Not Backing Down on Backdoors, Apple Takes Privacy Fight to Capitol Hill
Congressional hearing comes one day after Apple wins 'major legal victory' that could impact outcome of California case
Apple and the FBI will take their high-profile encryption battle to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with both sides calling on Congress to weigh in on the "watershed" privacy case and the significant precedents it could set.
FBI Director James Comey, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and Apple's senior vice president and general counsel, Bruce Sewell, will testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing titled "The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans' Security and Privacy."
Sewell is expected to reiterate Apple's argument that building a backdoor to the iPhone linked to the San Bernardino attacks "would not affect just one iPhone."
"The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products," Sewell wrote in prepared testimony (pdf). "Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety. It would set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion on the privacy and safety of its citizens."
On the other hand, Vance will urge Congress to pass a law requiring companies like Apple to retain user keys for decrypting user data, according to testimony on the committee's website. A November proposal from Vance's office argued that Congress requires any phone manufactured or sold in the U.S. "must be able to be unlocked, or its data accessed, by the operating system designer" pursuant to a court order.
Not doing so, Vance will argue, "cripples even the most basic steps of a criminal investigation."
But in a statement on Tuesday, digital rights group Fight for the Future warned that "what the FBI is asking Apple to do will make us less safe, not more safe."
"If we allow the government to set a precedent that they can force private companies to punch holes in the technological defenses that keep us safe, it's not a question of if someone to will exploit that to cause harm to the public, it's a question of when," Fight for the Future co-founder Holmes Wilson said. "Congress needs to listen to security experts by unequivocally supporting strong encryption and opposing backdoors."
The hearing will occur at 1 p.m. EST, and can be watched on C-SPAN 3. The House Judiciary Committee hosts its own livestream as well.
The proceedings come one day after Apple "scored a major legal victory" when a judge in New York ruled that the U.S. government could not compel the tech company to unlock an iPhone so investigators could analyze its data as part of a drug case.
In a 50-page ruling, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein found that the All Writs Act--the same law the government is citing in the San Bernadino case--did not justify the government's request. According to Reuters, "Orenstein also found that Apple was largely exempt from complying with such requests by a 1994 law that updated wiretapping laws."
Ars Technica writes that "[t]he ruling, the first of its kind on the topic, has no legal bearing on the outcome of the California case as they are proceeding in different federal judicial districts. Apple hopes, however, that that Riverside judge will be 'persuaded' by the decision, according to a company executive who was granted anonymity on a call with reporters."
Meanwhile, security and law enforcement experts told Politico this week, it's unlikely that investigators will find "much useful new information" even if they are granted access to the iPhone in question.
So why do all the hubbubs happen over one single smartphone?
Politico reports: "Critics say the FBI is picking a fight with Apple over long-standing tensions about the increasing impenetrability of the iPhone's encryption, rather than acting from an immediate, pressing need to extract evidence."
As one ex-Department of Homeland Security official said, echoing arguments made by Apple and its supporters: The FBI is "hoping to set a precedent."
Indeed, said former FBI special agent and whistleblower Colleen Rowley in a recent op-ed, Comey's assertion to the contrary is "disingenuous."
"Does he not know that the government's 'Plan B' secret agenda to create 'workarounds' to defeat encryption recently came to light?" Rowley wrote. "Does he expect us to believe that he was not part of the secret White House meeting last fall where senior national security officials ordered agencies to find ways to counter encryption software and gain access to the most heavily protected user data on the most secure consumer devices, including Apple Inc.'s?"
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Apple and the FBI will take their high-profile encryption battle to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with both sides calling on Congress to weigh in on the "watershed" privacy case and the significant precedents it could set.
FBI Director James Comey, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and Apple's senior vice president and general counsel, Bruce Sewell, will testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing titled "The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans' Security and Privacy."
Sewell is expected to reiterate Apple's argument that building a backdoor to the iPhone linked to the San Bernardino attacks "would not affect just one iPhone."
"The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products," Sewell wrote in prepared testimony (pdf). "Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety. It would set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion on the privacy and safety of its citizens."
On the other hand, Vance will urge Congress to pass a law requiring companies like Apple to retain user keys for decrypting user data, according to testimony on the committee's website. A November proposal from Vance's office argued that Congress requires any phone manufactured or sold in the U.S. "must be able to be unlocked, or its data accessed, by the operating system designer" pursuant to a court order.
Not doing so, Vance will argue, "cripples even the most basic steps of a criminal investigation."
But in a statement on Tuesday, digital rights group Fight for the Future warned that "what the FBI is asking Apple to do will make us less safe, not more safe."
"If we allow the government to set a precedent that they can force private companies to punch holes in the technological defenses that keep us safe, it's not a question of if someone to will exploit that to cause harm to the public, it's a question of when," Fight for the Future co-founder Holmes Wilson said. "Congress needs to listen to security experts by unequivocally supporting strong encryption and opposing backdoors."
The hearing will occur at 1 p.m. EST, and can be watched on C-SPAN 3. The House Judiciary Committee hosts its own livestream as well.
