Terror Attacks & Mass shootings: The Media's Gift which keeps on giving.

#TERROR ATTACKS: MASS KILLINGS: The Gift from the Media which keeps on giving.


One of the main causes of the recent Terror attacks in France and Germany, and the Mass shootings & other terror related attacks in the United States is being ignored.

Terrorists & mass shooters are mostly sad disaffected people seeking one thing. Publicity for themselves and/or their cause.

And thanks to television news networks like +CNN International +CNN  +Sky News +BBC News  and many others, publicity for these cowardly attackers is guaranteed. Their rolling sensationalist coverage of these events is a gift which keeps on giving.

STOP THE ROLLING COVERAGE

We need to stop rolling and sensational news coverage of these events. Instead of labelling the incident as breaking news, we should report the incident at the end of the news in a matter of fact manner with enough detail to describe what occurred, but without television pictures or rolling coverage.

Terrorists need publicity and television coverage to create fear. The voyeuristic rolling coverage of these events, which serves no purpose and which is now becoming boring, serves the terrorists' agenda. Let's deny them the oxygen of publicity.

WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE NAME OF THE KILLERS.
How about calling the killers Columbine 1 & 2, Nice number 1, Orlando 1, and Paris 2.  Name them after the city, add a number, and perhaps a year.  Paris 2015 #1.

We don't need to know about the personal lives of these people. A brief note that they were disaffected, suffered from a mental illness, or were motivated by terrorism is more than enough. We don't need any more information about terrorists or mass killers.

The idea that by splashing the sad, socially maladjusted lives of mass killers and terrorists on television we can learn how to prevent these attacks in future is a lie the media spread to justify their voyeuristic rolling coverage.

We will not be poorer for not knowing the names of killers and terrorists, nor do we need to have their life stories covered in a blow by blow fashion.

The mass exposure of the killers and terrorists lives on the media serves only to encourage the next misfit who is contemplating suicide to go out in a mass of media glory. Why we keep helping them to do this is a mystery to me.


IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS: IT's ABOUT THE PUBLICITY
In the United States, mass shootings and terror attacks often lead to a debate about gun control, or the lack thereof in that country.

Let me say this. The guns debate has no real place when it comes to mass shootings or terror attacks in the US. That's not to say that gun control in the US is not a problem. It is. But, gun control will NOT stop mass killers, school killings or terror attacks.

The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters. The Nice terrorist used a bus. Some mass killings have involved axes or swords. So, anyone who thinks that a terrorist or mass killer who wants to kill but cannot get hold of a gun legally or illegally will not find another way to kill a whole lot of people is sadly misguided.

The truth is this. Guns might create the MEANS to kill. But the media's coverage does something far, far worse. The rolling coverage of previous killers/terrorists lives and actions creates the DESIRE to kill in the minds of disturbed or disaffected people, who are often already suicidal and who wish to go out in a blaze fo glory.

SEE my blog where I deal will all these issues and in which I have links to studies etc.

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/mass-shootings-in-us-news-media-are.html

Finally, the media's coverage of these attacks and shootings have started to become monotonous. The details of one attack fades into those of previous attacks. The details of one killer and his motives are as uninspiring as the previous. The reports showing one neighbour or family member who swear that the killers seemed normal always seem to have a deja vu aspect to them.

Oh, and with respect to all the victims of these attacks, I personally have no interest in the details of their lives. If they weren't newsworthy prior to their unfortunate fate, they don't suddenly become interesting or newsworthy now. Coverage of how the victims lived and died is not news, in my humble view. It's voyeurism. But this, paragraph and the previous one, I concede is a matter of opinion. The rest of what I say above, however, I submit is fact.

S G WALTHER 27 JULY 2016

#Orlandokillings
+Orlandokillings
+Gun Control Forums
+National Rifle Association

#Brexit requires EU to respond with Flexible levels of EU membership

#Brexit +European Union must introduce flexible levels of EU membership.

The UK's decision to leave the European Union has taken most experts, politicians, economists, journalists and everyone else by surprise.

European leaders probably expected that the concessions they made at the request of UK Prime Minister David Cameron would be sufficient to ensure a remain vote in the UK's Brexit Referendum.

