Apple: It Seems Disagreeing with DOJ Means You Must be Evil and anti-American

apple versus doj evil anti-american

 

In the latest round over the Feds’ effort to force Apple to help them break into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, and Apple’s refusal to do so, Apple has come out with both fists up. The Feds’ most recent court filing accuses that “Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights.” In response, Apple’s general counsel, attorney Bruce Sewell, said during a press conference call that “…it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American.” (Full text below.)

…it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American

(Background on the FBI/DOJ versus Apple iPhone case)

In the Goverment’s Response to Apple’s Motion, filed yesterday by Department of Justice (DOJ), the Feds say, among other things, “Apple and its amici try to alarm this Court with issues of network security , encryption, back doors, and privacy, invoking larger debates before Congress and in the news media. That is a diversion. Apple desperately wants — desperately needs — this case not to be ‘about one isolated iPhone.’ ”

Apple’s rhetoric is…corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty


Again, in case you missed it, the line in the Fed’s brief that really caught Apple’s attention, and against which Apple struck back publicly, is this one: “Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights: the courts, the Fourth Amendment, longstanding precedent and venerable laws, and the democratically elected branches of government.”

{Emphasis added by us.}

Here is the full text of Apple Senior Vice President of Legal and General Counsel Bruce Sewell’s comments during the press conference call:

No Paywall Here!
The Internet Patrol is and always has been free. We don't hide our articles behind a paywall, or restrict the number of articles you can read in a month if you don't give us money. That said, it does cost us money to run the site, so if something you read here was helpful or useful, won't you consider donating something to help keep the Internet Patrol free?
Click for amount options
Other Amount:
What info did you find here today?:
Get notified of new Internet Patrol articles for free!

We received the brief just over an hour ago and honestly we’re still absorbing it but we wanted to get a couple of points out for you guys as you’re working your way through it.

First, the tone of the brief reads like an indictment. We’ve all heard Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch thank Apple for its consistent help in working with law enforcement. Director Comey’s own statement that “there are no demons here.” Well, you certainly wouldn’t conclude it from this brief. In 30 years of practice I don’t think I’ve seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case.

For the first time we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it. An unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple rather than confront the issues in the case.

 

Or the ridiculous section on China where an AUSA, an officer of the court, uses unidentified Internet sources to raise the spectre that Apple has a different and sinister relationship with China. Of course that is not true, and the speculation is based on no substance at all.

To do this in a brief before a magistrate judge just shows the desperation that the Department of Justice now feels. We would never respond in kind, but imagine Apple asking a court if the FBI could be trusted “because there is this real question about whether J. Edgar Hoover ordered the assassination of Kennedy — see ConspiracyTheory.com as our supporting evidence.”

We add security features to protect our customers from hackers and criminals. And the FBI should be supporting us in this because it keeps everyone safe. To suggest otherwise is demeaning. It cheapens the debate and it tries to mask the real and serious issues. I can only conclude that the DoJ is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds….

We know there are great people in the DoJ and the FBI. We work shoulder to shoulder with them all the time. That’s why this cheap shot brief surprises us so much. We help when we’re asked to. We’re honest about what we can and cannot do. Let’s at least treat one another with respect and get this case before the American people in a responsible way. We are going before court to exercise our legal rights. Everyone should beware because it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Regardless of how you see this issue, or on which side of it you fall, it’s definitely time to pull up a chair and break out the popcorn.

No Paywall Here!
The Internet Patrol is and always has been free. We don't hide our articles behind a paywall, or restrict the number of articles you can read in a month if you don't give us money. That said, it does cost us money to run the site, so if something you read here was helpful or useful, won't you consider donating something to help keep the Internet Patrol free?
Click for amount options
Other Amount:
What info did you find here today?:

Summary
Apple: It Seems Disagreeing with DOJ Means You Must be Evil and anti-American
Article Name
Apple: It Seems Disagreeing with DOJ Means You Must be Evil and anti-American
Description
In the latest over the Feds' effort to force Apple to help them break into the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, Apple has come out with both fists up.
Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *