Posted on 02/29/2016 12:16:29 PM PST by Swordmaker
Tomorrow, Apple will make its case before Congress, as General Counsel Bruce Sewell gives testimony to the House Judiciary Committee at 1PM ET. It's Apple's first appearance before Congress since the company received an order to break security measures on a phone linked to the San Bernardino attacks, and Sewell may be facing a skeptical crowd. He'll be joined by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who has been an outspoken critic of the company's encryption policies, as well as a number of House representatives who have been vocal supporters of the FBI's position in the past. FBI Director James Comey will also appear before the committee, although he will appear on a separate panel.
Sewell submitted his prepared opening statement to the panel earlier today, and it is reproduced in full below:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure to appear before you and the Committee today on behalf of Apple. We appreciate your invitation and the opportunity to be part of the discussion on this important issue which centers on the civil liberties at the foundation of our country.
I want to repeat something we have said since the beginning — that the victims and families of the San Bernardino attacks have our deepest sympathies and we strongly agree that justice should be served. Apple has no sympathy for terrorists.
We have the utmost respect for law enforcement and share their goal of creating a safer world. We have a team of dedicated professionals that are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to assist law enforcement. When the FBI came to us in the immediate aftermath of the San Bernardino attacks, we gave all the information we had related to their investigation. And we went beyond that by making Apple engineers available to advise them on a number of additional investigative options.
But we now find ourselves at the center of an extraordinary circumstance. The FBI has asked a Court to order us to give them something we don’t have. To create an operating system that does not exist — because it would be too dangerous. They are asking for a backdoor into the iPhone — specifically to build a software tool that can break the encryption system which protects personal information on every iPhone.
As we have told them — and as we have told the American public — building that software tool would not affect just one iPhone. It would weaken the security for all of them. In fact, just last week Director Comey agreed that the FBI would likely use this precedent in other cases involving other phones. District Attorney Vance has also said he would absolutely plan to use this on over 175 phones. We can all agree this is not about access to just one iPhone.
The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products. 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.
Hundreds of millions of law-abiding people trust Apple’s products with the most intimate details of their daily lives – photos, private conversations, health data, financial accounts, and information about the user's location as well as the location of their friends and families. Some of you might have an iPhone in your pocket right now, and if you think about it, there's probably more information stored on that iPhone than a thief could steal by breaking into your house. The only way we know to protect that data is through strong encryption.
Every day, over a trillion transactions occur safely over the Internet as a result of encrypted communications. These range from online banking and credit card transactions to the exchange of healthcare records, ideas that will change the world for the better, and communications between loved ones. The US government has spent tens of millions of dollars through the Open Technology Fund and other US government programs to fund strong encryption. The Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, convened by President Obama, urged the US government to fully support and not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available commercial software.
Encryption is a good thing, a necessary thing. We have been using it in our products for over a decade. As attacks on our customers’ data become increasingly sophisticated, the tools we use to defend against them must get stronger too. Weakening encryption will only hurt consumers and other well-meaning users who rely on companies like Apple to protect their personal information.
Today’s hearing is titled Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy. We believe we can, and we must, have both. Protecting our data with encryption and other methods preserves our privacy and it keeps people safe.
The American people deserve an honest conversation around the important questions stemming from the FBI’s current demand:
Do we want to put a limit on the technology that protects our data, and therefore our privacy and our safety, in the face of increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks? Should the FBI be allowed to stop Apple, or any company, from offering the American people the safest and most secure product it can make?
Should the FBI have the right to compel a company to produce a product it doesn't already make, to the FBI’s exact specifications and for the FBI’s use?
We believe that each of these questions deserves a healthy discussion, and any decision should be made after a thoughtful and honest consideration of the facts.
Most importantly, the decisions should be made by you and your colleagues as representatives of the people, rather than through a warrant request based on a 220 year- old-statute.
At Apple, we are ready to have this conversation. The feedback and support we're hearing indicate to us that the American people are ready, too.
We feel strongly that our customers, their families, their friends and their neighbors will be better protected from thieves and terrorists if we can offer the very best protections for their data. And at the same time, the freedoms and liberties we all cherish will be more secure.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your questions.
If they wanted a healthy discussion, they would not start out with so many deceptive and false premises. They would start out with the truth.
Hardware logic is how processors are made. So they are using components of a processor to do a specific function. I figured it had to be more than just memory.
Yeah, well, when you’re talking to facists, you can’t just boil it down to it’s bare essentials.
Sure they can, but will they? A Billion people market is pretty big.
Apple is already setting up some manufacturing in India.
But will still want to sell phones in China, I think.
Warrant, writ, whatever. Let's quibble about the distinction.
On this, you may be right. Especially in California. Their judiciary just does weird things.
>>The legal standard is “undue burden.” The 15 minutes it will require to modify their existing code to remove the 10 try limit will not be regarded by the courts as an “undue burden.”<<
DL: You design and wrote operating systems? Who knew.
Can you save Apple some time with an SOW and detailed specifications for this “15 minutes of work?”
They and the government will no doubt be grateful to you for the application of your many years of experience in this extremely technical and complex field.
Why yes I have. Starting when I was 16. I've written many since then. How about you? Do you know how to program, or are you just an ignorant @$$ that wants to dispute someone who knows what they are talking about?
Can you save Apple some time with an SOW and detailed specifications for this “15 minutes of work?”
