Tim Cook Reveals What Privacy Advocacy Really Is

[SteelCrysis]

A joke of a ruling by a tech illiterate and a legal illiterate. Sandboxing a PC for the compromised OS installer is not burdensome by any definition. A fellow judge and the Supreme Court beg to differ with him. From the court system of the exact same state: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?...6018582034

On October 10, 2014, the Government obtained a search warrant that authorized the Government to search the contents of a cellular telephone for evidence relating to credit card fraud. The cellphone had previously been seized incident to an arrest. The Government now reports that the phone is "locked" — apparently requiring a password to retrieve any of the information permitted under the search warrant. It has made an ex parte application pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking an order that would compel the manufacturer of the cellphone to assist in the execution of the search warrant by "bypassing the lock screen." Both the search warrant and the current application have been filed under seal.
...
The Supreme Court case that most directly supports the application here is United States v. New York Telephone Co. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a district court had authority under the All Writs Act to issue an order requiring a telephone company to provide technical assistance to the Government in its effort to install a "pen register" — a device for recording the numbers dialed on a telephone. 434 U.S. at 172-75. It held that such an order was in aid of the district court's jurisdiction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 to issue a search warrant. Id. at 168-70. New York Telephone Co. made clear that

[t]he power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.

Id. at 174. (internal citations omitted); accord Ass'n for Retarded Citizens of Conn., Inc. v. Thorne, 30 F.3d 367, 370 (2d Cir. 1994) (court "may require the compliance of nonparties in order to ensure that its legally-mandated directives are not frustrated"); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 338 (2d Cir. 1985) (same). Thus, we conclude that it is appropriate to order the manufacturer here to attempt to unlock the cellphone so that the warrant may be executed as originally contemplated. See United States v. Fricosu, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1238 (D. Colo. 2012) (order issued under All Writs Act requiring defendant to provide password to encrypted computer seized pursuant to a search warrant).
...
We are mindful that the "the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits." N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. at 172. Thus, a court may not impose "[u]nreasonable burdens" upon them. Id.; accord United States v. Doe, 537 F. Supp. 838, 839 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (All Writs Act extends to third parties only when the requested assistance is not "burdensome"). Case law reflects that orders providing technical assistance of the kind sought here are often not deemed to be burdensome.
...
For the foregoing reasons, and with the foregoing modification, the Government's application for an order under the All Writs Act is granted.

Also, LOL at ArseTechinca saying that "The ruling, the first of its kind on the topic..." and all the ArseTechnicians cheering a blatantly ignorant ruling that will get laughed out of court the moment it's pointed out that
1) a ruling in a different Court District is non-controlling in San Bernardino,
2) said ruling is invalidated by the Supreme Court.