The U.S. government has withdrawn a lawsuit against Apple about iPhone hacking

The U.S. Department of justice has withdrawn filed in a California court a lawsuit against Apple, which contained the requirement to unlock encrypted iPhone that belonged to one of the accused in the terrorist attack in California San Bernardino in December 2015. About it reports Reuters with a reference to the file of the court.

The statement of the Ministry of justice submitted to the court, said that the government had accessed the phone of the terrorist and “no longer needs” help from Apple.

The Wall Street Journal quoted the press Secretary of the U.S. Department of justice Melanie Newman, who said that the FBI “is currently studying information from your phone in accordance with standard investigative procedures.”

Last week it was reported that the U.S. justice Department asked to postpone a court hearing on the case of hacking the smartphone, which was scheduled for March 22. Their request to the Ministry of justice explained that the Apple may not be necessary: the FBI has proposed a method which will allow you to unlock your own gadget without the assistance of the company.

Apple promptly refused to comment on the withdrawal of the suit, Reuters reports.

The U.S. justice Department and the FBI sought from Apple hacking iPhone Sayed Farouk, who along with his wife killed 14 people in San Bernardino and was killed during a special operation of special services. His smartphone could store information that could help in the investigation, confident in the FBI. However, the encryption in recent versions of iOS Apple doesn’t allow to hack the device.

The FBI asked the company to create for cases like the case of Farouk, “the back door” — the mechanism of selection of the code access to the device without the risk of deleting all files on your smartphone. On 16 February a court in the US ordered Apple to assist the FBI in the investigation. The company refuses to satisfy the request of the FBI.

Apple CEO Tim cook stated that such a requirement threatens the safety of the company’s clients and the consequences of such a precedent “are far beyond the legal framework”.