“Just because they’ve never objected before, there’s nothing that precludes them from raising that argument now,” Andrew Crocker, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told the Guardian.
“I think the biggest thing that’s changed is that a judge questioned if this was a good use of the law, and whether Apple should be compelled to have to do this. Apple’s brief, the way they explained it, is that they’ve never been a party to one of these cases. Even though they’ve complied before, they’ve never been directly involved where a judge said ‘Wait a minute. Maybe this isn’t the right use of the general-purpose All Writs Act to force them to unlock the phone.’ [Apple’s] argument is that it’s going to far to always compel a third party that has neither possession or control of this information to unlock the phone. I think that’s a really legitimate argument.”