European leaders, like everyone else, appeared to have underestimated the concerns which British voters have about uncontrolled immigration and about extent to which increased political union in Europe has come at the price of decreased national sovereignty.

Now European leaders find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Losing the UK, the fifth largest economy in the world as a member of the European Union will arguably affect the remaining members of the Union almost as adversely as will be the case with the UK itself.

Some European leaders may now wondering whether they could perhaps not have offered more meaningful concessions during their negotiations with David Cameron.

There is of course nothing to prevent the European Union from now agreeing a trade deal with the UK which permits bilateral trade between the UK as non-member and other European Union members on terms which are almost as mutually beneficial as before. 

The problem with any such preferential arrangement for the UK would be that this could encourage other EU countries to vote to leave the EU in the hope that they too can negotiate an exit deal which permits cherry picking of preferred aspects of EU membership.

European leaders thus find themselves in the unenviable position of being compelled to negotiate an exit deal with the UK which serves to discourage other members from leaving the EU even if this has adverse consequences for both the EU & the UK.

At the same time, European leaders appear to recognise that the concerns which motivated a majority of the British people to vote leave are increasingly shared by other Europeans.  Some have worry that the UK's Brexit vote could have a domino effect and cause other European's with similar concerns to demand a referendum on their countries' continued membership of the EU.

Throughout Europe, more people than ever are voicing concerns about uncontrolled immigration and the loss of national sovereignty through increased political union. Many point out that the EU started out as an economic union or trading block which has since morphed into increased political union which to many involves a lack of proper accountability to voters.

Throughout most of the world, it is an accepted principle that the citizens of every country have the right, if they so choose, to control the both the number of immigrants entering their countries in addition to having the right to prescribe reasonable criteria with which immigrants must comply.

The solution seems simple. The EU needs to provide for every member state to choose between various levels of European membership. The treaty would then provide that bilateral relations between any two member states would be in accordance with the terms of the lowest level of membership applicable to the two states concerned.  

Level one would entail EU membership as it is now. This would include the present level of political union, the European Court, the right of EU citizens to live and work in any other EU country with level one membership, and the highest level of tariff free trade. 

The other levels of membership could provide for flexible economic union, flexible applicability of European laws, with free-trade in the mid-level memberships and reduced yet preferential trade tariffs at the lower levels. 

The levels could also include the present unrestricted rights of citizens to choose to live and work where they wish at the mid-level membership, and a lower level of membership which permits members to exercise control over the right of EU citizens to live, work and receive benefits in other EU countries. One could for example restrict entry in respect of the right to work in other EU countries to those with an pre-existing contract of employment. This would allow for each member state to select a level of membership in accordance with their choice of restriction of all other rights of entry, the rights of citizenship and the right to refuse benefits to other EU citizens.

The extent of contributions which each member would pay to the EU would be determined according to the level of membership.

Whether I have stumbled upon a workable solution or not can be debated. What cannot be debated is the need to introduce a far more flexible EU membership structure which allows for member states to enjoy more choice in regard to the extent of the political and the economic union of member states. 

If the EU were to introduce flexible levels of EU membership, the UK government would no difficulty in calling for a fresh referendum which could provide for UK voters to choose their first and second choice levels of EU membership. The option to votes Leave would obviously also be an option. The first choice could count for two points, the second for one point and level of EU membership with the most points would be the one the government would be obliged to opt for.

I would suggest the above approach would eliminate most of the problems and the uncertainty which the Brexit Vote has now caused.

SIEGFRIED WALTHER - 25 June 2016

#MS804 ACARS update & comments

+MS804 #EGYPTAIR MS804 - ACARS update & comment:



ACARS report (reproduced at the end of this article) received from Aviation Herald http://avherald.com/h?article=4987fb09&opt=0 :

which reports are automatically transmitted by the aircraft via satellite shows various alerts prior to aircraft transponder going off. Most serious is Smoke in the Avionics bay and Smoke in Lavatory near cockpit which could have come from the Avionics bay.
This could explain why the Aircraft did not respond to Greek ATC and did not transmit any emergency message prior to its rapid descent. A fire in the avionics bay could have destroyed the avionics and affected the flight computers. ...