Well see here, this is more ignorance being displayed. Most computer programers don't need detailed specifications to modify a subroutine that counts to "10." Usually people smart enough and knowledgeable enough to do computer programing can figure out how to count to 10 all by themselves, and don't need any help with the problem.
But I can see why you might need detailed specifications on how to count to "10".
They and the government will no doubt be grateful to you for the application of your many years of experience in this extremely technical and complex field.
I know that to you, a computer program that counts to "10" might seem like an "extremely technical and complex field", but to people who aren't morons, it's pretty much a nothing deal.
No, my iPhone cannot be udated while locked. Apple might send an update to my phone, but I am the only one who can install the update. Simply unlocking my phone does not do it. (I usually delete them because I would rather billions of other phones test the update first, but that is neither here nor there).
I, not Apple, control updates. Apple might send them, I am under no obligation to accept or retain them.
Apple would only have to modify the OS by changing some lines of code to bypass the PIN # verification. If they only did it one time and kept the new code under lock and key, or destroyed it (fat chance), it still might get loose, but a danger to all phones is a stretch unless by legal fiat.
If Apple would have quietly done it for the FBI, no one would be the wiser. But since the FBI has gone public and filed a suit, it will set a legal precedent if Apple complies (they didn't want to comply anyway). I understand there are about 175 phones in NYC the authorities want a crack into.
Plus the county had some app to prevent all this they didn't install on their phones.
Sooner or later, Apple is probably going to lose, but for now, I'm on their side because I believe the FBI is being duplicitous about it.
If they hadn't changed the PIN remotely, the county-issued phone would have backed up all the data to the cloud where the FBI could have gotten it. Getting around the encryption, I can't say how they would manage that. But since the PIN was changed, it will no longer do an auto backup.
The last backup was only a month before, so they have that. It's just the final month they want to know what's on the phone.
The option to get at the physical chip and circuitry would be too likely to destroy critical data. Some of this may be wrong. I learned it on a discussion group elsewhere.
I think you are talking about apps. Apple can update the phone's firmware even though the phone is locked.
>> The removal of the “number of tries” does not constitute a “back door.”
If course it’s a back door.
A “self destruct after 10 tries” is roughly equivalent to a 1024 bit RSA key: for all practical purposes, it’s unbreakable.
A tool to remove that “number of tries” is akin to factoring in a 16-bit alternate key to the aforementioned unbreakable RSA key: the FBI may not know what it is, but they’re guaranteed cracking it in minutes.
BINGO!! This will take Sneak & Peek and Delayed Notifications to a new level. Most people, even those innocent of any wrong doing, will never know their phone has been searched.
I have no issues with the government or LEO seizing a phone with a warrant. The issues of unlocking that phone are for the owner and a judge to address in Court.
Under no circumstances should the government be given one more tool to perform these actions under the cloak of secrecy.
Apple isn’t stupid enough to implement the “counts to ten” as a simple software counter. It’s implemented in hardware, in a way that requires intricate secure integration with software. They can’t just issue an update, they have to build new hardware at nontrivial cost.
Well, since the FBI et al changed the icloud password, they can’t “auto update” while it’s locked.
Or if Apple were lying about it.
Apple would only have to modify the OS by changing some lines of code to bypass the PIN # verification. If they only did it one time and kept the new code under lock and key, or destroyed it (fat chance), it still might get loose, but a danger to all phones is a stretch unless by legal fiat.
Exactly.
Sooner or later, Apple is probably going to lose, but for now, I'm on their side because I believe the FBI is being duplicitous about it.
You say the FBI is being duplicitous about it, but i've read an excerpt of their filing. From what I can see, the FBI is being straightforward and reasonable, and Apple inc is the one being duplicitous about what has been asked of them. Excerpted from the FBI court filing:
"To the contrary, the Order allows Apple to retain custody of its sofware at all times, and it gives Apple flexibility in the manner in which it provides assistance. In fact, the software never has to come into the government's custody."
Read it yourself and tell me if you don't think it was reasonable.
The option to get at the physical chip and circuitry would be too likely to destroy critical data.
I don't know. I know the guy that hacked the military style encryption being used in the Satellite receiver systems some years back claims to have decapped the chips and measured signals directly on the substrate.
The sizes of chips may have gotten too small to make such an approach doable nowadays, but I wouldn't rule it out till I had better information.
A “self destruct after 10 tries” is roughly equivalent to a 1024 bit RSA key: for all practical purposes, it’s unbreakable.
A "back door" is generally regarded as a means of hacking into all versions of the software. The modified software would only be loaded onto this one phone long enough to "brute force" the password. It is therefore not a "back door" in the sense that it is ubiquitous to all phones of this design. In other words, "back door" is a term that is improperly used in this context.
More Apple deception.
the FBI may not know what it is, but they’re guaranteed cracking it in minutes.
I've read that at a retry rate of 80 milliseconds, which is the fastest Apple claims their OS can handle password retries, it could take a year to stumble across the password if it is a six digit alphanumeric code.
And there we are on the same page. That IS what is at stake in this case.
So how do you address this?
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11097044/us-forcing-apple-to-unlock-dozen-iphones-says-wsj
The government wants unfettered access to iPhones. San Bernardino is just the camel’s nose under the tent. I guess you’re one of those who trusts our government, I don’t! The list of phones the LEO’s want cracked will be endless.
Nobody can do an OS firmware update but Apple, but Apple CAN do an OS firmware update on a locked phone.
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.