does lay down procedures for dealing with information providers...and therefore EXCLUDES the All Writs Act search warrant extensions. Another point made by Apple is that Congress discussed those procedures and has looked at those procedures again, but neither they, nor the POTUS are prepared to introduce new legislation on the matter within the reign (if you will excuse the reference to the English monarchy) of the present regime.

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and all will be revealed in the judge's decision...or not...:-).

If one has the time and inclination, there are a whole number of other points of interest to those who are engaged in the security industry, civil liberties and law enforcement in society regarding how far encryption of the internet of things is to be as absolute as possible, or to be broken through legal powers.

One other important observation which I would like to make (though there are many others...:-)., is that if the search warrant issued under the All Writs Act is voided or vacated, then many other cases of serious crime using the All Writs Act provisions, where convictions have taken place, may have to be revised and the persons convicted have those convictions quashed. What I don't know, is if these people can be re-tried, or will get off "Scot free" (terrible saying for us Scots to take the blame for...:-). Such a process exists in the UK, but under the law of "double jeopardy" in the US I think, people can't be tried for the same crime twice.

in the EDNY case submission a number of those criminal cases are quoted...

Other related posts:

  • » [cryptome] USG v Apple EDNY Amicae Curiae Submission - douglas rankine