Snippets from Apples post :


"In furtherance of its law enforcement interests, the government had the opportunity to seek amendments to existing law, to ask Congress to adopt the position it urges here. But rather than pursue new legislation, the government backed away from Congress and turned to the courts, a forum ill-suited to address the myriad competing interests, potential ramifications, and unintended consequences presented by the government’s unprecedented demand. And more importantly, by invoking “terrorism” and moving ex parte behind closed courtroom doors, the government sought to cut off debate and circumvent thoughtful analysis."  Page 2: Line :8-16



"The order demanded by the government compels Apple to create a new operating system—effectively a “back door” to the iPhone—that Apple believes is too dangerous to build." Page 2: Line : 7-19 


"The government says: “Just this once” and “Just this phone.” But the government knows those statements are not true; indeed the government has filed multiple other applications for similar orders, some of which are pending in other courts. And as news of this Court’s order broke last week, state and local officials publicly declared their intent to use the proposed operating system to open hundreds of other seized devices—in cases having nothing to do with terrorism." 
Page:3 Line 1-7 

"For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone’s user? Nothing."
 Page:4 Line 8-12

"Apple strongly supports, and will continue to support, the efforts of law enforcement in pursuing justice against terrorists and other criminals—just as it has in this case and many others. But the unprecedented order requested by the government finds no support in the law and would violate the Constitution. Such an order would inflict significant harm—to civil liberties, society, and national security—and would preempt decisions that should be left to the will of the people through laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Accordingly, the Court should vacate the order and deny the government’s motion to compel.5" 
Page 5, Line 4-11

Nice password hack prevention methods "To prevent such “brute-force” attempts to determine the passcode, iPhones running iOS 8 and higher include a variety of safeguards. Id. ¶ 10. For one, Apple uses a “large iteration count” to slow attempts to access an iPhone, ensuring that it would take years to try all combinations of a six- character alphanumeric passcode. Id. ¶ 11. In addition, Apple imposes escalating time delays after the entry of each invalid passcode. Id. ¶ 12. Finally, Apple also includes a setting that—if activated—automatically deletes encrypted data after ten consecutive incorrect attempts to enter the passcode. Id. This combination of security features protects users from attackers or if, for example, the user loses the device."  P6, L13-21

"Some in the law enforcement community have disparaged the security improvements by Apple and others, describing them as creating a “going dark”"problem in which law enforcement may possess the “legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to court orders” but lack the “technical ability to carry out those orders because of a fundamental shift in communications services and technologies.”7 As a result, some officials have advanced the view that companies should be required to maintain access to user communications and data and provide that information to law enforcement upon satisfaction of applicable legal requirements.8 This would give the government, in effect, a back door to otherwise encrypted communications—which would be precisely the result of the government’s position in this case".Page 6,7 , Line 1-9




"Unfortunately, the FBI, without consulting Apple or reviewing its public guidance regarding iOS, changed the iCloud password associated with one of the attacker’s accounts, foreclosing the possibility of the phone initiating an automatic iCloud back-up of its data to a known Wi-Fi network, see Hanna Decl. Ex. X [Apple Inc., iCloud: Back up your iOS device to iCloud], which could have obviated the need to unlock the phone and thus for the extraordinary order the government now seeks.21 Had the FBI consulted Apple first, this litigation may not have been necessary. Page 11, L 6-12
 "  Page 11 Line6-12

"The Order directs Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in obtaining access to the data” on the device. Id. ¶ 1. The Order further defines this “reasonable technical assistance” to include creating custom software that can be loaded on the iPhone to accomplish three goals: (1) bypass or disable the iPhone’s “auto-erase” function, designed to protect against efforts to obtain unauthorized access to the device’s encrypted contents by deleting encrypted data after ten unsuccessful attempts to enter the iPhone’s passcode, (2) enable the FBI to electronically submit passcodes to the device for testing, bypassing the requirement that passcodes be manually entered, and (3) remove any time delays between entering incorrect passcodes. Id. ¶ 2. Because the government proceeded ex parte, Apple had no opportunity to weigh in on whether such assistance was “reasonable,” and thus the government’s request was assumed to be." p12 line8-19

 

The merits of Writs Act: 

"All Writs Act (or the “Act”) does not provide the judiciary with the boundless and unbridled power the government asks this Court to exercise.
 The Act is intended to enable the federal courts to fill in gaps in the law so they can exercise the authority they already possess by virtue of the express powers granted to them by the Constitution and Congress; it does not grant the courts free-wheeling authority to change the substantive law, resolve policy disputes, or exercise new powers that Congress has not afforded them. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has squarely rejected the notion that “the district court has such wide-ranging inherent powers that it can impose a duty on a private party when Congress has failed to impose one." P14, Line 14-23

 

The All Writs Act Does Not Grant Authority To Compel Assistance Where Congress Has Considered But Chosen Not To Confer Such Authority.