A hearing is scheduled for next month. A judge in Brooklyn has yet to rule in a similar but separate case.
Hurd insisted government must keep industry on its side to counter these threats.
Apple also says no court had ever forced a company to weaken the security of its products to gain access to personal individual information. The person asked not to be identified because Google is still drafting the document.
The companies are planning to file what is known as a “joint amicus brief“, stating that they support Apple’s position that unlocking the iPhone would undermine tech companies’ efforts to protect their users’ digital security. By disabling this function, the Federal Bureau of Investigation can then take do some serious math and crack the phone wide open.
“This case is not a case about one isolated iPhone”, Apple said in the filing, reiterating previous comments.
“If you build a backdoor for the good guys, the bad guys [could] have access to it”, said Hurd a former undercover Central Intelligence Agency operative for almost a decade.
– Arguing constitutional rights, the brief says the government would be “conscripting Apple to develop software that does not exist and that Apple has a compelling interest in not creating”. It’s unclear exactly how the results of this case would affect iPhones in Canada and around the world, but the security of the iPhone, and all software, could be thrown into question should this court order be upheld.
Apple further accuses the government of working in a closed courtroom by invoking a terrorism investigation and trying “to cut off debate and circumvent thoughtful analysis“.
Apple also said the order would force it to code a now nonexistent operative system – the “Government OS” or “GovtOS“- to hack Farook’s device, and the whole operation would put an excessive burden on the company in terms of money and staff. “Once the process is created, it provides an avenue for criminals and foreign agents to access millions of iPhones”.
Apple asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym to vacate the FBI’s order based on the notion the order violates the company’s First Amendment right, and that the All Writs Act, the FBI’s legal argument, is “unreasonably burdensome” for the company to follow.