The cause of the fire is not known. It could have come from a device placed there by a member of the technical staff who could have accessed the bay at one of the airports the aircraft called at.
The fire could have been caused by some other technical fault with the wiring or equipment in the Avionics bay.
This info excludes a traditional explosive bomb, although does not rule out terrorism altogether. It probably also excludes the pilots or on board crew. The avionics bay on the A320 can only be accessed from outside the aircraft using a hatch when its on the ground.
It does not rule out the possiblity of pilot error in reaction to the fire. E.g. the fire would have caused alarms in the cocpit to go off and would have affected the flight computers flying the aircraft on autopilot.
Assuming the fire was not too serious, the pilots would need to have switched off the autopilot & to have attempted to ascertain whether they were able to still fly manually. At night, and at high alitutude, one has to ensure that the aircraft does not stall. In AF447 the pilots failed in this respect. I explain all of this in my free eBook

 : https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/526079

 
00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
no further ACARS messages were received

Siegfried Walther 21 May 2016  See also: comments on #MH370 http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/mh370-clive-irvings-deadly-cargo.html


 

#MS 804 Egyptair flight. Initial views

#MS804 INITIAL COMMENTS - S G WALTHER

 

+Egyptair  Flight 804 High Altitude "crash".

13 04 CAT  UPDATE Greek authorities report plane made sudden swerves, dropped by 22000 feet and & spun before disappearance

Potential Causes:

1 Terrorist Act. (e.g.. bomb)
2 Catastrophic Technical failure (e.g. with rudder or other control surface
3 Fire
4 Unlawful act from pilot or someone else as is most likely the case with MH370 and was the case with the Germanwings crash.
5 Pilot Error usually in concert with simultaneous less serious technical problem e.g.. allowing the aircraft to stall (AF 447)

...

In AF 447 an iced-up pitot tube which measures air speed failed and caused the on board computer to send warning messages. The pilots allowed themselves to become overwhelmed by these warning messages, failed to fly a perfectly flyable plane properly, and allowed it to stall. Another example of such a high altitude stall caused by pilot error is recent Air Asia crash.

STRANGE THAT NO WRECKAGE HAS BEEN FOUND

Egypt Air crash. Strange that no wreckage has been found in three or so hours since first light despite being in Med - an area with heavy traffic incl fishing vessels, commercial vessels, passenger vessels etc.
In fact its so busy, that its odd no-one seems to have seen or heard anything at the time.

It is of course remotely possible that there is no wreckage because  a "Hudson" type landing occurred and that the plane went down intact. But one has to remember that the Hudson was a river, which is usually quite flat.

At sea, even if the pilot was able to attempt to do the same, history has shown that some part of the aircraft, often an engine, touches the sea before the other and the aircraft then violently cartwheels around that part and breaks up. E.g.  Ethiopian Air Crash near the Seychelles.

EERIE SIMILARITY TO MH 370??
Also: the aircraft apparently disappeared after signing off from Greek Air Traffic Control. There is no indication as yet that the aircraft completed the handover to Egyptian ATC before it disappeared. Have a look at my window of opportunity theory regarding MH370. Link below.

UPDATE 12:54 CAT  It seems now that aircraft failed to respond to Greek ATC shortly before it was supposed to be handed off to Egyptian ATC. It disappeared from radar shortly after entering Egyptian airspace.

QUESTION: WHY AFTER AF 447 & MH370 are we still unable to find missing airliners quickly???? When will we learn??

SG WALTHER 19 May 2016
 See also my views on MH370

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/mh370-clive-irvings-deadly-cargo.html
 

Open Letter to David Cameron from South African Barrister Re: Myrtle Cothil

Open Letter to +David Cameron from South African Barrister Re: Myrtle Cothil

To: The Rt Hon. David Cameron MP, Prime Minister

I feel compelled to address you on behalf of one Ms Myrtle Cothil. This missive is motivated purely on compassionate grounds, and was written without instructions after I read about the plight in which this sickly 92 year old South African, who presently resides in the UK with her daughter, one Mary Willis.

