Feds respond to Apple denial to access San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone, want quick compliance

Federal prosecutors filed a motion in court Friday requesting Magistrate Sheri Pym compel Apple Inc. to respond within five days to her court order demanding the technology giant assist the FBI in unlocking an iPhone used by the gunman in the Dec. 2 mass shooting in San Beardino.

The motion was filed in U.S. District Court in Riverside in response to Apple CEO Tim Cook’s public statement earlier this week that the company does not intend to comply with Pym’s order handed down Tuesday.

“To allow Apple not to comply with the order would frustrate the execution of a valid warrant and thwart the public interest in a full and complete investigation of a horrific act of terrorism,” according to the motion. “Apple’s public statement makes clear that Apple will not comply with the court’s order. This aspect of the investigation into the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack must move forward.”

• More Coverage: Read the govement’s motion to compel Apple to comply with court order

Redlands couple Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and his wife Tashfeen Malik, 29, entered the Inland Regional Center in San Beardino shortly before 11 a.m. Dec. 2 and, armed with assault rifles, opened fire on a crowd of about 70 people, most all of them employees for San Beardino County’s Environmental Health Services division, which rented a conference room at the center to conduct an all-day training seminar for its employees. Fourteen people were killed and 22 wounded in the attack, which the FBI declared the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Investigators leaed the Farook and Malik were radicalized Muslims. Farook had been plaing mass casualty attacks for years, and police found in their Redlands townhouse thousands of rounds of ammunition and more than a dozen pipe bombs and other items used in the manufacture of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), authorities said.

The iPhone 5C in question was a work phone issued to Farook by the San Beardino County Department of Public Health, which oversees the environmental health services division where Farook had worked as an environmental health specialist. Farook attended the training seminar the moing of the shooting, then left around 10:30 a.m. and retued about 20 minutes later with his wife; both were clad in tactical gear and armed with guns and explosives that never detonated, authorities said.

Farook and Malik were killed in a shootout with police hours after the IRC massacre.

“The govement has reason to believe that Farook used that iPhone to communicate with some of the very people whom he and Malik murdered,” according to the govement’s motion. “The phone may contain critical communications and data prior to and around the time of the shooting.”

Contrary to Cook’s public statement, which was posted on Apple’s website shortly after Tuesday’s ruling by Pym, the court has not ordered Apple to create what is known in the tech world as a “backdoor” to unlock all iPhones of the same model, and would not provide “hackers and criminals” access to iPhones, nor does Pym’s order require Apple to hack its own users, to decrypt its own phones, give the govement cart blanche to access anyone’s device without a search warrant, nor compromise the security of personal information, prosecutors said in their motion.

Advertisement

“To the contrary, the order allows Apple to retain custody of its software at all times, and it gives Apple flexibility in the maer in which it provides assistance. In fact, the software never has to come into the govement’s custody,” according to the motion.

Prosecutors note in the motion that Apple has consistently complied with court orders in the past to facilitate the execution of search warrants on Apple electronic devices, but has not done so in this case.

“Based on Apple’s recent public statement and other statements by Apple, Apple’s current refusal to comply with the court’s order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its conce for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” according to the govement’s motion.

Additionally, prosecutors argue that Apple’s legal process guidelines continue to state that Apple will provide assistance with unlocking devices ruing iPhone versions earlier that version 8.0, and advises as to what language to include in the order.

Representative of Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for March 22 in Riverside before Magistrate Pym.

______________________

MORE TO COME

- - , .