Federal prosecutors wrote in a three-sentence filing Friday in the Eastern District of New York that the government has no intention of changing its stance in the New York case and that it “continues to require Apple’s assistance in accessing the data” on the phone.

AD

AD

“As the FBI director recently indicated, the mechanism used in the San Bernardino case can only be used on a narrow category of phones,” Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. “In this case, we still need Apple’s help in accessing the data, which they have done with little effort in at least 70 other cases when presented with court orders for comparable phones running iOS 7 or earlier operating systems.”

A federal judge in New York ruled against the government earlier this year, finding that that the All Writs Act from 1789 could not be used as the basis for a court order forcing Apple to help authorities lift data off an iPhone. The Justice Department appealed that ruling last month.

While the case in New York was overshadowed in the public eye by the California situation that dominated headlines in recent weeks, it has taken on a particular importance amid an ongoing debate over balancing privacy and security in the digital age.

AD

AD

The iPhone 5S in New York belonged to a drug dealer who has pleaded guilty to intending to distribute methamphetamines. Apple has helped authorities unlock this model of phone or access data on type of phone about 70 times in the past, according to government officials, and the company had previously told magistrate judge James Orenstein in Brooklyn that if it was ordered provide assistance with the drug dealer’s phone, it would comply.

Earlier this week, FBI Director James B. Comey said that the government’s method for unlocking the iPhone 5C belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook — who, with his wife, killed 14 people in a Dec. 2 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif. — would only work on a “narrow slice” of devices.

Comey said that the government’s tool would not work on an iPhone 5S or iPhone 6.

Apple and the Justice Department had fought over Farook’s iPhone after the government sought a court order directing the tech company to write new software to sidestep a feature wiping a phone’s data after 10 incorrect password attempts.

AD

AD

Last week, the Justice Department said that with an unnamed third party’s help, it had accessed the phone’s data and no longer needed Apple’s help. Authorities have not identified this third party, nor have they revealed how they accessed the phone.

Comey said authorities are still weighing whether to tell Apple how they unlocked the phone, noting in a discussion Wednesday at Kenyon College that once they tell Apple, “they’re going to fix it and then we’re back where we started from.”

Apple had told authorities it could get data off the New York phone in “a matter of hours,” said a law enforcement official, who spoke to reporters on a conference call conducted on the condition of anonymity.

AD

Attorneys for Apple, speaking in their own conference call with reporters also conducted on the condition of anonymity, said they were disappointed but not surprised that the federal government is still pushing for the company’s help in the New York case.

AD

This case differs from San Bernardino because instead of being asked to write new software to sidestep the iPhone’s security, Apple is being asked to extract data from a phone, the attorneys said.

These attorneys also questioned whether Apple’s help was really needed in the New York case. They pointed out that the Justice Department repeatedly argued that only Apple could help it access the San Bernardino phone before reversing course at the last minute and said it was fair to wonder whether the FBI had tried every possible other avenue before trying to force Apple to help.

AD

The tech company has until next week to file its response to the appeal.

Even as the fight continued in court, some U.S. lawmakers have been preparing legislation to break the impasse. Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have written a bill that would force U.S. companies to provide data or communications in plain text to the government if served with a court order, according to a draft obtained by The Hill.

AD

The bill has not been introduced, but it is already prompting criticism from some quarters.

“This legislation says a company can design what they want their back door to look like, but it would definitely require them to build a back door,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “For the first time in America, companies who want to provide their customers with stronger security would not have that choice – they would be required to decide how to weaken their products to make you less safe.”

AD

Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, called the bill “a clear threat to everyone’s privacy and security” in a statement.

Even if legislation is introduced, the presidential campaign, a tight legislative calendar and a lack of White House enthusiasm for the bill have observers skeptical it will go anywhere this year. The White House is unlikely to endorse the bill, a congressional aide said. The bill is also likely to face opposition in the House.

AD

Another Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, is advocating the establishment of a commission to do a year-long study of the issue and ultimately recommend policies.

AD

“While I do believe Congress needs to ultimately make the ultimate policy choice here, until we can get everybody forced into a room and come up with a common set of facts, I’m not sure we’re going to get it right,” Warner said Friday during a taping of C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program.

Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.

Further reading: