**DOJ/FBI Vacate San Bernardino iPhone Case:**
> [DOJ Motion to Vacate](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-209.pdf) (pdf; 3 pages) (March 28, 2016) and [Judge’s Order to Vacate](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-210.pdf) (pdf; 1 page) (March 29, 2016)
> [Apple and DOJ Statements](http://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/fbi-accessed-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-without-apple-dr#.wuOqGVvkW) (March 28, 2016) – reproduced in a BuzzFeed article on the motion to vacate
> [U.S. Says It Has Unlocked iPhone Without Apple](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-justice-department-case.html?emc=edit_th_20160329&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=34482325&_r=0&referer=) (March 28, 2016) – New York Times
> [](https://twitter.com/JZdziarski/status/714586370216472580) “I guarantee you at some point, somebody told Director Comey, ‘good god, Jim, you’ve got to make this go away.'” – Jonathan Ździarski [(@JZdziarski)](https://twitter.com/JZdziarski): March 28, 2016
> Related: [U.S. Government Drops New York iPhone Case After Third Party Gives It the Passcode](http://www.dailydot.com/politics/doj-drops-new-york-iphone-order/) (April 23, 2016) – Daily Dot
**The San Bernardino iPhone Unlock:**
> [Nothing Significant Found on San Bernardino iPhone So Far](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/source-nothing-significant-found-on-san-bernardino-iphone/) (April 13, 2016) – CBS News
> [FBI Paid Professional Hackers One-Time Fee to Crack San Bernardino iPhone](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-paid-professional-hackers-one-time-fee-to-crack-san-bernardino-iphone/2016/04/12/5397814a-00de-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html) (April 12, 2016) – Washington Post; and [Apple iPhone Unlocking Maneuver Likely to Remain Secret](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-whitehouse-idUSKCN0XB05D) (April 14, 2016) – Reuters
> [F.B.I. Director Suggests Bill for iPhone Hacking Topped $1.3 Million](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/us/politics/fbi-director-suggests-bill-for-iphone-hacking-was-1-3-million.html) (April 21, 2016) – New York Times
> [FBI Says Method Used to Unlock iPhone Doesn’t Work with iPhone 5s or Newer](http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/07/fbi-says-method-used-to-unlock-iphone-doesnt-work-with-iphone-5s-or-newer/) (April 7, 2016) – TechCrunch
> [Apple Likely Can’t Force FBI to Disclose How It Got Data From Seized iPhone](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/feds-mum-if-they-will-disclose-how-fbi-got-data-from-seized-iphone/) (March 28, 2016) – ArsTechnica; and the government’s [Vulnerabilities Equities Process](https://www.eff.org/document/vulnerabilities-equities-process-january-2016) (pdf at the link; 14 pages). See also: [Thank You for Hacking the iPhone, Now Tell Apple How You Did It](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-23/thank-you-for-hacking-iphone-now-tell-apple-how-you-did-it) (March 22, 2016) – BloombergBusiness weighing in on whether the FBI, if successful in getting into the San Bernardino iPhone, would be required to share with Apple the means it used.
**What’s Next?**
> [FBI’s Comey Expects More Litigation Over Access to Electronic Devices](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-comey-idUSKCN0Y2273?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews) (May 11, 2016) – Reuters
> Burr-Feinstein Draft Legislation – see my separate post [here](https://www.jrmchale.org/2016/04/burr-feinstein-anti-crypto-draft-legislation/)
> [A Possible Tool to Unlock the iPhone Means Something . . . or Nothing](https://www.lawfareblog.com/possible-tool-unlock-iphone-means-something…or-nothing) (March 22, 2016) – Susan Hennessy and Benjamin Wittes at LawFare:
>> “In the longer term, however, the episode changes nothing. It merely defers the important questions which we’re eventually going to have to resolve, either in the courts or in Congress or both:
>> • Does the All Writs Act apply to compel this type of assistance from an information service provider like Apple, or is such an order precluded by CALEA?
>> • If the All Writs Act does properly apply, what constitutes an undue burden under the controlling test in New York Telephone Company?
>> • Is there an obligation for the government to seek assistance from other federal agencies and the commercial sector before demonstrating that non-party assistance is required as a matter of necessity under the All Writs Act?
>> • More generally, what obligations do we want companies like Apple to have to cooperate with and assist law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of their users?”
> I would add to the Hennessy/Wittes list of questions to be resolved: if the All Writs Act does properly apply in order to compel assistance from a company such as Apple, how might the constitution (primarily, though not exclusively, the first amendment) limit the type and extent of assistance to law enforcement a court could require?
