April 2025 4chan Sharty Hack And Janitor Email Leak
Sakshi Rakshale • 2 days ago
+1
Zwillgen filing page 1
Uploaded by Ari Spool Feb 24, 2016 at 04:54PM EST
Origin Entry: The FBI vs. Apple
File type: jpg
Resolution: (2230px x 2956px)
File size: 954 KB
More:
![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](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/084/249/604.jpg "Department of Justice's court order, page 8")
![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](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/084/241/491.jpg "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](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/001/084/241/491.jpg "page 7 of the Department of Justice's court order")
Comments (0)
Add a Comment
Image Details
141 views (2 from today)
Uploaded Feb 24, 2016 at 04:54PM EST
Origin Entry
About the Uploader
Ari Spool
The Mayor
Textile Embed
Legal Information: Know Your Meme ® is a trademark of Literally Media Ltd . By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and privacy policy and DMCA policy .
© 2007-2025 Literally Media Ltd.
There are no comments currently available.
Display Comments