17家科技公司聯(lián)名提交了一份訴訟案情摘要，支持蘋果拒絕美國(guó)聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）解鎖死亡恐怖分子的iPhone的要求。

這些公司中包括許多硅谷巨頭，如eBay、LinkedIn和Twitter。他們聯(lián)合提交的非當(dāng)事人意見陳述認(rèn)為：“政府調(diào)查部門沒有法律依據(jù)”來強(qiáng)迫蘋果解鎖iPhone。他們表示，要求蘋果解鎖手機(jī)會(huì)“威脅到構(gòu)建互聯(lián)網(wǎng)秩序基礎(chǔ)的隱私、安全和透明的核心原則”。

聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局希望讓蘋果開發(fā)新的軟件，破解手機(jī)的安全保護(hù)，從而幫助調(diào)查者獲得圣貝納迪諾（San Bernardino）槍擊案兇手的數(shù)據(jù)。蘋果以政府、黑客和罪犯可能會(huì)濫用這種工具為由，拒絕了這一要求。

AT&T和英特爾（Intel）的高管在周四分別發(fā)表博文，在這場(chǎng)辯論中站在了蘋果的一邊。據(jù)《財(cái)富》雜志了解，Box和Mozilla則將加入谷歌（Google）、Nest Labs、Facebook 、WhatsApp、Evernote、Snapchat、微軟（Microsoft）、雅虎（Yahoo）等公司，聯(lián)合提交訴訟文件。

Box的共同創(chuàng)始人和首席執(zhí)行官艾倫?列維在一份聲明中表示：“讓蘋果破壞或削弱安全性能，有損我們?cè)跀?shù)字時(shí)代對(duì)科技的集體信任。相反，我們需要展開一場(chǎng)公開、公共的對(duì)話，來討論如何幫助我們一起應(yīng)對(duì)隱私和安全的權(quán)利平衡。”

簽署非當(dāng)事人意見陳述的其他機(jī)構(gòu)還包括Airbnb、Atlassian、Automattic、CloudFlare、Github、Kickstarter、Mapbox、Medium、Meetup、Reddit、Square 、Squarespace、Twilio和Wickr。他們表示：“從本質(zhì)上來說，政府在這起案件中的需求超出了任何法律的適用范圍。此外，強(qiáng)迫一家公司降低自己的安全性能，對(duì)安全領(lǐng)域的所有投資都起到了抑制作用：各公司精心設(shè)計(jì)的安全系統(tǒng)會(huì)不會(huì)因?yàn)榉ㄔ旱囊蠖黄刃薷模克麄儗?duì)此沒有信心。

包括甲骨文（Oracle）、IBM、Autodesk和Salesforce在內(nèi)的行業(yè)貿(mào)易組織商業(yè)軟件聯(lián)盟（Business Software Alliance）同樣站在了蘋果一邊。消費(fèi)技術(shù)協(xié)會(huì)（Consumer Technology Association）、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)協(xié)會(huì)（Internet Association）、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施聯(lián)盟（Internet Infrastructure Coalition）、計(jì)算機(jī)與通信行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)（Computer & Communications Industry Association）、信息技術(shù)工業(yè)委員會(huì)（Information Technology Industry Council）等許多其他貿(mào)易組織和非盈利機(jī)構(gòu)也是如此。

據(jù)《今日美國(guó)》報(bào)道，支持FBI觀點(diǎn)的機(jī)構(gòu)包括執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)、律師協(xié)會(huì)等，而T-Mobile、Sprint和威瑞森（Verizon）等電信巨頭還沒有表明自己的立場(chǎng)。

正如人們所料，許多反對(duì)聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局請(qǐng)求的案情摘要，都將矛頭對(duì)準(zhǔn)了政府對(duì)《全令法案》（All Writs Act）的使用。執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)援引這項(xiàng)已有一個(gè)多世紀(jì)之久的法案，來證明自己搜查的合法性。反對(duì)者引用了滑坡謬誤來支持自己的觀點(diǎn)。他們害怕執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)一旦獲取迫使公司重新設(shè)計(jì)系統(tǒng)，以削弱安全措施的權(quán)利，將會(huì)“后患無窮”。