I understand that Ms Cothil is represented in the UK by a barrister, one Jan Doerfel.  

To save time, I quote from a News 24 article in which I learned of Ms Cothil's plight, and which so moved me that I felt compelled to write this letter.

"Johannesburg – A 92-year-old South African woman, who sufferers from a chronic disease, could die from a broken heart if she is deported back to the country from the United Kingdom.
Myrtle Cothill's daughter Mary Wills said the deportation would "tear strips out of our hearts and probably would kill my mother".
Cothill has no family in South Africa to help care for her.
Her barrister Jan Doerfel has launched an online petition to call on the UK to grant Cothill leave to remain in the country.

Doerfel said Cothill has been living with her 66-year-old daughter Wills, a British citizen, since she arrived in the country in February 2014.
In the petition, Doerfel said Cothill suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and macular degeneration which causes the loss of sight.
Cothill cannot walk unaided, has a chronic cough, poor vision, has difficulty hearing and is experiencing increasing confusion, he said.
"She is unable to care or cook for herself and relies on her daughter for emotional and physical support; Wills helps her mother with her personal care, housework, cooking and shopping."
Doerfel said Wills and her husband David, who is also British, cannot move to South Africa to look after Cothill because they have no right to live in the country.
David Wills also suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Parkinson’s disease, leaving him unable to travel as both diseases affect his mobility and breathing.
"Both David Wills’ and Cothill’s medical conditions are degenerative and likely to deteriorate further in the future," Doerfel said.
He said the Home Office refused to allow Cothill to remain in the UK and the courts did not believe they could overturn the office's decision.
"This would rip the family apart and leave them broken-hearted," Doerfel said.
He said the UK introduced an immigration rule in 2012 on adult dependant relatives which made it "almost impossible" for British citizens to bring their elderly parents to live with them during their "declining years".
In the petition, Mary Wills is quoted as saying: "My mother just cannot live on her own and emotionally, for her as well as for myself, it would really tear strips out of our hearts and probably would kill my mother [and maybe myself as well]."
In a letter addressed to the Home Office, Doerfel asked that Cothill's leave to remain in the UK be granted and that the immigration rule be amended to allow for the previous rule on family reunion to be put back in place."

I mention in passing that I do not know any of the parties or their legal Counsel at all, nor had I even heard of them until I read article ten or so minutes ago.

It is evident from the above article that Ms Cothill, who is  a sickly 92 year old woman faces deportation to South Africa subsequent to a decision taken by The Home Office in the UK. Ms Cothill will not only be removed from her family and the care she has been receiving from them, but once here in South Africa, she apparently has no family to care for her.

For what it's worth, I humbly request that you immediately familiarise yourself with Ms Cothill's circumstances with a view to ascertaining whether anything can be done to keep her with her family in what little time she has left.

I feel certain that once this dire case are considered, special and sad circumstances involved will warrant treating this case as an exception to any generally applicable rule on humanitarian grounds. In this regard it must be borne in mind that Ms Cothill's daughter and husband are British citizens and this case also affects their human rights.

Yours faithfully

Siegfried Walther
Advocate of the High Court of South Africa
Chambers
Cape Town.

+Home Office

+jan doerfel

Pope unwise to Wade into US Politics

THE POPE WAS UNWISE TO WADE INTO US POLITICS

+Republican  residential Front runner Donald Trump has during his campaign repeatedly promised to build a wall between the US & Mexico in order to ensure control of the US Southern Border.

Today, the Pope visited the US Mexico Border. Afterwards, made the comment that anyone who wished to build a wall between people instead of a bridge was not a proper Christian.

In my view it was probably unwise of the Pope to allow his host to take him to a place which is presently one of the most controversial topics in the US election at present. Uncontrolled immigration into the US, particularly from Mexico, and the notoriously insecure border between the US and Mexico are subjects on which most US politicians have strong views, and this certainly applies to the Presidential candidates from both parties.

Furthermore, the Pope was wrong to express a view that anyone who builds or favours the building of a wall on a the US / Mexico border is not a Christian.

