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.
You might expect that in the some years since “decapping those chips” they’ve learned how to guard against that on security chips.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11097044/us-forcing-apple-to-unlock-dozen-iphones-says-wsj
Easy. They have warrants. So long as they have Warrants from legitimate Courts, I have no problem with them unlocking phones that may contain evidence in criminal cases.
I guess you’re one of those who trusts our government,
Nope. But I think this thing has as adequate of a legal protection as it is possible to have at this point.
I am not talking about apps as in “There's an app for that.” I am talking the actual iOS version on an iPhone. My iPad Air is 9.2 and my iPhone is 8.2. I thought they were both versions of iOS firmware.
My iPhone still runs 8.2 by my choice, not Apple's. If that is the firmware, Apple cannot update it, unless I give permission to install.
If that is not the firmware, are you saying there is a separate program underneath whatever iOS version is installed?
Maybe, but I'm not sure what they could do to prevent decapping. Anything that interferes with the substrate would make manufacturing the chip a "b*tch."
Your reading comprehension sucks. Try that one again. 1024 bit keys take practically forever to crack; factoring in a 16-bit bit alternate random key reduces that to minutes.
Some of that and some use of the main processor in a restricted mode. Intel has done similar things with Pentium for at least a decade. It is also a big part of hardware virtualization. Think of the passcode handling and decryption of the AES key as a very small, very carefully designed virtual machine.
Your faith in our legal system is touching, but I think it is also a bit naive. It is well known that prosecutors all over the country have pet judges that will robo-sign any piece of paper placed before them, so this is hardly something that instills a great deal of comfort.
I think many could easily imagine a day where it would be all too easy to find oneself a subject of prosecution and harassment from a legal system for professing unpopular opinions. In fact, exactly this happened not all that terribly long ago in Wisconsin. One could easily see the rogue prosecutors in the recent 'john doe' persecutions getting warrants exactly as you say, duly signed by a compliant judge to break into the phones of their targets.
In such a case, I would imagine the targets of this persecution would appreciate the fact that their phones would be safe from such prying. I know I would, and I'm sure many others would agree with me.
The government already has in their possession just about all the useful data that would be on that phone in any case, as all of that metadata that they keep telling us is so innocuous provides the a wealth of information regarding who was called and when. I'm even willing to say that there may possibly be information on it that they couldn't find otherwise, but you know what? I don't really give a damn. I'm not willing to sacrifice my privacy for promises from an untrustworthy government.
One hopeful thing is that Apple is already working on a way of subverting any possible hack on their next phones. Perhaps they'll modify them so that the code the feral government is currently clamoring to subvert will be in a section of read-only ram so that it won't be possible to subvert it at all. All I know is that the designers they have at Apple are smart, so I suspect they'll come up with something, and when they do, I'll buy it because my privacy is important enough to pay for.
Perhaps Apple simply respects your choice not to update, and so does not do so? This is not the same thing as Apple being unable to update if they want to. You might want to read this article.
I know Microsoft has been updating the Sh*t out of people's computers to make them run their new spyware called "Windows 10."
You can so far tell it not to install, but it downloads Windows 10 whether you want it to or not.
Basis of “lawful court order” (”All Writs Act”) thrown out in the New York iPhone case:
FBI on real thin ice now in San Bernardino case.
“Nope. But I think this thing has as adequate of a legal protection as it is possible to have at this point.”
Then you must be a DemoRAT!
They may be able to avoid triggering a count if they completely rewrite the passcode handling in RAM as demanded by the FBI. But essentially ctdonath2 is correct. The current counter has to be in HW or flash to survive rebooting and the FBI is demanding everything run in RAM.
It doesn't bother me if prosecutors are sending these phones to Apple to have them cracked open, so long as a Judge's signature is on the warrant. As unwieldy as the process is, I doubt it's going to be abused much.
I think many could easily imagine a day where it would be all too easy to find oneself a subject of prosecution and harassment from a legal system for professing unpopular opinions.
We are already there, friend, but I am not ready to engage in Civil War II just yet.
One could easily see the rogue prosecutors in the recent 'john doe' persecutions getting warrants exactly as you say, duly signed by a compliant judge to break into the phones of their targets.
Abuse of the system is a chronic problem, with or without iPhones. I don't think that John Doe prosecutor is out of the woods either.
Perhaps they'll modify them so that the code the feral government is currently clamoring to subvert will be in a section of read-only ram so that it won't be possible to subvert it at all.
You can't store a count in ROM. Somewhere it has to be in ram, and then it is hackable.
Got precedent for forcing an unwilling third party to perform security cracking services?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruling-in-new-york-iphone-hacking-order.html?_r=0
FBI on real thin ice now in San Bernardino case.
Not necessarily. One thing i've learned from watching Federal Judges is that inconsistency doesn't bother them at all. What one judge says may be contradicted by what another judge says. It all depends on who the judge is and what is their motivation.
You can't build "new" hardware for an existing phone. In any case, according to the FBI filing, Apple has already admitted they can do what is being asked of them.
>>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?
<<
HAH!
Answer the following:
* Strong typing — why is it significant and what role does it play in language theory?
*Pointers vs. addresses vs. data — interchangable? If not, why not?
* 0 v. 1 base: explain.
* Advanced (RT only): Difference between an inquiry and a query.
Oh, and describe EXACTLY what OS you “designed.”
This should be good — I have lots of popcorn to see how your 1 book you read on how to program in BASIC gets et up.
>>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.<<
You have NEVER EVER worked with computers in the real world. Complex systems are interrelated — a change in a “subroutine (how quaint!)” can have drastic effects way down and upstream. But real people who work with real computers in the real world know these things. You have no idea what an SOW is do you?
>>But I can see why you might need detailed specifications on how to count to “10”.<<
I can see why you don’t understand why it would be needed in an OS with a mutli-million install bas.
>>
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.<<
You could not write a program from scratch in any language that could count to ten of I spotted you one through nine.
If you want to lie, be convincing and don’t lie to people in the field you are lying about.
“As unwieldy as the process is, I doubt it’s going to be abused much.”
And if you’re wrong?
Precedent set = every jurisdiction will demand iPhone cracking on a frequent basis.
And Apple will respond by increasing the security to “we really can’t crack it at all now”.
Don’t forget that unbreakable is already available in iPhones, it just requires a long password.
Required reading: https://www.scribd.com/doc/301280625/IN-RE-ORDER-REQUIRING-APPLE-INC
The FBI has left it flexible as to how the modifications are to be made. They don't really care if it runs in RAM or not. They just want the "number of tries" to be unlimited and the delay time between tries removed.
Even if the count is kept in hardware or flash, some piece of software has to trigger the count, and at that point it is possibly vulnerable.
This would be a lot easier to figure out if we could see Apple's designs and software, but that ain't gonna happen.
First, they came for the jews. But i was not jew, ...
Sent from my iphone 5s :-)
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.