Twitter在提交的文件中表示：“政府的要求可能會(huì)開創(chuàng)一個(gè)先例，被用于在將來要求阿米西（Amici）或其他公司提供可能會(huì)破壞自身產(chǎn)品的技術(shù)支持。至少，一旦蘋果遵照命令，撰寫了破解代碼，政府就可能會(huì)試圖要求蘋果一次又一次地使用這樣的代碼。”

作者繼續(xù)寫道，聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局的法庭判令“要求法院去做國(guó)會(huì)拒絕做的事情。但《全令法案》不能讓政府獲得國(guó)會(huì)不愿意提供的權(quán)利。”

美國(guó)司法部（The Department of Justice）并未立刻針對(duì)此事做出評(píng)論。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

A coalition of 17 tech companies has filed a legal brief supporting Apple in its fight against the FBIover access to a dead terrorist’s iPhone.

The members, which include many of the biggest Silicon Valley companies including eBay EBAY 0.93% , LinkedIn LNKD -2.15% , and Twitter TWTR 4.15% , submitted a joint amicus brief that argued that “the government’s investigative arm has no legal basis” to force Apple to help unlock the iPhone. They said that requiring Apple to unlock the phone “threatens the core principles of privacy, security, and transparency that underlie the fabric of the Internet.”

The FBI wants to compel Apple to develop new software that would undermine the security protections on its phones so that investigators can access data of one of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple has refused by arguing that governments, hackers, and criminals could easily abuse such a tool.

AT&TandIntel separately took Apple’s side in the debate, as executives at both companies clarified in blog postson Thursday. Boxand Mozilla are set to file a joint submission alongside Google, Nest Labs, Facebook, WhatsApp, Evernote, Snapchat, Microsoft, and Yahoo, Fortune has learned.

“Asking Apple to break or weaken its security features undermines our collective trust in technology in the digital age,” Aaron Levie, co-founder and CEO of Box, said in a statement.“Instead, we need an open, public dialog focused on helping us collectively strike the right balance between privacy and security.”

Other signers of the amicus brief includes Airbnb, Atlassian, Automattic, CloudFlare, Github, Kickstarter, Mapbox, Medium, Meetup, Reddit, Square, Squarespace, Twilio, and Wickr. “The government’s demand here, at its core, is unbound by any legal limits,” they said. “Moreover, forcing a company to undermine its own security measures provides a powerful disincentive to invest in security: firms could have no confidence that their carefully designed security systems would not be redesigned by court order.”

The Business Software Alliance, an industry trade group that includes Oracle ORCL 0.34% , IBM IBM 1.10% , Autodesk ADSK 0.70% , and Salesforce CRM 0.53% , is siding with Apple as well. A number of other trade groups and non-profit organizations are doing so, too, including the Consumer Technology Association, the Internet Association, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition,the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Information Technology Industry Council. (A full list of official supporters is available here.)

Briefs filed in favor of the FBI’s view have included ones from law enforcement agencies, attorney associations, and others, while telecom giants such as T-Mobile TMUS 0.52% , Sprint S 6.67% , and Verizon VZ -0.44% have not yet clarified their positions, as USA Today reports.

As expected, many of the briefs filed in opposition to the FBI’s request take aim at the government’s use of the All Writs Act, a centuries-old search warrant law that the agency has used to justify its authority. Opponents cite a slippery slope argument, fearing that granting law enforcement the power to compel companies to undermine their security through system redesigns would be “boundless.”

“The government’s request would set a precedent that could be used in future cases to require Amici or others to provide technical assistance in a manner that undermines the very products they offer,” said the filing of which Twitter was a part. “At the very least, once Apple has written code to comply with the order, the government may seek orders to compel it to use such code over and over again.”

The FBI’s court order, the authors continue: “asks this Court to do exactly what Congress refused to do. But the Act cannot be invoked to grant the government powers Congress intentionally chose not to provide it.”

The Department of Justice did not immediately reply to Fortune’s request for comment.