As a matter of principle, there is nothing wrong with a sovereign state wishing to have a secure border and to seek to exercise proper control of those wishing to enter the a country through proper border posts.

The UK, for example, is not party to the Schengen Agreement in the European Community and it exercises strict control of those entering the UK at its border posts.

The absence of such control has in fact presented the remainder of Europe with enormous problems during the present refugee crises. Many European countries are no doubt envious of the UK's present position where it retains control of how many refugees it will accept.

Some people may favour a world where there are no borders and others may favour strict border controls. There is nothing particularly un-Christian about the latter position.

At the same time, Donald Trump's remarks that the Pope's comment was disgraceful is uncalled for. He ought instead to have used the word unfortunate or regrettable to describe the Pontiff's remark.

Even Jeb Bush, after declining to comment upon the Pope's remark, went on to say he favoured an effective US / Mexico border which might require a Wall.  

If the Pope wished to comment about Trump's Christianity, he ought perhaps to have referred to the host of other derogatory remarks Donald Trump made regarding Mexicans & Muslims, many of which don't immediately strike one as being particularly Christian.


Siegfried Walther 2016

Also: Link to FBI v Apple. Court no power to make the Order it did. http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2016/02/apple-v-fbi-court-no-power-to-order.html

+Donald Trump

+Jeb Bush

+The Pope Benedict XVI Fan Club

+US Election

Apple vs FBI Court no power to order Apple to create a Fix! (Article updated. New US Case)

+Apple vs +FBI  The FBI federal bureau of investigation 

**** Updated - Recent US Court decision agrees with my legal opinion almost word for word!!!

I refer to the FIN24.com article which gives the background to the legal battle between Apple and the FBI. I quote the article below for convenience http://www.fin24.com/Tech/News/apple-fights-dangerous-order-to-hack-iphone-20160218 

En Passant - iPHONES MUST BE VERY SECURE

The first point to make is that by opposing the Court Order, Apple are drawing attention to just how secure their iPhones apparently are.

Consider the vast resources available to the FBI and the wide array of top computer experts the FBI would be able to call upon. Clearly it did call upon its experts, which surely also included several former hackers who instead of being imprisoned for other offences, were instead offered a chance to repent by working for the FBI for a few years.

That the FBI were forced to approach the Court is a tribute to the security provisions Apple introduced to protect the information their clients store on their iPhones.

Legal Opinion - THE COURT ORDER SEEMS UNDULY WIDE IN THAT IT SEEKS TO COMPEL APPLE TO ACTUALLY CREATE A SOLUTION!

The debate about whether the rights of privacy of individual iPhone users should give way to the search and seizure rights of law enforcement agency in terrorism and other criminal cases misses what I consider to be the main point. The Court, in my view, does not have the power to make the order it did in the first place.

Consider the following statement from Apple.

"The US government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone," Apple said.
"In the wrong hands, this software - which does not exist today - would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession."

It would be one thing if the FBI could have shown that Apple already have a fix or backdoor which might allow the user of such fix to unlock any iPhone. I suspect that such a scenario represents the high watermark of the intended limits of the Order granted.

But since such fix or backdoor apparently does not exist, I suspect that no Court has the power to actually order Apple or any other manufacturer to in fact create such a fix. 

The order as it stands falls short of an actual order to create a fix, but to the extent that it might be so interpreted, I am certain that Apple will win the case on that very point.

Since the FBI do not have a contract with Apple to create the fix, the obligation to create a fix cannot arise from Contract.

Since creating a secure phone is not a delict / Tort, there can be no obligation to create a fix in delict or tort law.

A US Court might have wide powers under US security legislation or the Constitution to order third parties to comply with legal search & seizure Orders, which would include  Apple having to hand over a fix or  backdoor "key" if there was one in existence.  However one looks at it, such an order is one which compels a third party to permit, grant or assist the FBI to gain access. In these types of orders, the word "assist" must be narrowly construed. It is the FBI who have the duty to search and it is they who have the power to seize. The third party's role to assist is limited to acts like unlocking premises in the third party's care, handing over documents in the third party's care, or providing the FBI with the means to access those documents in the third party's care etc. etc.

