Google backs Apple case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Specifically, the order requests that Apple create a code to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to bypass some of the phone’s security measures, including a memory-erasing function that kicks in after too many failed unlock attempts. Apple would need to “create full-time positions in a new “hacking” department” to service government requests.

The FBI enlisted Apple’s help to recover data from the iPhone and were able to get data from its last backup from about two months prior to the mass shooting. Apple believes this represents an unacceptable risk to its customers across the globe. The FBI has asked a Court to order us to give them something we don’t have.

In court papers Apple says law enforcement authorities are seeking “dangerous powers” and the move violates its constitutional rights.

That said, Apple has a concern that granting access to the killer’s iPhone would set a precedent for governments in other countries.

An amicus, or “friend of the court”, brief lets companies and outside entities add comments to court cases that aren’t involved in.

Hosko, who was also a former FBI Assistant Director, said that James Comey is exercising his fundamental duty as Director of the FBI in welcoming the federal courts and Congress to weigh in on these conversations and promote a resolution.

But the US Justice Department has hit back, and pointed out that Apple has previously co-operated under orders from the All Writs Act.

Apple chose to contest the order calling it a government overreach and a threat to privacy and security. True, especially in China, where, coincidentally, Apple sells more iPhones than it does in the US.

Other American tech giants, such as Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Facebook and Yahoo!, have expressed support for Apple, having themselves been on the receiving end of pressure from US law enforcement.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News this week, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the government’s request could undermine the privacy of millions of people. It was not immediately clear whether the companies would file a joint amicus brief or whether some would file individually. However, the Supreme Court has also repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment protects individuals from being coerced into expressing a view which they do not agree with.