> [Repetitive Encryption Tirades Could Be Giving Way to Debate Over ‘Lawful Hacking’](https://theintercept.com/2016/04/20/repetitive-encryption-tirades-could-be-giving-way-to-debate-over-lawful-hacking/) (April 20, 2016) – The Intercept
> [The Encryption Debate Enters Phase Two](https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-debate-enters-phase-two) (March 16, 2016) – Daniel Weitzner (Director of the MIT Internet Policy Research Initiative and Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab) in LawFare; and [A New Front in the Second Crypto War](https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-front-second-crypto-war) (March 15, 2016) – the generally pro-FBI/IC and often provocative Benjamin Wittes in LawFare; two important reads on what might come next regarding encryption – law and policy
> [WhatsApp Encryption Said to Stymie Wiretap Order](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/whatsapp-encryption-said-to-stymie-wiretap-order.html?referer=&_r=0) (March 12, 2016) – New York Times
> [Why Do the Feds Usually Try to Unlock Phones? It’s Drugs, Not Terrorism](http://www.wired.com/2016/03/feds-usually-try-unlock-phones-drugs-not-terrorism/) (March 31, 2016) – Wired; and [Measuring the ‘Darkness’ of ‘Going Dark’ – Just How Dark is Law Enforcement Going?](https://medium.com/niskanen-center/measuring-the-darkness-of-going-dark-7a41585d06a8#.zgt8biqda) (April 4, 2016) – Ryan Hagemann of the Niskanen Center with a similar point regarding the typical governmental reason to seek decryption (i.e., the drug war)
**Court Orders, Filings and Schedules:**
> Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym’s February 16, 2016 [Order](https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/02/17/apple_order.pdf) ([alternate link](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf))
> DOJ [Motion to Compel Apple Compliance](http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Apple-iPhone-access-MOTION-TO-COMPEL.pdf) (pdf; 35 pages)(February 19, 2016)
> Apple’s [Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Apple to Assist Agents in Search, and Opposition to Government’s Motion to Compel Assistance](https://cryptome.org/2016/02/usg-apple-016.pdf) (link is to pdf hosted at cryptome.org; the motion is approximately 36 pages without supporting documents and 415 pages with supporting documents) (alternate link to the motion without supporting documents at the New York Times: [Apple’s Motion Opposing the iPhone Order](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/25/technology/document-apple-motion-opposing-iphone-order.html) and alternate link to the motion without supporting documents at [DocumentCloud](http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-00451-SP-USA-v-Black-Lexus-IS300.html)) (February 25, 2016) – My quick initial reaction before seeing the upcoming DOJ response: If the magistrate judge is inclined to get out of the mess created by her initial order, there appear to be adequate grounds to do so based solely on Apple’s All Writs Act arguments, without getting to the constitutional question (primarily 1st Amendment)
> [Apple Files Motion to Vacate the Court Order to Force it to Unlock iPhone](http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/25/apple-files-motion-to-dismiss-the-court-order-to-force-it-to-unlock-iphone-citing-free-speech-rights/) (February 25, 2016) – TechCrunch
> [Apple Files Appeal in San Bernardino iPhone Case](http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/apple-files-appeal-in-san-bernardino-iphone-case-220109) (March 2, 2016) – Politico
> DOJ [Reply Brief](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-149.pdf) (March 10, 2016) (pdf, hosted at cryptome; 484 pages with supporting documents; main portion of filing = first 43 pages)
> [The Tone between Apple and the FBI is Now Openly Hostile](http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11196548/apple-accuses-department-of-justice-fbi-smearing-desperation); includes transcript of the reaction to the DOJ filing of Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel and SVP of legal (March 10, 2016) – Verge
> Apple [Response](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-16-Cm-00010-Dckt-000177-000-Filed-2016.pdf) to Latest DOJ Filing (March 15, 2016) (pdf; 33 pages without all supporting documents; [alternative link](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-177.pdf) to pdf (351 pages) hosted at cryptome.org with the supporting documents)
> [Apple’s Response To DOJ: Your Filing Is Full Of Blatantly Misleading Claims And Outright Falsehoods](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160315/15505433916/apples-response-to-doj-your-filing-is-full-blatantly-misleading-claims-outright-falsehoods.shtml) (March 15, 2016) – TechDirt
> [Amicus Briefs and Letters to Court in Support of Apple](https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/03/03Amicus-Briefs-in-Support-of-Apple.html) – Apple website
> Pro-FBI/DOJ Amicus Briefs: [California State Sheriffs, Police Chiefs and Peace Officers Associations](http://static.politico.com/bc/b7/ba076e084d1d968ef8626a5b5de0/california-police-associations-amicus-brief.pdf), [San Bernardino County DA](http://static.politico.com/94/dc/446127354efb8b15f90eeab37d51/san-bernardino-da-amicus-brief.pdf), [Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-025-049.pdf) (pdf is included within the collection of amicus briefs at the link), and [the relatives of several San Bernardino shooting victims](https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6141821/survivor-amicus.0.pdf) (March 3, 2016)
> Schedule Re: Magistrate Judge’s Order – Arguments set for March 22, 2016 (link to judge’s scheduling order, including briefing schedule, [here](http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicolasmedinamora/government-demands-apple-unlock-san-bernardino-attackers-iph#.fpxnlxOEZ))
> [Magistrate Judge, at the request of the DOJ, Vacates the March 22nd Hearing](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2773542/031123152171.pdf) (pdf; 3 pages) (March 21, 2016) – in order to allow the DOJ/FBI time to ascertain if a method of unlocking the San Bernardino terrorist iPhone, that was suggested by a ‘third party’ on March 20, 2016, in fact works. Also: [Court Reporter’s Transcript](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-transcript-16-0321.pdf) (pdf; 12 pages) of the Oral Hearing on Monday, March 21, 2016 regarding the motion to vacate the March 22nd hearing. DOJ committed to filing a status update by April 5, 2016. The Magistrate Judge’s original order to compel Apple was stayed.
> [DOJ Motion to Vacate](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-209.pdf) (pdf; 3 pages) (March 28, 2016) and [Judge’s Order to Vacate](https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-210.pdf) (pdf; 1 page) (March 29, 2016)
**Legal Analysis:**
> [A Coherent Middle Ground in the Apple-FBI All Writs Act Dispute](https://www.lawfareblog.com/coherent-middle-ground-apple-fbi-all-writs-act-dispute) (March 21, 2016) – law professors Robert Chesney and Steve Vladeck at LawFare; and [A friendly critique of the proposed Chesney/Vladeck ‘middle ground’ in the Apple/FBI disputes](https://www.justsecurity.org/30113/friendly-critique-proposed-chesneyvladeck-middle-ground-applefbi-disputes/) (March 21, 2016) – law professor Marty Lederman at JustSecurity
> [The Convoluted Logic Behind Apple’s ‘Obstruction’ of Law Enforcement](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/doj-seeks-to-overturn-new-york-iphone-case) (March 8, 2016) – Sarah Jeong at MotherBoard
> [A Primer on Apple’s Brief in the San Bernadino iPhone Fight](https://www.lawfareblog.com/primer-apples-brief-san-bernadino-iphone-fight) (February 26, 2016) – law professor Robert Chesney at LawFare
> [Really Understanding Apple’s Legal Brief in the FBI Case](http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11120760/apple-vs-fbi-legal-brief-explained) (February 26, 2016) – Nilay Patel in Verge
> [The Law is Clear: The FBI Cannot Make Apple Rewrite its OS](https://backchannel.com/the-law-is-clear-the-fbi-cannot-make-apple-rewrite-its-os-9ae60c3bbc7b#.6hf6y46vf) (March 16, 2016) – Susan Crawford at Backchannel
> [Apple’s iPhone Blunder](http://www.hoover.org/research/apples-iphone-blunder) (February 22, 2016) – Law professor Richard Epstein
> [Apple’s Strongest Legal Defenses Against the FBI](http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/apple-legal-defense-against-fbi-phone-unlock-san-bernardino) (February 24, 2016) – Jason Koebler at MotherBoard
> Preliminary Thoughts on the Apple iPhone Order in the San Bernardino Case [(Part 1)](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/18/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-1/) and [(Part 2): the All Writs Act](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/19/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/) and [(Part 3): the Policy Question](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/24/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-3-the-policy-question/) (February 18, 19 and 24, 2016) – Orin Kerr in the Washington Post
> [The Weak Main Argument in Judge Orenstein’s Apple Opinion](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/02/the-weak-main-argument-in-judge-orensteins-apple-opinion/) (March 2, 2016) – Orin Kerr in the Washington Post
> [Trust, Apple, and the First Amendment](https://www.lawfareblog.com/trust-apple-and-first-amendment) (February 23, 2016) – Law professor Andrew Keane Woods at LawFare
> [Apple’s ‘Code = Speech’ Mistake](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600916/apples-code-speech-mistake/) (March 1, 2016) – law professor Neil Richards in MIT Technology Review; and [Apple-FBI Fight Asks: Is Code Protected as Free Speech?](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/apple-fbi-fight-asks-is-code-protected-as-free-speech) (February 23, 2016) – Bloomberg; and [Apple’s First Amendment Case Against the FBI](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fbis-case-against-apple-could-violate-free-speech) (February 19, 2016) – Jason Koebler at MotherBoard
> [Why the Fourth Amendment Should Be Part of the Apple Case](http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/02/why-isnt-the-fourth-amendment-part-of-the-apple-case.html) (February 29, 2016) – law professor Richard Re
> [CALEA Limits the All Writs Act and Protects the Security of Apple’s Phones](https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/02/calea-limits-all-writs-act-and-protects-security-apples-phones) and [More CALEA and Why It Trumps the FBI’s All Writs Act Order](https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/02/more-calea-and-why-it-trumps-fbis-all-writs-act-order#.VssxYk0kskI.twitter) (February 19 and 22, 2016) – Albert Gidari, Director of Privacy at Stanford’s CIS
> [DOJ Misleads Court on CALEA in the Apple Case](https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/03/doj-misleads-court-calea-apple-case#.VuL2DSyVAps.twitter) (March 11, 2016) – Albert Gidari at Stanford CIS
> [Apple, the FBI, and the All Writs Act](http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2016/02/apple-fbi-and-all-writs-act.html) (February 19, 2016) – Michael Dorf at Dorf on Law
**The Public Relations Battle:**
> [The Behind-the-Scenes Fight Between Apple and the FBI](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behind-the-scenes-fight-between-apple-and-the-fbi) (March 20, 2016) – Bloomberg
> [Full Transcript of TIME’s Interview With Apple CEO Tim Cook](http://time.com/4261796/tim-cook-transcript/) (March 17, 2016) – Time
> [Apple Encryption Engineers, if Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/technology/apple-encryption-engineers-if-ordered-to-unlock-iphone-might-resist.html?smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&smtyp=cur&_r=0) (March 17, 2016) – New York Times. While I understand the sentiment, this strikes me as the kind of thing that might annoy the magistrate judge.
> [Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhFibpHSJFE) of President Obama speaking at SXSW on the FBI vs. Apple dispute (relevant portion: 01:16:00 to 01:27:35).
