The FBI vs. Apple - Images

Sorted By:

FBI Cracks Terrorist Apple iPhone

FBI CRACKS TERRORIST IPHONE!
FBI CRACKS TERRORIST IPHONE!

The FBI vs. Apple
fbi apple iphone terrorist

Apple decides to cooperate with FBI

Source: "Dustinteractive (Tumblr)":http://dustinteractive.tumblr.com/post/139553430811/apple-decides-to-cooperate-with-fbi
Source: "Dustinteractive (Tumblr)":http://dustinteractive.tumblr.com/post/139553430811/apple-decides-to-cooperate-with-fbi

The FBI vs. Apple
dustinteractive tumblr webcomic rickroll fbi apple trolling

Edward Snowden's Tweet

Edward Snowden Following Snowden The @FBl is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around. apple.com/customer-lette... RETWEETS LIKES 18,379 15,141 10:50 AM-17 Feb 2016
Edward Snowden Following Snowden The @FBl is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around. apple.com/customer-lette... RETWEETS LIKES 18,379 15,141 10:50 AM-17 Feb 2016

The FBI vs. Apple
edward snowden tweet

Pew Research Center survey

About half say Apple should unlock terror suspect's iPhone, 38% disagree In response to court order tied to ongoing FBI investigation of San Bernardino attacks, Apple .. 38% Should not unlock iPhone 51% Should unlock iPhone 11% Don't know Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding PEW RESEARCH CENTER
About half say Apple should unlock terror suspect's iPhone, 38% disagree In response to court order tied to ongoing FBI investigation of San Bernardino attacks, Apple .. 38% Should not unlock iPhone 51% Should unlock iPhone 11% Don't know Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding PEW RESEARCH CENTER

The FBI vs. Apple
results graph iphone unlock

Pew Research Center survey

Modest age, education differences in views of Apple-DOJ dispute In response to court order tied to ongoing FBI investigation of San Bernardino attacks, Apple Should not Should unlock unlockiPhone iPhone DK Total 38 18-29 10 30-49 38 65+ 18 Postgrad College grad Some college HS or less 40 39 34 13 16 10 32 37 42 12 Republican Democrat Independent 13 Among independents Lean Republican Lean Democratic 32 10 Source: Survey conducted Feb. 18-21, 2016. Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding. PEW RESEARCH CENTER
Modest age, education differences in views of Apple-DOJ dispute In response to court order tied to ongoing FBI investigation of San Bernardino attacks, Apple Should not Should unlock unlockiPhone iPhone DK Total 38 18-29 10 30-49 38 65+ 18 Postgrad College grad Some college HS or less 40 39 34 13 16 10 32 37 42 12 Republican Democrat Independent 13 Among independents Lean Republican Lean Democratic 32 10 Source: Survey conducted Feb. 18-21, 2016. Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding. PEW RESEARCH CENTER

The FBI vs. Apple
pew research center survey

Zwillgen filing page 3

Case 1:15-mc-01902-JO Document 27 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 572 With respect to the other categories of information sought in the Order (specifically, categories 4-6), Apple responds that following its objection or other response to each request there has not been any final disposition thereof to Apple's knowledge, and Apple has not agreed to perform any services on the devices to which those requests are directed.' Sincerely, /s/ Marc J. Zwillinger Marc J. Zwillinger cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) Apple further notes that shortly preceding the pendency of the instant case, it received additional All Writs Act orders-specifically, two from the Southern District of Ohio (both on September 24, 2015) and Northern District of Illinois (on October 6, 2015). Apple objected to each of these orders, and to Apple's knowledge there have been no further developments since such objections were lodged
Case 1:15-mc-01902-JO Document 27 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 572 With respect to the other categories of information sought in the Order (specifically, categories 4-6), Apple responds that following its objection or other response to each request there has not been any final disposition thereof to Apple's knowledge, and Apple has not agreed to perform any services on the devices to which those requests are directed.' Sincerely, /s/ Marc J. Zwillinger Marc J. Zwillinger cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) Apple further notes that shortly preceding the pendency of the instant case, it received additional All Writs Act orders-specifically, two from the Southern District of Ohio (both on September 24, 2015) and Northern District of Illinois (on October 6, 2015). Apple objected to each of these orders, and to Apple's knowledge there have been no further developments since such objections were lodged

The FBI vs. Apple
zwillgen filing apple iphone unlock

Zwillgen filing page 2

Case 1:15-mc-01902-JO Document 27 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 571 (1) the jurisdiction in which the request was made, (2) the type of device at issue in the request, (3) the version of iOS being used on that device, and (4) Apple's response to the request and/or its current status, as applicable. Jurisdiction Device Type iOS Version|Status Date Received Apple objected (12/9/2015) Apple objected (12/9/2015) Apple objected (12/9/2015) 10/8/2015 Southern District iPhone 4S 7.0.4 of New York 10/30/2015Southern DistrictiPhone 5S of New York 11/16/2015 |Eastern District ofiPhone 6 Plus 8.1..2 New York iPhone 6 11/18/2015 Northern DistrictiPhone 5S Apple objected (12/9/2015) of Illinois 12/4/2015 Northern DistrictiPhone 6 iPhone 3 iPhone 3 8.0 (or higher) Apple objected (12/9/2015) of California 4,2.1 12/9/2015 Northern DistrictiPhone 5S Apple requested copy of underlving Motion but has not received it yet (2/1/2016) 7.0.5 of Illinois 1/13/2016 Southern DistrictN/A of California N/A Apple was advised by the (device ID not (device ID not requesting agent that she is yet provided) yet provided, seeking a new warrant. but the requesting agent advised device is pre- iOS 8) Apple has not yet received this warrant. 2/2/2016 Northern District iPad 2 Wifi 7.0.6 Apple objected (2/5/2016) of Illinois 2/9/2016District of iPhone 6 Plus 9.1 Apple objected (2/11/2016) Massachusetts 2
Case 1:15-mc-01902-JO Document 27 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 571 (1) the jurisdiction in which the request was made, (2) the type of device at issue in the request, (3) the version of iOS being used on that device, and (4) Apple's response to the request and/or its current status, as applicable. Jurisdiction Device Type iOS Version|Status Date Received Apple objected (12/9/2015) Apple objected (12/9/2015) Apple objected (12/9/2015) 10/8/2015 Southern District iPhone 4S 7.0.4 of New York 10/30/2015Southern DistrictiPhone 5S of New York 11/16/2015 |Eastern District ofiPhone 6 Plus 8.1..2 New York iPhone 6 11/18/2015 Northern DistrictiPhone 5S Apple objected (12/9/2015) of Illinois 12/4/2015 Northern DistrictiPhone 6 iPhone 3 iPhone 3 8.0 (or higher) Apple objected (12/9/2015) of California 4,2.1 12/9/2015 Northern DistrictiPhone 5S Apple requested copy of underlving Motion but has not received it yet (2/1/2016) 7.0.5 of Illinois 1/13/2016 Southern DistrictN/A of California N/A Apple was advised by the (device ID not (device ID not requesting agent that she is yet provided) yet provided, seeking a new warrant. but the requesting agent advised device is pre- iOS 8) Apple has not yet received this warrant. 2/2/2016 Northern District iPad 2 Wifi 7.0.6 Apple objected (2/5/2016) of Illinois 2/9/2016District of iPhone 6 Plus 9.1 Apple objected (2/11/2016) Massachusetts 2

