The case is 15-mc-1902. Documents turn up via Google.
Footnote 3, page 3 of the order states:
Apple has previously been ordered to extract data from devices running iOS 7 or earlier and has
performed such extractions. These orders generally come in the body of search warrants and
contain specific language to avoid confusion over the scope and legitimacy of the demand on
Apple. This case marks the first time a judge has questioned the authority of the All Writs Act to grant supplemental orders to accompany such warrants and asked Apple for its views on the feasibility and burden associated with such an order before issuing
Maybe they have unlocked 70 historically, but this all changed with the introduction of the Secure Enclave and TouchID. I believe they're saying they can't do it now, so the 70 number is essentially irrelevant in the context of the current debate.
3 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 16.4 ms ] threadThe case is 15-mc-1902. Documents turn up via Google.
Footnote 3, page 3 of the order states:
Apple has previously been ordered to extract data from devices running iOS 7 or earlier and has performed such extractions. These orders generally come in the body of search warrants and contain specific language to avoid confusion over the scope and legitimacy of the demand on Apple. This case marks the first time a judge has questioned the authority of the All Writs Act to grant supplemental orders to accompany such warrants and asked Apple for its views on the feasibility and burden associated with such an order before issuing
https://cryptome.org/2015/10/apple-search-011.pdf
I didn't dig any deeper to confirm the claim of 70.