Apple defends stand in Brooklyn case on iPhone access

WASHINGTON, United States - Apple urged a federal court Friday to reject efforts to force the company to help break into an iPhone as part of a New York drug investigation.

In the latest case involving efforts to compel Apple to help law enforcement break encryption, the company said the court should simply rule the assistance is unnecessary and not authorized by law.

The case in a federal court in Brooklyn comes weeks after the FBI dropped a hotly contested effort to require Apple to weaken the security of an iPhone used by one of the shooters in last year's attacks in San Bernardino, California.

In this case, Apple attorneys argued, the court can avoid a "constitutional thicket" and rule on "narrower grounds."

The Justice Department earlier this month appealed a decision by a US magistrate in Apple's favor, saying it still wants the company to extract pictures, text messages and other digital data from an iPhone used by someone accused of trafficking in methamphetamines.

The case is one of several pending in US courts as lawmakers and others debate whether Apple and other tech firms should be required to help break strong encryption, which in many cases allows only the user to access data, with no "keys" held by the company.

Apple said the government's interpretation of the All Writs Act -- a 1789 law that gives the courts wide latitude to help law enforcement -- was "soundly rejected" by the magistrate's ruling.

"It simply is not the case that federal courts can issue any order the executive branch dreams up unless and until Congress expressly prohibits it," the brief said. "That construction of the All Writs Act has it exactly backwards."

The company also said such an order isn't needed because of the "likely minimal evidentiary value of any data on the phone" given that all defendants have pleaded guilty.

The latest filing comes with Congress set to take up a bill that would require tech companies to provide technical assistance to law enforcement to help break encryption.

The proposal is facing intense criticism from civil liberties activists and tech firms, while organizations backing law enforcement support the measure.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

Fil-Ams getting health insurance as Obamacare deadline nears

NEW YORK – March 31 is a deadline that will cost you $95 if you don’t have health insurance and it's a fine that will cost you even more next year.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or more commonly known as Obamacare is a federal law enacted to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance.

It's meant to lower the rate of the uninsured by expanding public and private insurance coverage and reducing the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government.

New York's Office of Citiwide health outreach specialist Iman James said, "Don't wait until March 30th because they might ask for income verification or they may ask you to verify your identity and that might take longer and you might miss that open enrollment date."

US Department of Health officials said you don't have to enroll in plans in the marketplace if you already have health insurance coverage through your employer.

But if an individual is unemployed, or if their health insurance premium costs are equal to or greater than 10 percent of their personal or household income, they may be eligible for free public insurance or lower cost health insurance.

New York resident John Mallonga said he is young, in good health and he feels that he doesn’t really need to spend for health insurance at this time.

While the penalty is not his main concern, he said it doesn’t hurt to start looking into the cheapest available private insurance he could get at the Obamacare Market Place.

Mallonga said, "I just think that Affordable Care Act is a good proposition for the whole country so it will be better for us in the long run. The truth is, all of us should be covered.”

Meantime, Jen Furer and her husband are self-employed, running a consulting company that makes more than $126,000 a year.

Pre-Obamacare, she said, for a family of six, they pay nearly $17,000 a year for premium health insurance plan.

"No Deductibles, very minimal co-payment and I could go to any specialist that I want. When Obamacare kicked in starting this year, I was informed that my plan was increasing to $33,000," Furer said.

Furer said under Obamacare, their consulting firm no longer qualifies as small business without having a single paid employee.

She pointed out that if their income stayed below $120,000 annually, she would have qualified for a tax subsidy of $8,376.

Obamacare experts advise Furer to look into other ways to insure her family with the help of navigators who could guide her through her family’s healthcare needs.

Navigator Caitlin O’Brian said, "If you have four kids, I'd have you come see a navigator, instead of just doing it on the website because there are lots of other things that you can do to kind of tweak it."

The deadline to find a healthcare plan using the Market Place is on March 31. Obamacare experts told people not to wait until the last minute to get insured to avoid various penalties.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

Obama administration urges US Justices to overturn anti-gay marriage law

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration outlined its argument on Friday why the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and woman.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief with the court saying that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, expanding on the administration's approach to the controversial 1996 law, which it has formally opposed since February 2011.

Section 3 defines marriage under federal law as being between a man and a woman.

The law denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples that are granted to married heterosexuals.

The administration's position is that the law violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

In the brief, Verrilli said there was a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians that required the Supreme Court to take a careful look at any law that specifically targets them as a group.

He therefore urged the court to take an approach to analyzing the law known as "heightened scrutiny," which, if adopted by the court, could make it more likely the court would find the law unconstitutional.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite sex couples," he wrote.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the case on March 27, the day after it weighs the constitutionality of a California law, Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state.

The administration has until Thursday to decide whether to weigh in on Proposition 8.

source: abs-cbnnews.com