>> [](https://twitter.com/KevinBankston/status/708409661272096768) “Shorter Obama at #SXSW on crypto: we need tech community to figure out a compromise that allows lawful access. (There, saved u 10 minutes.)” – Kevin Bankston [(@KevinBankston)](https://twitter.com/KevinBankston): March 11, 2016
>> [Obama Wants Nonexistent Middle Ground on Encryption; Warns Against ‘Fetishizing Our Phones’](https://theintercept.com/2016/03/11/obama-wants-nonexistent-middle-ground-on-encryption-warns-against-fetishizing-our-phones/) (March 11, 2016) – The Intercept
>> [President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is ‘Absolutist’](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160311/16433333876/president-obama-is-wrong-encryption-claims-realist-view-is-absolutist.shtml) (March 11, 2016) – TechDirt
> [Apple and U.S. Bitterly Turn Up Volume in iPhone Privacy Fight](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/technology/apple-iphone-fight-justice-department.html?emc=edit_tu_20160311&nl=bits&nlid=34482325&referer=&_r=0) (March 10, 2016) – New York Times
> [Who’s for Apple and Who’s for the FBI: The Full List](http://fortune.com/2016/03/04/apple-fbi-friends-of-court/) (March 4, 2016) – Fortune
> [Video](http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=89431275-E911-4D5C-BD70-BFE3EF91AD86) of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy” (March 1, 2016)
> [The Apple-FBI Encryption Hearing Was Unexpectedly Hostile to the FBI Director](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-apple-fbi-encryption-hearing-judiciary-committee-fbi-director-james-comey) (March 1, 2016) – Motherboard
> Testimony of Susan Landau, Professor of Cybersecurity Policy Worcester Polytechnic Institute for House Judiciary Committee Hearing on ‘The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy’ (March 1, 2016) ([pdf](http://judiciary.house.gov/_cache/files/b3af6e9e-b599-4216-b2f9-1aee6a1d90cd/landau-written-testimony.pdf); 25 pages); See also: Bruce Sewell’s (Apple General Counsel and SVP) statement for the committee ([pdf](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2726483.html#document/p1); 3 pages)
> Apple’s [Dear Customer Letter](http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/) (February 16, 2016)
> Apple’s FAQ for Customers: [Answers to Your Questions about Apple and Security](http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/); related: [Demystifying Apple’s FAQ – a Rebuttal](https://www.lawfareblog.com/demystifying-apples-faq-–-rebuttal) (February 29, 2016) – Blair Reeves at LawFare
> Apple’s Internal Employee Letter: [In Employee Email, Apple CEO Tim Cook Calls For Commission On Interaction Of Technology And Intelligence Gathering](http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/22/in-employee-email-apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-for-commission-on-interaction-of-technology-and-intelligence-gathering/) (February 22, 2016; full text of employee email at the link)
> [Tim Cook’s Full 30-minute Interview on Apple’s Fight with the FBI; Apple’s CEO Says Federal Authorities are ‘Trampling Civil Liberties’](http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11110802/apple-tim-cook-full-interview-fbi-iphone-encryption) (February 24, 2016) – full ABC News interview available at Verge
> [The FBI Wants to Roll Back Safeguards that Keep Us a Step Ahead of Criminals](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/apple-vp-the-fbi-wants-to-roll-back-safeguards-that-keep-us-a-step-ahead-of-criminals/2016/03/06/cceb0622-e3d1-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html) (March 6, 2016) – Apple SVP Craig Federighi op-ed in the Washington Post
> FBI Director Comey’s Statement (published at LawFare): [We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow this Lead](https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead) (February 21, 2016)
> [Pro-Encryption Lawmakers See ‘Apple vs. FBI’ Fight as a Chance to Educate Congress](http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-fbi-iphone-encryption-backdoors-congress-ron-wyden-zoe-lofgren/) (February 23, 2016) – DailyDot
> [In the Apple Case, a Debate Over Data Hits Home](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/technology/in-the-apple-case-a-debate-over-data-hits-home.html?_r=1&referer=https://t.co/BzSHdStJkZ) (March 13, 2016) – New York Times
**Intelligence Community Viewpoint:**
> [On Encryption Battle, Apple Has Advocates in Ex-National Security Officials](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/business/on-encryption-battle-apple-has-advocates-in-ex-national-security-officials.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0) (April 22, 2016) – New York Times
> [Encryption, Privacy Are Larger Issues Than Fighting Terrorism, Clarke Says](http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470347719/encryption-and-privacy-are-larger-issues-than-fighting-terrorism-clarke-says?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social) (March 14, 2016) – NPR
> [Why the NSA is Staying Out of Apple’s Fight with the FBI](http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11186868/apple-fbi-nsa-encryption-exploit-hack) (March 9, 2016) – Russell Brandon of The Verge on what is a very interesting question. See also [NSA Is Mysteriously Absent From FBI-Apple Fight](https://theintercept.com/2016/03/03/nsa-is-mysteriously-absent-from-fbi-apple-fight/) (March 3, 2016) – The Intercept
**Technical Aspects:**
> [Apple Policy on Bugs May Explain Why Hackers Would Help F.B.I.](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/technology/apple-policy-on-bugs-may-explain-why-hackers-might-help-fbi.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&referer=) (March 22, 2016) – New York Times
> [My Take on FBI’s ‘Alternative’ Method](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5966#more-5966) (March 21, 2016) – Jonathan Zdziarski
> [One of the FBI’s Major Claims in the iPhone Case is Fraudulent](https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-fraudulent) (March 7, 2016) – Daniel Kahn Gillmor, Technology Fellow, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project
> [In Apple vs. the FBI, There is No Technical Middle Ground](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600923/in-apple-vs-the-fbi-there-is-no-technical-middle-ground/) (March 2, 2016) – MIT Technology Review
> [A Bomb on a Leash](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5924#more-5924) + [Apple Should Own The Term ‘Warrant Proof’](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5912) + [An Example of ‘Warrant Friendly’ Security](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5900#more-5900) + [Mistakes in the San Bernardino Case](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5834) (all March 11, 2016 except for the last, which is March 2, 2016 and updated on March 9th) – Jonathan Zdziarski
> [Members Of Congress Dismayed By FBI Director’s Lack Of Tech Knowledge](http://www.fastcompany.com/3057768/source-members-of-congress-dismayed-by-fbi-directors-lack-of-tech-knowledge) (March 12, 2016) – Fast Company
> [San Bernardino iPhone Technically Can Be Hacked Without Apple, Researchers Say](http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-iphone-technically-hacked-apple-researchers/story?id=37065676) (February 21, 2016) – ABC News
> [Who Needs Apple When the FBI Could Hack Terrorist iPhone Itself](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/who-needs-apple-when-the-fbi-could-hack-terrorist-iphone-itself) (March 4, 2016) – Bloomberg
> [Common Software Would Have Unlocked San Bernardino Shooter’s iPhone](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/common-software-would-have-unlocked-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone/) (February 21, 2016) – CBS News
> [Code is Law](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5642) and [The Burden of Forensic Methodology on Apple](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645#more-5645) and [On FBI’s Interference with iCloud Backups](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5695) and [On Ribbons and Ribbon Cutters](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5714) (February 17, 18, 21 and 23, 2016) – Jonathan Zdziarski