An order to create such a solution, however, is another matter entirely. It would be akin to sanctioning a form of slave labour, which would be rendered involuntarily and on an unpaid basis. Such an order cannot be enforceable. Even if the Order provided for Apple to be compensated for their efforts, the fact that Apple would have no choice in the matter would be unconstitutional in my view.

The line between an order compelling a party to permit access or to create the means to enable access might seem arbitrary, but it is not.  The FBI has the job of fighting crime and terrorism in the US. A scenario where a Court has the power to in fact impose a positive duty on citizens to do the FBI's Job for it is too ghastly to contemplate.

Let me explain by means of another law enforcement situation which seems to occur in US movies from time to time. Assume that a police office has the power, in an emergency, to ask a citizen to step out of his car and to permit the officer to "commandeer" it. If such right to commandeer indeed exists in the US, this would be one thing. However, a police officer cannot simply hop into the passenger seat of the car, flash his badge to the driver, announce that he is commandeering it and then order the driver to "Follow that car!" The drive would be entitled to refuse! Why? It's not the citizen's job, and in a free country, one cannot arbitrarily be ordered to do someone else's job!

 Fred Kaplan in @Slate http://slate.me/1Ud1H9T  argues this, though:

As Shane Harris reported in the Daily Beast, Apple has unlocked phones, at the government’s request or under court order, at least 70 times since 2008. In doing so, Apple implicitly accepted the principle that the government has the right, under court-approved circumstances, to get inside Apple-made phones. Cook designed the iOS8 operating system in 2014 precisely to evade further requests: Under the new system, the user sets the code, so if the government asks Apple executives to unlock a phone, they can honestly say they can’t. Now the FBI has devised a way around the problem by asking Apple to shut off the data-wipe feature, so the phone can be unlocked with brute force. The technique is different, but the outcome—letting the government into a phone designed by Apple—is the same. Cook may have changed his mind about the government’s right to his products’—his customers’—contents; he may regret ever cooperating in the first place. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Apple accepted the principle in the past, and the company’s identity and ownership haven’t changed in the interim.

 I disagree.

In the first instance, relief sought by the FBI and granted by the Court is different from past instances. Apple are being asked to go further than they have in the past... to DO or CREATE a solution as opposed to simply PERMITTING  or Assisting the FBI to gain access to the iPhone using existing methods.

Secondly, If I'm wrong, however, to the extent that Apple's conduct could be argued to be DOING or CREATING something, there are two answers.
Either the Court orders amounted to Judicial overreach,  i.e. the Orders went further than Constitutionally permitted OR Apple voluntarily chose to provide assistance in excess of that specified in past orders.

Neither of the above prevents Apple from challenging the illegality of the present order.  If the present order goes further than the law permits, and it is challenged, then the argument that Apple may have complied with previous such orders won't assist the FBI.

Also the fact that Apple may have chosen to provide assistance to the FBI which may have exceeded the strict terms of past Court Orders cannot amount to a valid lawful waiver by Apple of its constitutional right to now challenge an existing Order it deems to be unlawful. The question of whether or the Government has the right to get inside iPhones is cannot be determined by having regard to Apple's past compliance with such orders.

The importance of the above challenge is that the Government bears the onus of proving that it is entitled to an order as far reaching as the one it obtained. Only once it can establish that, which in my view it cannot, could the defence Apple raises, set out below, be contemplated.

Quite apart from the above, is the argument Apple have already raised about the rights of their existing customers to the security the iPhone presently offers. Here the onus would presumably be on Apple. Also, since there are pros and cons on both sides, the argument is more difficult.

Siegfried Walther  18 Feb 2016

UPDate: See recent US Court decision. 29/2/2016 (Further Below) Virtually everything I said, word for word and I'm not even a US Lawyer.