The FBI vs. Apple
zwillgen apple iphone unlock

Zwillgen filing page 1

Case 1:15-mc-01902-JO Document 27 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 570 G ZwillGen PLLC 1900 M Street, NW, Ste. 250, Washington, D.C. 20036 marcazwillgen.com Marc J. Zwillinger (202) 706-5202 (phone) (202) 706-5298 (fax) February 17, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING - UNDER SEAL The Honorable James Orenstein United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Re:In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued bv the Court, No. 15-MC-1902 Dear Judge Orenstein: I write in response to this Court's February 16, 2016 order (the "Order") requesting that Apple provide certain additional details regarding other requests it has received during the pendency of this matter that are of a similar nature to the one at issue in the instant case. As recently as yesterday, Apple was served with an order by the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. (See Exhibit A.) The government obtained that order oin the basis of an ex parte application pursuant to the All Writs Act (see Exhibit B), regarding which Apple had no prior opportunity to be heard (despite having specifically requested from the government in advance the opportunity to do so). The attached order directs Apple to perform even more burdensome and involved engineering than that sought in the case currently before this Court i.e., to create and load Apple-signed software onto the subject iPhone device to circumvent the security and anti-tampering features of the device in order to enable the government to hack the passcode to obtain access to the protected data contained therein. (See Exhibit A.) As invited by the California court's order, Apple intends to promptly seek relief. But, as this recent case makes apparent, the issue remains quite pressing In addition to the aforementioned order, Apple has received other All Writs Act orders during the pendency of this case, certain details of which are set forth in the table below. In particular, for each such request Apple provides the following categories of information requested in the Order
Case 1:15-mc-01902-JO Document 27 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 570 G ZwillGen PLLC 1900 M Street, NW, Ste. 250, Washington, D.C. 20036 marcazwillgen.com Marc J. Zwillinger (202) 706-5202 (phone) (202) 706-5298 (fax) February 17, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING - UNDER SEAL The Honorable James Orenstein United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Re:In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued bv the Court, No. 15-MC-1902 Dear Judge Orenstein: I write in response to this Court's February 16, 2016 order (the "Order") requesting that Apple provide certain additional details regarding other requests it has received during the pendency of this matter that are of a similar nature to the one at issue in the instant case. As recently as yesterday, Apple was served with an order by the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. (See Exhibit A.) The government obtained that order oin the basis of an ex parte application pursuant to the All Writs Act (see Exhibit B), regarding which Apple had no prior opportunity to be heard (despite having specifically requested from the government in advance the opportunity to do so). The attached order directs Apple to perform even more burdensome and involved engineering than that sought in the case currently before this Court i.e., to create and load Apple-signed software onto the subject iPhone device to circumvent the security and anti-tampering features of the device in order to enable the government to hack the passcode to obtain access to the protected data contained therein. (See Exhibit A.) As invited by the California court's order, Apple intends to promptly seek relief. But, as this recent case makes apparent, the issue remains quite pressing In addition to the aforementioned order, Apple has received other All Writs Act orders during the pendency of this case, certain details of which are set forth in the table below. In particular, for each such request Apple provides the following categories of information requested in the Order

The FBI vs. Apple
zwillgen apple iphone unlock

Department of Justice's court order, page 8

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 8 of 35 Page ID#18 1 appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public 2 |brand marketing strategy.2 3 Accordingly, the government now brings this motion to compel 4 While the Order includes the provision that "to the extent that Apple 5 believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably 6 burdensome, it may make an application to this Court for relief 7 within five business days of receipt of the Order, " Apple' s public 8statement makes clear that Apple will not comply with the Court' s 9 Order. The government does not seek to deny Apple its right to be 10 heard, and expects these issues to be fully briefed before the Court; 11 however, the urgency of this investigation requires this motion now 12 that Apple has made its intention not to comply patently clear 13This aspect of the investigation into the December 2, 2015 terrorist 14 attack must move forward 15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 17 Act order, and the Declaration of FBI Supervisory Special Agent 18("SSA") Christopher Pluhar, which was attached thereto, both of which 19were filed on February 16, 2016, the FBI has been investigating the 20 As set forth in the government's application for the All Writs 2 As Apple has stated on its web page, "Our commitment to customer privacy doesn't stop because of a government information request. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it' s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running ios8." (https://web.archive.org/web/20140918023950/http://www.apple.com/priv acy/government-informaton-requests/)Notably, notwithstanding this previous statement, Apple concedes that it has retained the ability to do as the Court rde red 23 24 25 26 this Court's February 16, 2016, order is not legally necessary, in 27 stated interest in adversarial testing of the order's legal merits, 28 due process and adversarial testing it seeks Although a separate order compelling Apple' s compliance with light of Apple' s publicly stated " [o] pposing [of] this order" and its the government files this noticed motion to provide Apple with the 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 8 of 35 Page ID#18 1 appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public 2 |brand marketing strategy.2 3 Accordingly, the government now brings this motion to compel 4 While the Order includes the provision that "to the extent that Apple 5 believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably 6 burdensome, it may make an application to this Court for relief 7 within five business days of receipt of the Order, " Apple' s public 8statement makes clear that Apple will not comply with the Court' s 9 Order. The government does not seek to deny Apple its right to be 10 heard, and expects these issues to be fully briefed before the Court; 11 however, the urgency of this investigation requires this motion now 12 that Apple has made its intention not to comply patently clear 13This aspect of the investigation into the December 2, 2015 terrorist 14 attack must move forward 15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 17 Act order, and the Declaration of FBI Supervisory Special Agent 18("SSA") Christopher Pluhar, which was attached thereto, both of which 19were filed on February 16, 2016, the FBI has been investigating the 20 As set forth in the government's application for the All Writs 2 As Apple has stated on its web page, "Our commitment to customer privacy doesn't stop because of a government information request. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it' s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running ios8." (https://web.archive.org/web/20140918023950/http://www.apple.com/priv acy/government-informaton-requests/)Notably, notwithstanding this previous statement, Apple concedes that it has retained the ability to do as the Court rde red 23 24 25 26 this Court's February 16, 2016, order is not legally necessary, in 27 stated interest in adversarial testing of the order's legal merits, 28 due process and adversarial testing it seeks Although a separate order compelling Apple' s compliance with light of Apple' s publicly stated " [o] pposing [of] this order" and its the government files this noticed motion to provide Apple with the 3