> [Apple Is Said to Be Trying to Make It Harder to Hack iPhones](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0) (February 24, 2016) – New York Times
> [Johns Hopkins Researchers Poke a Hole in Apple’s Encryption](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/johns-hopkins-researchers-discovered-encryption-flaw-in-apples-imessage/2016/03/20/a323f9a0-eca7-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html) (March 21, 2016) – Washington Post
> [How Did Governments Lose Control of Encryption?](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35659152) (March 2, 2016) – BBC
> The Ground Truth About Encryption and the Consequences of Extraordinary Access – Chertoff Group report ([pdf](http://www.chertoffgroup.com/cms-assets/documents/238024-282765.groundtruth.pdf); 28 pages)
> [On the San Bernardino Suspect’s Apple ID Password Reset](http://daringfireball.net/2016/02/san_bernardino_password_reset) (February 21, 2016) – Daring Fireball
> [Apple Says the Government Bungled Its Chance to Get That iPhone’s Data](http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-says-the-government-bungled-its-chance-to-hack-that-iphone/) (February 19, 2016) – Kim Zetter in Wired
> [On FBI’s Interference with iCloud Backups](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5695) (February 21, 2016) – Jonathan Zdziarski
> [FBI Rebuts Reports that County Reset San Bernardino Shooter’s iCloud Password without Consent](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fbi–terror-suspect-s-iphone-20160220-story.html) (February 20, 2016) – Los Angeles Times
> [Apple’s iOS Security Guide on Passcodes and the Secure Enclave](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/17/ios-security-guide) (February 17, 2016) – Daring Fireball
> [Apple Can Comply with the FBI Court Order](http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/) (February 17, 2016) – Dan Guido at Trail of Bits Blog
> [A Technical Perspective on the Apple iPhone Case](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/technical-perspective-apple-iphone-case) (February 19, 2016) – EFF
> [Some Notes on Apple Decryption of San Bernardino Phone](http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/some-notes-on-apple-decryption-san.html) (February 16, 2016) – Errata Security
> [No, Apple Has Not Unlocked 70 iPhones For Law Enforcement](http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/) (February 18, 2016) – Matthew Panzarino
> [Most Software Already has a ‘Golden Key’ Backdoor: the System Update](http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/most-software-already-has-a-golden-key-backdoor-its-called-auto-update/) (February 27, 2016) – ArsTechnica
**MSM Initial News Reports:**
> [Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html) (February 17, 2016) – New York Times
> [Apple Vows to Resist FBI Demand to Crack iPhone Linked to San Bernardino Attacks](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-wants-apple-to-help-unlock-iphone-used-by-san-bernardino-shooter/2016/02/16/69b903ee-d4d9-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html) (February 17, 2016) – Washington Post
**Background – Events Leading up to FBI’s Action:**
> [US Government Pushed Tech Firms to Hand Over Source Code](http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-government-pushed-tech-firms-to-hand-over-source-code/) (March 17, 2016) – ZDNet
> [Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/secret-memo-details-u-s-s-broader-strategy-to-crack-phones) (February 19, 2016) – Bloomberg
> [Apple’s Line in the Sand Was Over a Year in the Making](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/a-yearlong-road-to-a-standoff-with-the-fbi.html?_r=0) (February 18, 2016) – New York Times
> [How Tim Cook, in iPhone Battle, Became a Bulwark for Digital Privacy](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=0) (February 18, 2016) – New York Times
> [Inside the FBI’s Encryption Battle with Apple](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/inside-the-fbis-encryption-battle-with-apple) (February 18, 2016) – Guardian
> [Apple vs. FBI: ‘Just This Once’?](https://www.justsecurity.org/29453/apple-vs-fbi-just-once/) (February 23, 2016) – Julian Sanchez at JustSecurity
> [The List Of 12 Other Cases Where The DOJ Has Demanded Apple Help It Hack Into iPhones](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160223/07015733683/list-12-other-cases-where-doj-has-demanded-apple-help-it-hack-into-iphones.shtml) (February 23, 2016) – TechDirt
> [Why the Government Can’t Actually Stop Terrorists From Using Encryption](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/15/why-the-government-cant-actually-stop-terrorists-from-using-encryption/) (March 15, 2016) – Washington Post
**Background – the All Writs Act:**
> [Text](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1651) of the All Writs Act (28 U.S. Code § 1651) in its entirety:
>> (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
>> (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
> Wikipedia [entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act), including a useful audio summary by Jonathan Mayer of the All Writs Act (see the audio link on the Wikipedia page)
> [The Centuries-Old Law the Government Wants to Use to Unlock a Terrorist’s iPhone](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/17/the-centuries-old-law-the-government-wants-to-use-to-unlock-a-terrorists-iphone/) (February 17, 2016) – Washington Post
> [The Obscure 1789 Statute That Could Force Apple to Unlock a Smartphone](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/writs-and-giggles) (October 13, 2015) – Sarah Jeong at MotherBoard
> [The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case](http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/a-dangerous-all-writ-precedent-in-the-apple-case?utm_content=buffer703f9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer) (February 19, 2016) – New Yorker
**Background – Selected Noteworthy All Writs Act Cases:**
> [United States v. New York Telephone Co.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2167177984150747977&q=%2228+U.S.C.+§+1651%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33), 434 U.S. 159 (1977)
> [Price v. Johnston, Warden](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8145731021014747017&q=%2228+U.S.C.+§+1651%22&hl=en&as_sdt=100ffffffffffffe04), 334 U.S. 266 (1948)
> [Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections v. United States Marshals Service](https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=9932283031886059336&q=474+U.S.+34&hl=en&as_sdt=2003), 474 U.S. 34 (1985)
**Background – Recent DOJ Use of the All Writs Act:**
> [This Map Shows How the Apple-FBI Fight Was About Much More Than One Phone](https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/map-shows-how-apple-fbi-fight-was-about-much-more-one-phone) (March 30, 2016) – ACLU
> [Department of Justice Drops Brooklyn iPhone Case](http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Department-of-Justice-drops-Brooklyn-iPhone-case-7304841.php?t=8e9812321e7d4f3860&cmpid=twitter-premium) (April 22, 2016) – San Francisco Chronicle; and [U.S. Government Drops New York iPhone Case After Third Party Gives It the Passcode](http://www.dailydot.com/politics/doj-drops-new-york-iphone-order/) (April 23, 2016) – Daily Dot
> [Justice Department Asks Judge to Revisit NY iPhone Case](http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0W92HZ) (March 7, 2016) – Reuters
>> [pdf](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DOJ.appeal.orenstein.AWA_.pdf) (51 pages) of the DOJ’s March 7, 2016 appeal to the United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) from Magistrate Orenstein’s [rejection](https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/Orenstein-Order-Apple-iPhone-02292016.pdf) (pdf; 50 pages) of the Apple New York All Writs Act order. The appeal will be considered by Judge Margo Brodie.
