A Brooklyn judge has ruled in favor of Apple in a New York iPhone case, reports TechCrunch. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the US District Court has denied a U.S. government request to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone that has been deemed evidence in a drug case.
This is a separate case from the one going on in California involving an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardinho shooters, that has garnered so much attention in recent weeks. But the circumstances are similar enough that the judge’s ruling is sure to help Apple in its FBI battle.
A senior Apple executive, commenting on the case in a press conference, said that an important precedent of opinion had been set by this ruling in NY that could apply to other cases like the one in California — while acknowledging that there was no binding legal precedent being set that would affect the San Bernardino case.
[…] The ruling is clear and concise, making the case that the All Writs Act cannot be stretched to cover the blanket license to compel private companies to extract customer data from locked devices that the government wants.
Of course, the government is also trying to use the All Writs Act in the San Bernardinho case, where a judge ruled in favor of the government, and ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock an iPhone. Apple officially responded last week, filing a motion for the judge to vacate the order.
For more information on Apple’s battle to protect encryption, check out these posts:
- Apple vs the FBI: a recap of this week’s events
- Apple officially responds to court, asks it to vacate order to help FBI
- Here’s a recap of what Tim Cook said about the FBI and iPhone hacking on ABC News
- Here’s what Apple’s chief lawyer will tell Congress tomorrow regarding FBI’s controversial request