The FBI vs. Apple
department of justice apple iphone

Department of Justice's court order, page 6

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 6 of 35 Page ID#16 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCT ON Rather than assist the effort to fully investigate a deadly 4terrorist attack by obeying this Court's order of February 16, 2016, 5 Apple has responded by publicly repudiating that Order. See Exhibit 61 Apple has attempted to design and market its products to allow 7 technology, rather than the law, to control access to data which has 8 been found by this Court to be warranted for an important 9 investigation. Despite its efforts, Apple nonetheless retains the 10 technical ability to comply with the order, and so should be required 11 to obey it 12 13 shot and killed 14 people and injured 22 others at the Inland 14 Regional Center in San Bernardino, Farook's employer issued him an 15 iPhone. The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") recovered that 16 iPhone during the investigation into the massacre. The government 17 has reason to believe that Farook used that iPhone to communicate 18 |with some of the very people whom he and Malik murdered. The phone 19 may contain critical communications and data prior to and around the 20 || time of the shooting that, thus far: (1) has not been accessed; (2) 21 may reside solely on the phone; and (3) cannot be accessed by any 22 other means known to either the government or Apple. The FBI 23obtained a warrant to search the iPhone, and the owmer of the iPhone 24 Farook's employer, also gave the FBI its consent to the search 25 Because the iPhone was locked, the government subsequently sought 26Apple's help in its efforts to execute the lawfully issued search 27 warrant. Apple refused 28 Before Syed Rizwan Farook ("Farook") and his wife Tafsheen Malik
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 6 of 35 Page ID#16 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCT ON Rather than assist the effort to fully investigate a deadly 4terrorist attack by obeying this Court's order of February 16, 2016, 5 Apple has responded by publicly repudiating that Order. See Exhibit 61 Apple has attempted to design and market its products to allow 7 technology, rather than the law, to control access to data which has 8 been found by this Court to be warranted for an important 9 investigation. Despite its efforts, Apple nonetheless retains the 10 technical ability to comply with the order, and so should be required 11 to obey it 12 13 shot and killed 14 people and injured 22 others at the Inland 14 Regional Center in San Bernardino, Farook's employer issued him an 15 iPhone. The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") recovered that 16 iPhone during the investigation into the massacre. The government 17 has reason to believe that Farook used that iPhone to communicate 18 |with some of the very people whom he and Malik murdered. The phone 19 may contain critical communications and data prior to and around the 20 || time of the shooting that, thus far: (1) has not been accessed; (2) 21 may reside solely on the phone; and (3) cannot be accessed by any 22 other means known to either the government or Apple. The FBI 23obtained a warrant to search the iPhone, and the owmer of the iPhone 24 Farook's employer, also gave the FBI its consent to the search 25 Because the iPhone was locked, the government subsequently sought 26Apple's help in its efforts to execute the lawfully issued search 27 warrant. Apple refused 28 Before Syed Rizwan Farook ("Farook") and his wife Tafsheen Malik

