Posted on 07/14/2016 1:51:21 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Sen. John McCain warned Google and Apple executives Thursday that the Senate Armed Services Committee “has subpoena power” that could compel them to testify on why their encryption systems on newer smartphones are not accessible to law enforcement operating under court orders.
The Arizona Republican, who chairs the panel, said, “There’s an urgency” to finding a solution to the matter of protecting privacy while also not closing out police, prosecutors and intelligence agencies from lawfully pursuing criminals and terrorists.
At the start of the hearing, McCain noted that Tim Cook, president of Apple, declined to attend the session. “This is unacceptable,” he noted of Cook’s reluctance to appear, as the hearing neared its end.
Sen. Jack Reed, (D-R.I.) and ranking member, said, reaching an agreement on this issue is “something than cannot take forever” while noting figures such as Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security; Gen. Michael Hayden, former CIA director, and others have come down on the side of the companies’ positions regarding users’ privacy.
McCain indicated at the hearing, the second on cyber encryption that he has called, he was leaning toward passing legislation rather than establishing a commission to study the issue. One proposal in the Senate is to have the commission make a recommendation back to Congress and the administration within a year or 18 months.
Speaking as a former assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, Kenneth Wainstein said, prosecutors “have to submit to lawful court orders” and so should Apple, Google and others who include that kind of security feature on their devices. It is “up to Congress to make that point legislatively.”
Referring to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, where law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community did not share information, “we made the mistake of inaction” in not working together and with the private sector.
Cyrus Vance Jr., district attorney for Manhattan, told the committee, “The fact of the matter is [an earlier version of iPhone] was extremely secure.” But in the wake of the revelations from Edward Snowden on the surveillance activities of the National Security Agency, Google and Apple developed operating systems where encryption was embedded to address privacy concerns and said not to be available, even to the manufacturer, through a backdoor.
That encryption feature took on new urgency for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist shootings when local police and the FBI could not access what was on the phone taken from the Syed Farook, who was killed in a shootout.
In short, the device’s security works this way: the user has a four letter or digit pin, but after 10 failed tries to access the data is wiped clean. The FBI eventually paid hackers over $1 million to gain access to the phone’s data.
While there are legitimate concerns about privacy from users and proprietary information from manufacturers, Wainstein said it was up to the companies to show “how this damage will occur.”
John Inglis, a former NSA deputy director and now a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, said the technology is likely available to address concerns from users and the manufacturers and the government.
“We must establish the overarching goal before enacting laws,” he said.
Vance said most criminals do not actively encrypt their communications, but that security feature already in place blocks law enforcement and prosecutors from gathering evidence in cases ranging from child pornography to murder. He added that his office has more than 300 phones with that feature in its hands but the data on them are not accessible to building cases. He decribed the companies’ position regarding this inaccessible data as “simply acceptable collateral damage,” even in criminal cases.
Sen. Angus King, (I-Maine), said while the encryption horse is already out of the barn because it is in place, “this should be a legislative solution.” He encouraged the witnesses to send additional comments to the committee as it moves forward to its next hearing on cyber security.
Hey John. Maybe they don’t want Hillary selling it to the enemies like she did her password to her server.
“why their encryption systems on newer smartphones are not accessible to law enforcement operating under court orders.”
Because they work.
If they were accessible to law enforcement that would mean they aren’t encryption systems.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
How long must one live in Arizona in order to vote? I would consider moving there if the time was short. That way I could vote against McCain.
“We must establish the overarching goal before enacting laws,” he said.
So you can compel a manufacturer to design and inferior product...
Apparently, Juan McLame learned to sympathize with jackbooted thugs during his time as a POW.
I wish that worthless POS would retire or be voted out from the Senate.
How the Hell did we ever nominate Mclame.The man is a born loser and lib to his core
Trying to encourage criminals (and others) to avoid buying Apple phones or Android phones without foreign modification. Plenty of foreign companies will gladly sell Android phones with security modifications that McCain doesn’t like.
So then he’ll want to ban those foreign phones in the US. And foreign businesses with employees needing to use the phone for trade secrets will close US offices or relocate those employees.
He’s trying to do things that will damage US businesses in order to stop bad guys who will get around his efforts in any case. That’s the kind of short-sightedness you usually see in Ds. Then again McCain often looks like a D.
She didn't have to sell it. She never changed it from "password".
Yes anti-Fourth Amendment encryption will have to be banned.
However secure encryption that can be accessed by warrant is quite doable and affordable.
Won’t be as cheap and easy, but needn’t cost much more.
> However secure encryption that can be accessed by warrant is quite doable and affordable.
It’s doable and affordable. It’s also easy and cheap to build systems that cannot be accessed by the authorities. The really bad guys will go for those systems. Your neighborhood child-porn guy probably won’t get the inaccessible systems. But the large porn ring, and ISIS, and drug cartels will. As will foreign businesses that don’t trust the US government and think they will help US businesses (just like their government would them).
Protecting privacy means closing out government busybodies.
Yes again. How sure can they be that ‘back alley’ encryption is secure? LOL! it could be a scam by the authorities or by the author.
I think the US versions will be the ‘best’. The Fourth Amendment standard is superior to others IMO.
Other nations may have encryption standards that are equal- however NO nation wants encryption that debilitates it’s justice system (some may provide it only for foreign use).
Criminals will do criminal things for criminal reasons whatever the law. The important thing is to provide a satisfactory legal product for general consumers.
Hey Swordmaker. I watched a car go up in flames yesterday because the owner had their Iphone plugged into the dash and was charging and using at the same time.
The whole front passenger area is a mess with the passenger seat gone. That is where the phone was sitting. And of course, the phone was a big blob of melted plastic and metal.
No one was hurt, thank God.
McCain’s time in the Senate is just about over.
His grand plan of having Cindy McCain replace him will fail too.
The great security leak which passes GOP secrets directly to Harry Reid will be closed.
👍
“finding a solution to the matter of protecting privacy while also not closing out police, prosecutors and intelligence agencies from lawfully pursuing criminals and terrorists.”
So encryption, that the manufacturer and the cops can get into easily? Mutually exclusive.
Furthermore, I do not care a whit. You cannot tell me that we really are in danger, while you are actively letting the danger IN.
Interesting. How do you know that was the cause? For extra credit tell us exactly where this happened so it can be confirmed.
I call BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.