# Apple refuses a court order to create a San Bernardino iPhone unlock tool

Date: 2016

## The fact

On 16 February 2016 Apple publicly refused an all-writs order to build a tool unlocking a San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, a completed encryption-and-law-enforcement cluster under Cook. The FBI later unlocked without Apple’s tool.

## Context

Neighbouring privacy rhetoric is later brand. Neighbouring China store politics is a different sovereignty file. He did not write the All Writs Act.

2014 essay is neighbouring civic speech. China production is neighbouring localisation.

[Tim Cook](/people/tim-cook) has been Apple CEO since 24 August 2011. He does not write a DOJ complaint, a Commission DMA decision, an Irish Finance Act, or a Chinese Cyberspace Administration rule. Steve Jobs is a different, dead person. A product launch is not a labour statute. A privacy keynote is not a completed DMA compliance certificate. Keep those dates separate. A 10-K climate page is not a unique ppm. An assembler audit is not a unique suicide count as his personal tally. A DMA listing is not a completed sideload world. A DOJ complaint is not a breakup. TSMC fabricates; Foxconn assembles; App Review enforces.

## Evidence and sources

Apple carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently.

## Significance

The path is [personal-data-protection](/drivers/personal-data-protection) mixed with [democratic resilience](/drivers/democratic-resilience): a completed refusal is a device-integrity instrument that also delayed a lawful-access request.

## What is established and what is not

Established: 16 February 2016 public refusal of the FBI unlock order, independently reported.

Not established: that the FBI never opened the phone — they later did by other means — or a unique later attack coefficient.

What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions.

The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit.

Lawyers litigated. The FBI found another path. The court had ordered. He did not sit as the magistrate.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies Apple refuses a court order to create a San Bernardino iPhone unlock tool, not a later speech about Apple refuses a court order to create a San Bernardino iPhone unlock tool.

Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. Apple refuses a court order to create a San Bernardino iPhone unlock tool on 2016-02-16 is not a licence to treat every later Apple communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average Apple refuses a court order to create a San Bernardino iPhone unlock tool into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to He owned the refusal as CEO. Lawyers litigated. The FBI found another path. The court had ordered. He did not sit as the magistrate. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series.

## People

- Tim Cook: https://factrail.ai/people/tim-cook

## Drivers

- Personal-Data Protection: https://factrail.ai/drivers/personal-data-protection
- Democratic Resilience: https://factrail.ai/drivers/democratic-resilience

## Sources

- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-idUSKCN0VP0K420160216
- https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

## Methodology

https://factrail.ai/methodology

Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/aapl-fbi-2016