The FBI vs. Apple
page 6 department of justice

page 7 of the Department of Justice's court order

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 7 of 35 Page ID#17 1 Apple left the government with no option other than to apply to 2 |this Court for the Order issued on February 16, 2016. The Order 3 requires Apple to assist the FBI with respect to this single iPhone 4 used by Farook by providing the FBI with the opportunity to determine 5 the passcode. The Order does not, as Apple's public statement 6 alleges, require Apple to create or provide a "back door" to every 7 iPhone; it does not provide "hackers and criminals" access to 8iPhones; it does not require Apple to "hack [its] own users" or to 9"decrypt" its own phones; it does not give the government "the power 10 to reach into anyone's device" without a warrant or court 11 authorization; and it does not compromise the security of personal 12 information. See Exhibit 1. To the contrary, the order allows Apple 13 to retain custody of its software at all times, and it gives Apple 14 flexibility in the manner in which it provides assistance. In fact 15 the software never has to come into the government's custody 16 17 number of orders issued pursuant to the All Writs Act to facilitate 18 the execution of search warrants on Apple devices running earlier 19 versions of iOS 20 warrant is therefore not unprecedented; Apple itself has recognized 21 it for years. Based on Apple's recent public statement and other 22statements by Apple, Apple's current refusal to comply with the 23Court's order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead 2 4 25 |will provide assistance with unlocking devices running ioS versions 26 ||order. See "Extracting Data from Passcode Locked iOS Devices,"Apple 27available at http://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process 28now objects to providing such assistance In the past, Apple has consistently complied with a significant 1 The use of the All Writs Act to facilitate a Apple' s Legal Process Guidelines continue to state that Apple earlier than 8.0, and advises as to what language to include in the Legal Process Guidelines § 111(1) (updated September 29, 2015) guidelines-us.pdf. However, Apple has informed another court that it 2
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 7 of 35 Page ID#17 1 Apple left the government with no option other than to apply to 2 |this Court for the Order issued on February 16, 2016. The Order 3 requires Apple to assist the FBI with respect to this single iPhone 4 used by Farook by providing the FBI with the opportunity to determine 5 the passcode. The Order does not, as Apple's public statement 6 alleges, require Apple to create or provide a "back door" to every 7 iPhone; it does not provide "hackers and criminals" access to 8iPhones; it does not require Apple to "hack [its] own users" or to 9"decrypt" its own phones; it does not give the government "the power 10 to reach into anyone's device" without a warrant or court 11 authorization; and it does not compromise the security of personal 12 information. See Exhibit 1. To the contrary, the order allows Apple 13 to retain custody of its software at all times, and it gives Apple 14 flexibility in the manner in which it provides assistance. In fact 15 the software never has to come into the government's custody 16 17 number of orders issued pursuant to the All Writs Act to facilitate 18 the execution of search warrants on Apple devices running earlier 19 versions of iOS 20 warrant is therefore not unprecedented; Apple itself has recognized 21 it for years. Based on Apple's recent public statement and other 22statements by Apple, Apple's current refusal to comply with the 23Court's order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead 2 4 25 |will provide assistance with unlocking devices running ioS versions 26 ||order. See "Extracting Data from Passcode Locked iOS Devices,"Apple 27available at http://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process 28now objects to providing such assistance In the past, Apple has consistently complied with a significant 1 The use of the All Writs Act to facilitate a Apple' s Legal Process Guidelines continue to state that Apple earlier than 8.0, and advises as to what language to include in the Legal Process Guidelines § 111(1) (updated September 29, 2015) guidelines-us.pdf. However, Apple has informed another court that it 2

The FBI vs. Apple
department of justice apple iphone encryption

Pandora's iPhone

"Imgur":http://imgur.com/VUqIihV "Carlsontoons Website.":http://www.carlsontoons.com/
"Imgur":http://imgur.com/VUqIihV "Carlsontoons Website.":http://www.carlsontoons.com/

The FBI vs. Apple
fbi apple iphone encryption stuart carlson carlsontoons

A local grocery store gets embroiled in controversy. Users in a nutshell.

Where I got this image from: https://twitter.com/EnglishLFC/status/700489325348319232 OG sauce: http://imgur.com/GFQureA and this is the supermarket in question: https://www.facebook.com/applemarketinc
Where I got this image from: https://twitter.com/EnglishLFC/status/700489325348319232 OG sauce: http://imgur.com/GFQureA and this is the supermarket in question: https://www.facebook.com/applemarketinc

The FBI vs. Apple
apple grocery store controversy

Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agent in Search (Page 3)

"source":https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html
"source":https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html

The FBI vs. Apple
court order document apple iphone

Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agent in Search (Page #2)

"source":https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html
"source":https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html

The FBI vs. Apple
court order apple iphone

Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agent in Search (Page #1)

"source":https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html
"source":https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html

The FBI vs. Apple
court order apple iphone