Basically, the motions in the piece indicate that the relationship with the All Writs Act that was successfully used before are not relevant; because in the prior case, the business property was being used to commit the crime, but in this case, the property was the owner of the accused, not Apple.
The Judge also highlighted "in other cases in the country" and had an explicit callback to the founding fathers and the constitution, suggesting that if the All Writs Act allowed the government to compel any American company to do anything it wanted that wasn't explicitly illegal, and therefore any American citizen, could be compelled to do almost anything.
Reuters are now reporting this directly, rather than just a link to the court order:
Great article! Friendly suggestion: in the following sentence, I'd remove "explicitly" because the judge reasons that congressional rejection can take more forms than an explicit legislative ban (ie the comprehensiveness of CALEA combined with no explicit direction on this specific issue would be an implicit rejection).
> The Judge disagreed, saying that the All Writs Act cannot be used to compel companies to do things that congress has explicitly rejected
I know we hear a lot of doom and gloom, but I think it's a fantastic time we live in.
Not only do we have the transparency of the courts (which is good, but I don't understand it), we have an article summarising it. We then have the author available for comment.
I don't have any questions or feedback, but if I did, I feel confident you would respond appropriately.
I know we are far from perfect world but the one we have is pretty dam awesome!
I've written a follow up piece covering the hearings held today before the house judicial committee which may be of interest to those reading this thread
http://www.infoq.com/news/2016/02/all-writs-denied
Basically, the motions in the piece indicate that the relationship with the All Writs Act that was successfully used before are not relevant; because in the prior case, the business property was being used to commit the crime, but in this case, the property was the owner of the accused, not Apple.
The Judge also highlighted "in other cases in the country" and had an explicit callback to the founding fathers and the constitution, suggesting that if the All Writs Act allowed the government to compel any American company to do anything it wanted that wasn't explicitly illegal, and therefore any American citizen, could be compelled to do almost anything.
Reuters are now reporting this directly, rather than just a link to the court order:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-deny-idUS...