American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Esha Bhandari talks about their findings regarding how Google and Apple have handled government requests to unlock smartphones. Bobbi Rebell reports.
Apple apparently not alone in being asked by the government to crack open those four investigations. The American Civil Liberties Union says US is similar cases. Here is why Asia sorry she is staff attorney when he speech privacy and technology project at the ACU. Our tell me what did you guys find. We found that there are at least 63 confirmed cases where the government has used an all right act quarter and nine of those cases involve Google. So what is different about Google vs apple in terms of the way to companies are structured and how these cases are different. As far as we can tell the task from the government has been the same. They've gone to Google and apple instead we have a mobile device here that you manufactured and we need to unlock it for us. And so what's different Google because apple they call ecosystem that Google it's also different people actually hundred pounds. That's right and the key is that the government's saying that. Google controls the ability to bypass the lock on this done so even the mechanisms might be different and Google's security is different because the phones are different. Each time the government said Google's the only party that can help us and that's why this orders this. And so how have those cases gotten an apple has cooperated Jesus but obviously the most recent and break in case. We had to. The problem which was ultimately resolved by third party what's been Google's reaction to them. We have no evidence that any of these orders were objected to. Google says it's never received an order similar to the San Bernardino order which required the creation of new software. All of these orders that we found involved unlocking the devices through capabilities that Google has fast. But as far as we can tell who will comply with them there's nothing in the publicly available information to suggest anything different. So this is sort of the normal course of business now where these companies are expected to open up the phones sitting it doesn't cover my missile system as and the Serbs and burning it Bridget if apple was saying. Well these cases certainly demonstrate that the government is acting as if it this is the normal course of business but one of the reasons that the Sandburg in case was so important is it's. It was an opportunity for the court to clarify that this is actually not okayed it. This law doesn't provide this authority. And to put a stop to it and prevent the legal precedent from being established so what happens because it seems like thirty wasn't Leo president now we have this unique case. We're gonna go from here. I think it's only inevitable that there will be future mobile device that the government or some some law enforcement agency can't get into and we might be right back to the drawing board with the new legal fight. So is still up in the air really house could be resolved at this point. That's true the legal battles not over it that he's so much to you our thanks to the ASEAN is patient and Harry I'm talking about this is Reuters.