The proceedings come one day after Apple "scored a major legal victory" when a judge in New York ruled that the U.S. government could not compel the tech company to unlock an iPhone so investigators could analyze its data as part of a drug case.
In a 50-page ruling, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein found that the All Writs Act--the same law the government is citing in the San Bernadino case--did not justify the government's request. According to Reuters, "Orenstein also found that Apple was largely exempt from complying with such requests by a 1994 law that updated wiretapping laws."
Ars Technica writes that "[t]he ruling, the first of its kind on the topic, has no legal bearing on the outcome of the California case as they are proceeding in different federal judicial districts. Apple hopes, however, that that Riverside judge will be 'persuaded' by the decision, according to a company executive who was granted anonymity on a call with reporters."
Meanwhile, security and law enforcement experts told Politico this week, it's unlikely that investigators will find "much useful new information" even if they are granted access to the iPhone in question.
So why do all the hubbubs happen over one single smartphone?
Politico reports: "Critics say the FBI is picking a fight with Apple over long-standing tensions about the increasing impenetrability of the iPhone's encryption, rather than acting from an immediate, pressing need to extract evidence."
As one ex-Department of Homeland Security official said, echoing arguments made by Apple and its supporters: The FBI is "hoping to set a precedent."
Indeed, said former FBI special agent and whistleblower Colleen Rowley in a recent op-ed, Comey's assertion to the contrary is "disingenuous."
"Does he not know that the government's 'Plan B' secret agenda to create 'workarounds' to defeat encryption recently came to light?" Rowley wrote. "Does he expect us to believe that he was not part of the secret White House meeting last fall where senior national security officials ordered agencies to find ways to counter encryption software and gain access to the most heavily protected user data on the most secure consumer devices, including Apple Inc.'s?"
Apple and the FBI will take their high-profile encryption battle to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with both sides calling on Congress to weigh in on the "watershed" privacy case and the significant precedents it could set.
FBI Director James Comey, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and Apple's senior vice president and general counsel, Bruce Sewell, will testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing titled "The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans' Security and Privacy."
Sewell is expected to reiterate Apple's argument that building a backdoor to the iPhone linked to the San Bernardino attacks "would not affect just one iPhone."
"The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products," Sewell wrote in prepared testimony (pdf). "Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety. It would set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion on the privacy and safety of its citizens."
On the other hand, Vance will urge Congress to pass a law requiring companies like Apple to retain user keys for decrypting user data, according to testimony on the committee's website. A November proposal from Vance's office argued that Congress requires any phone manufactured or sold in the U.S. "must be able to be unlocked, or its data accessed, by the operating system designer" pursuant to a court order.
Not doing so, Vance will argue, "cripples even the most basic steps of a criminal investigation."
But in a statement on Tuesday, digital rights group Fight for the Future warned that "what the FBI is asking Apple to do will make us less safe, not more safe."
"If we allow the government to set a precedent that they can force private companies to punch holes in the technological defenses that keep us safe, it's not a question of if someone to will exploit that to cause harm to the public, it's a question of when," Fight for the Future co-founder Holmes Wilson said. "Congress needs to listen to security experts by unequivocally supporting strong encryption and opposing backdoors."
The hearing will occur at 1 p.m. EST, and can be watched on C-SPAN 3. The House Judiciary Committee hosts its own livestream as well.
The proceedings come one day after Apple "scored a major legal victory" when a judge in New York ruled that the U.S. government could not compel the tech company to unlock an iPhone so investigators could analyze its data as part of a drug case.
In a 50-page ruling, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein found that the All Writs Act--the same law the government is citing in the San Bernadino case--did not justify the government's request. According to Reuters, "Orenstein also found that Apple was largely exempt from complying with such requests by a 1994 law that updated wiretapping laws."
Ars Technica writes that "[t]he ruling, the first of its kind on the topic, has no legal bearing on the outcome of the California case as they are proceeding in different federal judicial districts. Apple hopes, however, that that Riverside judge will be 'persuaded' by the decision, according to a company executive who was granted anonymity on a call with reporters."
Meanwhile, security and law enforcement experts told Politico this week, it's unlikely that investigators will find "much useful new information" even if they are granted access to the iPhone in question.
So why do all the hubbubs happen over one single smartphone?
Politico reports: "Critics say the FBI is picking a fight with Apple over long-standing tensions about the increasing impenetrability of the iPhone's encryption, rather than acting from an immediate, pressing need to extract evidence."
As one ex-Department of Homeland Security official said, echoing arguments made by Apple and its supporters: The FBI is "hoping to set a precedent."
Indeed, said former FBI special agent and whistleblower Colleen Rowley in a recent op-ed, Comey's assertion to the contrary is "disingenuous."
"Does he not know that the government's 'Plan B' secret agenda to create 'workarounds' to defeat encryption recently came to light?" Rowley wrote. "Does he expect us to believe that he was not part of the secret White House meeting last fall where senior national security officials ordered agencies to find ways to counter encryption software and gain access to the most heavily protected user data on the most secure consumer devices, including Apple Inc.'s?"