> [Apple Wins Major Court Victory in a Case Similar to San Bernardino](https://theintercept.com/2016/02/29/apple-wins-major-court-victory-in-its-battle-against-fbi-in-a-case-similar-to-san-bernardino/) (February 29, 2016) – The Intercept
> Judge Orenstein’s [Order](https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/Orenstein-Order-Apple-iPhone-02292016.pdf) (pdf; 50 pages) (alternate links: [here](https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6124209/Orenstein-Order-Apple-iPhone-02292016.0.pdf) and [here](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/orenstein.order_.pdf))
> [The Weak Main Argument in Judge Orenstein’s Apple Opinion](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/02/the-weak-main-argument-in-judge-orensteins-apple-opinion/) (March 2, 2016) – Orin Kerr in the Washington Post
> [Apple v. FBI Primer #2: On Judge Orenstein’s Ruling in the Queens Meth Case](https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-v-fbi-primer-2-judge-orensteins-ruling-queens-meth-case) (March 1, 2016) – law professor Robert Chesney at LawFare
> [Magistrate Judge Orenstein’s Order in the EDNY, Denying DOJ’s All Writs Act Request](https://www.justsecurity.org/29599/magistrate-judge-orensteins-order-denying-dojs-writs-act-request/) (February 29, 2016) – law professor Marty Lederman at JustSecurity
> [DOJ Claims Apple Should Be Forced To Decrypt iPhones Because Apple, Not Customers, ‘Own’ iOS](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151024/04573732612/doj-claims-apple-should-be-forced-to-decrypt-iphones-because-it-customers-only-license-operating-system.shtml) (October 26, 2015) – TechDirt
> [The All Writs Act, Software Licenses, and Why Judges Should Ask More Questions](https://www.justsecurity.org/27109/writs-act-software-licenses-judges-questions/) (October 26, 2015) – Jennifer Granick and Riana Pfefferkorn at JustSecurity
**Some Academic Papers of Potential Relevance:**
> 1st Amendment: [Metaphor is the Key: Cryptography, the Clipper Chip, and the Constitution](http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol143/iss3/3/) – A. Michael Froomkin (1995)
> 4th Amendment: [Furtive Encryption: Power, Trust, and the Constitutional Cost of Collective Surveillance](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2550934) – Jeffrey Vagle (2015); and related: [Why the Fourth Amendment Should Be Part of the Apple Case](http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/02/why-isnt-the-fourth-amendment-part-of-the-apple-case.html) – law professor Richard Re
**Background – Crypto Wars 1.0, 2.0 and Backdoors:**
> [Keys Under Doormats: Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications](http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf?sequence=6) (pdf; 34 pages) – MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report (July 6, 2015)
> [Encryption: Selected Legal Issues](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44407.pdf) (pdf; 29 pages)(March 3, 2016) – Richard M. Thompson II and Chris Jaikaran of the Congressional Research Service; and [Encryption and Evolving Technology: Implications for U.S. Law Enforcement Investigations](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44187.pdf) (pdf; 12 pages) – Kristin Finklea of the Congressional Research Service
> [Keeping Secrets: Four Decades Ago, University Researchers Figured out the Key to Computer Privacy, Sparking a Battle with the National Security Agency that Continues Today.](https://medium.com/stanford-select/keeping-secrets-84a7697bf89f) (November 7, 2014) – Henry Corrigan-Gibbs (Stanford Magazine)
> [Encryption and Globalization](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1960602) – a 2011 academic paper (Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, Vol. 23, 2012) by Peter Swire and Kenesa Ahmad, which includes a brief summary of the original 90’s “Crypto Wars”
> [A History of Backdoors](http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/07/a-history-of-backdoors.html) and [How Do We Build Encryption Backdoors?](http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/04/how-do-we-build-encryption-backdors.html) (July 20, 2015 and April 16, 2015) – Professor Matthew Green (Johns Hopkins) at his A Few Thoughts on Cryptographic Engineering blog
> “Don’t Panic – Making Progress on the ‘Going Dark’ Debate” – Berkman Center Report (overview [here](https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/); the [Report pdf here](https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/Dont_Panic_Making_Progress_on_Going_Dark_Debate.pdf) (37 pages, including notes and appendices)) (February 1, 2016)
> [Why Are We Fighting the Crypto Wars Again?](https://backchannel.com/why-are-we-fighting-the-crypto-wars-again-b5310a423295#.o45io2vi3) (March 11, 2016) – Steven Levy at Backchannel
**Tech Industry Reaction:**
> [Apple Gets Tech Industry Backing in iPhone Dispute, Despite Misgivings](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/tech-rallies-to-apples-defense-but-not-without-some-hand-wringing.html?_r=0) (March 2, 2016) – New York Times; and [Solidarity With Apple Masks Unease In Silicon Valley About Legal Fight Over Dead Terrorist’s iPhone](http://www.ibtimes.com/solidarity-apple-masks-unease-silicon-valley-about-legal-fight-over-dead-terrorists-2323887) (February 29, 2016) – International Business Times
> [Amicus Briefs and Letters to Court in Support of Apple](https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/03/03Amicus-Briefs-in-Support-of-Apple.html) – Apple website
> [Statement](http://reformgs.tumblr.com/post/139513553507/reform-government-surveillance-statement) of Reform Government Surveillance coalition (including AOL, Apple, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo)(February 17, 2016)
