8/20/2019 MichaelDevine AmicusCuriae

1/2

 

Brief of Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Apple

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Michael B Devine

655 Goodpasture Island Road #5

Eugene, Oregon 97401

(206) 948-4742

Amicus Curiae

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF

AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZED DURING

THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH

WARRANT ON A BLACK LEXUS

IS300, CALIFORNIA LICENSE PLATE

35KGD203

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

PRIVACY ADVOCATE, INTERNET

TECHNOLOGY EXPERT, AND CONCERNED

CITIZEN IN OPPOSITION

TO APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO 

VACATE ORDER COMPELLING

APPLE INC. TO ASSIST AGENTS

IN SEARCH

Hearing:

Date: March 22, 2016

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Place: Courtroom 3 or 4

Judge: Hon. Sheri Pym

Introduction, Argument, and Conclusion

As a concerned citizen, privacy advocate, and Internet technology

expert, I am writing as amicus curiae in opposition to Apple’s Motion to

Vacate Order to Compel. Apple’s position in the marketplace regarding

customer privacy rights differs critically from the misleading position Apple

8/20/2019 MichaelDevine AmicusCuriae

2/2

 

Brief of Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Apple

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is presenting to the Court in this matter. As such Apple’s Motion should be

rejected as disingenuous and misleading.

It is profoundly misleading of Apple to argue in this Court in support

of customer privacy while at the same time Apple’s own privacy policy allows

Apple to use for “any purpose” virtually all of the data its customers have

on their Apple devices, and in the Apple “cloud”, including most of the kinds

of the data the Government is seeking this case. From Apple’s Privacy Policy:

“We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any

purpose.” [1] Note “non-personal information” includes all but the most

specific kind of information, excluding only such details as those contained

in, say, a government identification card. “Non-personal information” 

includes, for example, outgoing and incoming call lists, text messages,

photographs, GPS logs, browser logs, and virtually all the kinds of

information the Government is seeking to recover in this case. Apple believes

it has the right to use this information for any purpose, and share it with

anyone at any time without the customer having any ability to challenge this.

How, then, can Apple claim it is bound to respect customer privacy in the

face of a lawful government request? The hypocrisy of it is unbearable!

Given this clear hypocrisy, which renders Apple’s arguments at best

marketing hype, at worst an insult to the Court, I ask that you please reject

Apple’s motion. 

[1] http://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy 

Dated this 3 of March, 2016

Michael B Devine

http://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policyhttp://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policyhttp://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy