Are you sure? (Other than your inflammatory "involuntary servitude" silliness.)
A warrant actually can compel third parties to help in a search. What do you think happens when a business gets a warrant? They have to assign someone to go search for and find the records the warrant asks for.
Or if you serve a bank a warrant to open a safe - the bank has to go and help open the safe.
While true, in your examples the third party is obtaining something that is already within their possession and they are not being asked to create something new. There is a reasonableness to searching for a document, but essentially Apple is being asked to create something that does not exist.
Think about the first court case where this "FBiOS" is used against a person that is on trial. Wouldn't the defense have a potential field day with this, and wouldn't Apple then be drug into every trial to testify? I could see the defense claiming that because the OS was replaced it is impossible to determine for sure what the original device contained versus what the government may have added to it.
Essentially from my very limited understanding of forensic techniques, techs are not allowed to ever add software to a device and can only search the device. Otherwise they are essentially "modifying" evidence. But I am not an expert in this area so I may not be fully understanding some of the intricacies.
Yea, it may be true for this one case that they are not looking for evidence so much as leads. The problem is this one case affects 100's or potentially thousands of others in the future, by setting legal precedent.
Based on news reports there are currently 100's of criminal cases and many prosecutors waiting to use the "FBiOS" once it is developed. If the DOJ's goal was strictly about terrorism there are alternative ways to solve this and Apple would likely be more accommodating, as it appears they have been in the past. But the DOJ is now looking to establish legal precedent within the courts so it can be used routinely and not just for terrorism cases.
No. That is what the draft does. And if it is legal and constitutional for the government to take a kid, ship it half way across the world and get him killed - i think that commenting two if's in a codebase and recompiling are quite less onerous.
The draft is authorized by express constitutional provisions regarding the militia and powers related thereto assigned to Congress (for providing rules for calling them into service) and the President (for directing them once so called) and implemented through statutes adopted by Congress.
Unless you imagine that the All Writs Act is intended to be an exercise of Congress powers relating to the militia, that's not really going to support this order.
