Federal judge backs Apple in encryption fight with US Govt.

Now, in a separate NY drug case that predates the San Bernardino one, a ruling by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein posted in full by Reuters says that Apple doesn’t have to do squat under the All Writs Act (AWA), which the Verge explains is at the heart of the government’s argument in the San Bernardino-related case. The ruling doesn’t constitute a legal precedent and doesn’t bind the California judge considering the FBI’s request.

When fighting the government’s order to help extract data from the iPhone, Apple had argued that being forced to do so “could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand”, according to court records.

Orenstein’s dismissal of the AWA is bad news for the government, but it certainly doesn’t put the issue between the DOJ and Apple to rest. “I do not think it means what you think it means, ‘” Reed said, colorfully.

A senior Apple executive praised the judge’s conclusion in a call with reporters Monday, and noted that it is “precisely on point in the San Bernardino case”.

“Apple is not doing anything to keep law enforcement agents from conducting their investigation”.

Orenstein belittled some government arguments in both cases, saying it was stretching an old law “to produce impermissibly absurd results”.

A court order in California demanded Apple help circumvent security software on Farook’s iPhone, which the Federal Bureau of Investigation said contains crucial information.

The All Writs Act is a law, dating back to 1789, that prosecutors have used in demanding Apple help them gain access to data on locked phones. That’s not the only legal battle that Apple is now involved in, though, and today a judge handed down a ruling that could have some influence in the San Bernardino case.

For months, Apple has rebuffed U.S. requests that it assist investigators seeking to crack into encrypted iPhones. The tech company recently filed a motion to vacate an Federal Bureau of Investigation order to help break into the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. The House Judiciary Committee then took up the matter.

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said the request was “an overreach by the USA government” and risked giving authorities “the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data”.

“It’s not that the decisions are different”, the Apple executive said.

“It’s a meticulous and scholarly opinion”.

The Brooklyn decision is sure to embolden Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell as he prepares for his congressional testimony.

He rejected government claims that Apple was concerned only with public relations.

While the ruling is the first of its kind, it is certain to be reviewed by appeals court judges, and both sides are preparing for the issue to eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Officials from Apple, FBI Director James Coney and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance are set to testify before Congress Tuesday on security and digital privacy.

Apple has yet to make a statement on the ruling, but others who might be impacted by Apple’s fate in the matter are speaking out.