**Analysis and Opinion – Pro-FBI:**
> [NSA Isn’t the Going Dark Solution, Part I: Richard Clarke Gets It Wrong](https://www.lawfareblog.com/nsa-isnt-going-dark-solution-part-i-richard-clarke-gets-it-wrong) (March 24, 2016), [NSA Isn’t the Going Dark Solution, Part II: There’s No Such Thing As Magic](https://www.lawfareblog.com/nsa-isnt-going-dark-solution-part-ii-theres-no-such-thing-magic) (March 25, 2016), [NSA Isn’t the Going Dark Solution, Part III: “Beat Me If You Can”](https://www.lawfareblog.com/nsa-isnt-going-dark-solution-part-iii-beat-me-if-you-can) (March 25, 2016), and [The Very Definition of Digital Age Chutzpah](https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-definition-digital-age-chutzpah) (March 23, 2016) – LawFare (Susan Hennessy, except for the last, written by Benjamin Wittes)
> [Apple is Selling You a Phone, Not Civil Liberties](https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-selling-you-phone-not-civil-liberties) (February 18, 2016) – Susan Hennessy and Benjamin Wittes at LawFare; and previously (February 3, 2016) at LawFare by Susan Hennessy: [Apple’s Going Dark Doublespeak](https://www.lawfareblog.com/apples-going-dark-doublespeak)
> [Apple’s iPhone Blunder](http://www.hoover.org/research/apples-iphone-blunder) (February 22, 2016) – Law professor Richard Epstein
> [Questions for Apple](https://www.lawfareblog.com/questions-apple) (March 1, 2016) – Susan Hennessy and Benjamin Wittes at LawFare
> [Apple’s Crocodile Tears](http://www.techpolicy.com/Blog/Featured-Blog-Post/Apple-s-Crocodile-Tears.aspx) (March 2, 2016) – law professor Omri Ben-Shaham at TAP
> [Apple’s Rotten Core; CEO Tim Cook’s Case for Not Aiding the FBI’s Anti-Terror Effort Looks Worse Than Ever](http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-rotten-core-1456696736) (February 28, 2016), and [Tim Cook’s Bad Apple
Refusing to Cooperate with the FBI is About Protecting the Brand, Not iPhone Users](http://www.wsj.com/articles/tim-cooks-bad-apple-1456096265) (February 21, 2016) – Gordon Crovitz in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
> [Who Does Apple Think It Is?](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2016/02/18/wolff-who-does-apple-think/80565156/?hootPostID=df73cfeaf6c810ca9dbcbeb3432e6133) (February 20, 2016) – Michael Wolff in USA Today
> [Why Apple’s iPhone Battle with the Government will Likely be a Privacy Setback](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/02/18/why-apples-iphone-battle-with-the-government-will-likely-be-a-privacy-setback/) (February 18, 2016) – Vivek Wadhwa in The Washington Post
> [](https://twitter.com/stewartbaker/status/701762524660760576) “The war on terror can’t be a war on one of world’s great religions. Jim Comey must give a speech calling Apple a religion of peace.” – Stewart Baker [(@stewartbaker)](https://twitter.com/stewartbaker): February 22, 2016
**The China Question and Other International Ramifications:**
> [Apple Refused China Request for Source Code in Last Two Years](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0XG28Z) (April 20, 2016) – Reuters
> [A View of ISIS’s Evolution in New Details of Paris Attacks](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/world/europe/a-view-of-isiss-evolution-in-new-details-of-paris-attacks.html?_r=0) (March 19, 2016) – New York Times on the operational security (e.g., use of burner phones rather than encrypted iPhones) of the Paris attackers
> [UK Surveillance Powers Bill Could Force Startups to Bake in Backdoors](http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/10/uk-surveillance-powers-bill-could-force-startups-to-bake-in-backdoors/) (March 10, 2016) – TechCrunch
> [Feds Fire Back on San Bernardino iPhone, Noting that Apple has Accommodated China](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/feds-fire-back-on-san-bernardino-iphone-noting-that-apple-has-accommodated-china/) (March 10, 2016) – ArsTechnica
> [The World’s Not Waiting for California: France Moves to Enforce Decryption](https://www.lawfareblog.com/worlds-not-waiting-california-france-moves-enforce-decryption) (March 7, 2016) – Daniel Severson at LawFare; and [France Clears Bill That Could Force Apple to Unlock Terror Data](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-08/france-votes-on-bill-that-could-make-apple-unlock-terrorist-data) (March 8, 2016) – Bloomberg News reporting on the lower house of the French Parliament clearing the proposed bill (which still has a ways to go before it could become law)
> [British Spy Agency Chief Says Tech Companies Should Provide a Way Around Encryption](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600960/british-spy-agency-chief-says-tech-companies-should-provide-a-way-around-encryption/) (March 8, 2016) – MIT Technology Review
> [Deposing Tim Cook](http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/volokh/mainfeed/~3/BgDYZuTgcxM/story01.htm) (February 25, 2016) – Stewart Baker in the Washington Post posing questions to Apple about the extent of its cooperation with Chinese authorities
> [Apple in China, Part I: What Does Beijing Actually Ask of Technology Companies?](https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-china-part-i-what-does-beijing-actually-ask-technology-companies) (February 22, 2016) – Samm Sacks at LawFare
> [Apple is Reportedly Giving the Chinese Government Access to its Devices for ‘Security Checks’](http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-government-access-to-its-devices-for-a-security-assessment/) (February 23, 2015) – Quartz