 

 

 

FIN24.COM ARTICLE http://www.fin24.com/Tech/News/apple-fights-dangerous-order-to-hack-iphone-20160218

Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. (Jeff Chiu, AP)

       

San Francisco - Apple has rejected a judge's order to help the FBI break into an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, warning it was "too dangerous" to create such a backdoor to the smartphones.
US magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple on Tuesday to provide "reasonable technical assistance" to the FBI, including disabling an auto-erase feature after too many unsuccessful attempts are made to unlock the iPhone 5C.
Federal prosecutors had filed a motion requesting Apple's help after the FBI failed to crack the phone's code two months into the investigation into the December rampage.
Syed Farook, a US citizen, and his Pakistani wife Tashfeen Malik gunned down 14 people at an office party in San Bernardino, California, before they were killed in a shootout with police.
But Apple said it would fight the judge's order, firing the latest shot in a growing debate over encryption pitting the government against tech companies.
"The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers," Apple chief executive Tim Cook said in a statement on the company's website.
"We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand."
Cook said it was too risky to provide the requested software because it could allow ill-intentioned individuals to unlock any iPhone and raises major privacy concerns.
"The US government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone," Apple said.
"In the wrong hands, this software - which does not exist today - would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession.
"While the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control," he said, adding that Apple has cooperated with the FBI thus far.
By disabling the security features, the FBI would be able to attempt as many different password combinations as needed before gaining access to the phone.
It was the property of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which employed Farook, and the authority had agreed to the search of the phone.
'Chilling'
Pym ordered Apple to provide software that would only run on the device in question, or any other technological means to access its data.
But Apple said it was impossible to create such a tool that could only be used once, on one phone.
"Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices," Apple said.
"In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks - from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable."
The US government is concerned that commercially-available encryption benefits criminals.
Tech companies, intent on securing the trust of consumers after government spying revelations made by Edward Snowden, have been reluctant to be seen as helping authorities spy on users.
"We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack," Apple said.
"The implications of the government's demands are chilling."
"If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone's device to capture their data."
Cook warned that if Apple complied with the order, the government could demand surveillance software to intercept, access health and financial data, track users' location or access a phone's microphone or camera without the user's knowledge.
"We are challenging the FBI's demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country," Cook added.
US Attorney Eileen Decker had earlier called the order "another step - a potentially important step - in the process of learning everything we possibly can about the attack in San Bernardino."
FBI Director James Comey revealed last week that investigators had not been able to crack open the phone two months into the investigation.
"It affects our counterterrorism work," he said.

See Greenwald & McLaughlin article https://theintercept.com/2016/02/29/apple-wins-major-court-victory-in-its-battle-against-fbi-in-a-case-similar-to-san-bernardino/

Apple scored a major legal victory in its ongoing battle against the FBI on Monday when a federal magistrate judge in New York rejected the U.S. government’s request as part of a drug case to force the company to help it extract data from a locked iPhone. The ruling from U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein was issued as part of the criminal case against Jun Feng, who pleaded guilty in October to drug charges. It is a significant boost to Apple’s well-publicized campaign to resist the FBI’s similar efforts in the case of the San Bernardino killers.
In the case that gave rise to Monday’s ruling, the Drug Enforcement Administration had seized — but, even after consultation with the FBI, claimed it was unable to access — Feng’s iPhone 5. The DEA and FBI said they could not overcome security measures embedded in Apple’s operating system. The government thus filed a motion seeking an order requiring “Apple to assist” the investigation “under the authority of the All Writs Act” — the same 1789 law the FBI is invoking in the San Bernardino case — by “help[ing] the government bypass the passcode security.” Apple objected, noting that there were nine other cases currently pending in which the government was seeking a similar order.
Judge Orenstein applied previous legal decisions interpreting the AWA and concluded that the law does not “justif[y] imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government’s investigation against its will.” In a formulation extremely favorable to Apple, the judge wrote that the key question raised by the government’s request is whether the AWA allows a court “to compel Apple — a private party with no alleged involvement in Feng’s criminal activity — to perform work for the government against its will.”
The court ruled that the law permits no such result — both because relevant law contains limits on what companies like Apple are required to do, and because Congress never enacted any such obligations. Moreover, the judge said of the government’s arguments for how the AWA should be applied: “The implications of the government’s position are so far-reaching — both in terms of what it would allow today and what it implies about congressional intent in 1789 — as to produce impermissibly absurd results.”

+Apple vs FBI
+FBI vs Apple

#ApplevsFBI
#FBIvsApple