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.
So you regard this "government is going to totally own all your phones through the back door they are going to force us to create" propaganda effort is reasonable?
Nope, that's irrational screaming.
Gasp -- they are trying to win a bigger share of the market by selling a superior product! And they're trying to do it just to make money! How dreadful! Down with the One Percenters! Feel the Bern!!
You, of course, have taken on the role of Lord Haw-Haw.
Well, since i've pegged you for a kook, I really don't care what you think.
Yes; this is one of the security improvements to iOS that have the Feds running around scaremongering and setting their hair on fire. Apple has sometimes unlocked earlier generations from before this security improvement was implemented; dishonest government apologists have glossed over that point of distinction.
A product that puts one’s records outside the reach of a valid Fourth Amendment warrant...
And for those who don’t know how easy it is for Apple to break the phone, see the comments here:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/most-software-already-has-a-golden-key-backdoor-its-called-auto-update/
Why is that, do you suppose?
The obvious answer is that the government's past behavior has made it impossible for any prudent person to trust them. It would be as stupid and reckless as putting Bill Clinton in charge of a college girls' dormitory.
Imagine yourself going into court to present evidence taken from a phone, and explaining that you had allowed a third party to temporarily install software onto the phone without giving you a copy to examine.
Next, imagine yourself on TV asking the viewer if they've been injured in an accident, as that would be the direction your career is likely to take after such a fiasco.
When I first heard of this issue, I initially sided with Apple, but then I got to noticing things that didn't make sense to me, so I started looking at the details more closely. The more I learned, the more it seemed to me that Apple was deliberately stirring up unnecessary fear.
It was your post #154. Apple put back original OS. Didn't think of that, very good.
Why wouldn't they do that? What harm could there be to other phones if Apple simply restores the original operating system? Now If I were Apple, I would certainly get it clarified with the Judge that this would be explicitly allowed in the order, because if they think the FBI can get that phone back with the special software installed, *that* is a deal breaker.
I should be glad they are being so thorough about it but I still don't understand why they released the apartment so quickly. It was the landlord that let the reporters in, may have had a different agenda than FBI or it was coordinated.
People have been pointing out a number of blunders by the FBI. I guess these are no longer the days of J.Edgar Hoover level of competency. :)
But I keep a folded index card over the camera lens on top. And on some sites there are quick flashes just like a camera flash. That's being paranoid but I know if they want to and have the capability, they can turn on the sound and camera. I don't lie awake worrying about it.
Not so paranoid. I've read accounts of people finding out their cameras and microphones were remote activated and sending audio and video somewhere. I don't even have a camera or microphone on my system. I occasionally connect them when I am using them on a project, but I keep them disconnected the rest of the time.
So I think unless there is further news, we are pretty much on the same page about all of it.
Well good. I like to believe everyone is persuadable if they simply take the time to consider the opposition position more carefully. I wish a lot of us here on Free Republic would not spend so much time talking past each other.
ok, but i wonder why this does not seem to back your original high level orientation to force apple to comply with the fbi...
Of the two of us, which one of us is swimming against the popular stream?
The point of repeating it was to draw attention to the fact that each sentence I commented on was another attempt to deceive.
Everything you said is true. And still he persists in an untenable position, unable to acknowledge that his opinions are the direct opposite of the stated purpose of this forum.
It’s frightening and laughable at the same time.
There's a few things wrong with what you've said here. First of all FBIOS is a piece of propaganda dreamed up by Apple. Tim Cook also called it "CANCER" for phones. That is just spin.
Second of all, the combination of security loopholes would not break into the phone in a few seconds unless the password were extremely simple. I've read it would take as much as a year (at maximum possible speed) if the password is six digits long alphanumeric.
And thirdly, a "Backdoor" is generally regarded as a covert security hole unknown to the clientele or manufacturer. Seeing as everyone knows about this incident, it fails the "hidden" aspect of "back door", and since it would be installed officially by the company and deliberately created by their team of software engineers, it would accurately be regarded as a new "front door."
:)
It was the FBI that picked the fight. Apple originally requested that such technical assistance requests be made discreetly; the FBI insisted on taking it loudly public, forcing Apple to respond in kind.
Some anonymous "lurkers support me in e-mail" anecdote, stacked up against pretty much the entire tech industry (which has lined up behind Apple's side of the issue)?
Pathetic.
And people must think Apple is as stupid as people who fall for those Nigerian email scams.
Apple has rights that Apple can protect, and beyond which the Judge cannot force them to comply. The only way for an escaped wild "FBIOS" to get loose, is if Apple sets such a thing loose.
But Apple is not trying to clarify this point, they are doing everything in their power to make people think phone cancer doomsday will be upon us all if the government makes them open up phones with a court order.
Shrill, Histrionic, and intentionally misleading they are.
Er, "histrionic" does not mean "too complicated for me to understand", which is the only meaning that makes sense in this context.
Gee, maybe you ought to think long and hard about the fact that pretty much everybody who has actual relevant knowledge and experience is taking Apple's side.
And you do not think that the employees of Apple inc who are the technical experts handling this matter will not be regarded as Agents of Law Enforcement for the purposes of this evidence gathering? I know various law enforcement people hire outside DNA people to do their evidence testing all the time, and that doesn't seem to be a problem.
Oh, and by the way, the criminals are dead, and at this point the law enforcement people are more interested in getting leads that might save lives than they are in building a criminal case.
Are you okay with putting people's lives ahead of "chain of evidence" for any potential suspects who may be later indicted from information found on that phone?
Ergo, the government would have full access to the phone during the installation and use of the new FBiOS, and would also necessarily have a copy of the source code (otherwise, it would be absolutely impossible to confirm that it was accessing the data already on the phone without altering it).
I think what the government can have in way of access, is up to the Judge, and I think the Judge will take into account Apple's right to protect their designs and intellectual property.
If the Judge does not, Apple can appeal before any risk occurs to their I.P. If their rights are going to be violated by complying with the order than I think one of the Higher courts will rectify this, and if they don't, then Apple is just screwed.
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.