**Other Analysis and Opinion – Largely Pro-Apple:**
> [Some For-the-Moment Final Thoughts on Apple, Encryption and the FBI](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/07/some-for-the-moment-final-thoughts-on-apple-encryption-and-the-fbi/) (April 7, 2016) – David Post in the Washington Post
> [John Oliver Explains Why Apple Needs Encryption to Stay a Step Ahead of Hackers](http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/14/11218688/john-oliver-apple-fbi-encryption) (March 14, 2016) – video embed (18 minutes) at The Verge
> [](https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/708082792991567872) “Reminder: Farook destroyed his + wife’s personal phones. There isn’t jack on his work iPhone. He didn’t even bother to hit it with a hammer.” – SecuriTay [(@SwiftOnSecurity)](https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity): March 10, 2016
> [The Feds Are Wrong to Warn of ‘Warrant-Proof’ Phones](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601044/the-feds-are-wrong-to-warn-of-warrant-proof-phones/) (March 17, 2016) – professor Woodrow Hartzog in the MIT Technology Review
> [Why This iPhone?- One Thing Getting Lost in the Apple-FBI Debate: It Doesn’t Seem Likely that the Device in Question will Yield any Critical Information](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/02/the_apple_fbi_encryption_battle_is_over_an_iphone_unlikely_to_yield_critical.single.html) (February 19, 2016) – Marcy Wheeler in Slate
> [Apple, FBI, and Software Transparency](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/bford/apple-fbi-and-software-transparency/) (March 10, 2016) – Bryan Ford at Freedom to Tinker
> [Apple Is Right on Encryption; the FBI Doesn’t Want Merely One Phone, and Its Warrant is Legally Suspect](http://www.wsj.com/article_email/apple-is-right-on-encryption-1456877827-lMyQjAxMTE2NzAzMjQwNzI3Wj) (March 1, 2016) – Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
> [The Apple Case Will Grope Its Way Into Your Future](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/technology/personaltech/the-apple-case-will-grope-its-way-into-your-future.html?_r=0) (February 24, 2016) – Farhad Manjoo in the New York Times
> [Why Apple Is Fighting Not To Unlock iPhones For The Government](http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/why-apple-is-fighting-not-to-unlock-iphones-for-the-government/) (February 17, 2016) – Matthew Panzarino at TechCrunch
> [How to Destroy Pandora’s iPhone](https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-destroy-pandoras-iphone) (February 26, 2016) – Nicholas Weaver at LawFare
> [Apple’s FBI Battle is Complicated; Here’s What’s Really Going On](http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/) (February 18, 2016) – Kim Zetter at Wired
> [Feeble Noise Pollution; FBI, Apple, Liberty, Security, blah blah blah](https://medium.com/@thegrugq/feeble-noise-pollution-627acb5931a2#.4wx252eca) (February 19, 2016) – the Grugq
> [Dissecting And Dismantling The Myths Of The DOJ’s Motion To Compel Apple To Build A Backdoor](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160219/15165433654/dissecting-dismantling-myths-dojs-motion-to-compel-apple-to-build-backdoor.shtml) (February 19, 2016) – TechDirt
> [On Preventing the Widespread Use of a Law-Enforcement-Friendly iOS Patch](https://www.lawfareblog.com/preventing-widespread-use-law-enforcement-friendly-ios-patch) and [Apple and FBI: PIN Codes to Update Firmware, Code as Free Speech, and Legislative Clarification](https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-and-fbi-pin-codes-update-firmware-code-free-speech-legislative-clarification) (February 25 and 26, 2016) – Herb Lin at LawFare
> [Decrypting an iPhone for the FBI](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/decrypting_an_i.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) (February 22, 2016) – Bruce Schneier
> [The iPhone Writ Large](http://blogs.harvard.edu/infolaw/2016/02/19/the-iphone-writ-large/) (February 19, 2016) – Derek Bambauer at Info/Law
> [Obama Administration, FBI Must Act to Restore US Government’s Credibility in Apple’s Encryption Debate](http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/25/obama-administration-fbi-must-act-to-restore-us-governments-credibility-in-apples-encryption-debate) (February 25, 2016) – AppleInsider on what it deems the FBI’s disingenuous positioning (e.g., it’s not about precedent) in the San Bernardino case
> [The Conscription of Apple’s Software Engineers](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-conscription-of-apples-software-engineers/463338/) (February 18, 2016) – Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic
> [Apple, the FBI, and the San Bernadino iPhone](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/dwallach/apple-the-fbi-and-the-san-bernadino-iphone/) (February 17, 2016) – Dan Wallach at Freedom to Tinker
> [Not a Slippery Slope, but a Jump off the Cliff](https://lawfareblog.com/not-slippery-slope-jump-cliff) (February 17, 2016) – Nicholas Weaver at LawFare
> [Why the FBI’s Request to Apple Will Affect Civil Rights for a Generation](http://www.macworld.com/article/3034355/ios/why-the-fbis-request-to-apple-will-affect-civil-rights-for-a-generation.html) (February 17, 2016) – Rich Mogull at MacWorld
> [The FBI is Striking at the Heart of Apple’s Security System; the Entire industry has Followed the iPhone’s Security Model – What Happens if it Breaks?](http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/17/11035296/apple-iphone-encryption-fight-security-fbi) (February 17, 2016) – The Verge
> [Why Tim Cook is Wrong: A Privacy Advocate’s View;
Apple Should be Unable to Comply with this Request](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/) (February 17, 2016) – Trevor Potts