Like this guy:
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.
That can be interpreted in such a way that the FBI never gets physical custody of it, and it can also be clarified that this is the case in a subsequent or modified order. I'm pretty sure Apple's attorneys are up to the task of getting the Judge to rewrite it in such a way that it explicitly keeps any software out of the hands of the FBI or any other agency.
Fortunately, the latest court precedent suggests that Apple's appeal to prevent this fiasco will be successful.
You have more faith in the consistency of Judges applying "law" than I do. Maybe so. Maybe not.
But yes, it would be a great tragedy to mankind if information locked up on the phone used by a dead terrorist were ever revealed.
Like this guy:
While lives do have "prices" on them, and while some of us are worth more than others of us, it is unseemly to make it so obvious that protecting the marketing strategy of a multi-billion dollar company is potentially worth more than the lives of innocent people.
What makes it worse is that it wouldn't really put a dent in their sales if they did break this phone open, but it might very well keep people from getting killed in future terrorist attacks involving the dead terrorist's associates.
I would like to get into a deeper discussion of the morality involved and talk about Adam Smith and Edmund Burke's take on wealth and social foundations, but that would expand the scope of this discussion too much.
My point in bringing it up is that there *is* a moral component to business, which has mostly been lost since society has moved away from it's Christian based foundations.
John Locke asserts we have the right to punish those government officials who use their positions to abuse us. It's a pity this philosophy never really caught on to the extent that it should have.
Federal agencies are notorious for difficulty in removing bad personnel. It is almost impossible to fire bad employees or agents. This is actually a manifestation of a larger problem that I see no hope of doing much about. Unionized public servants.
I believe Saint Roosevelt himself was adamantly against government Unions, but they're here and I see no signs of ever being able to pry them out of power.
So what are we going to do about abuses? The democratic process has literally broken down, and no real means of accountability is apparent.
Apple is uniquely situated to be able to open this device. I personally believe that it will not be difficult for them to do so, and others of course believe it will be a "moon shot" level of difficulty.
But if I am correct, and it isn't really difficult for Apple to do this, then the legal doctrine of "undue burden" applies. I had a vague sense that it would be wrong to hold up an investigation if it required a minor effort or assistance like this, and Dan Abrahms (Legal consultant for ABC News) pointed out that the legal system generally recognizes this "undue burden" test in such matters. It was his opinion that the courts would decide that what was being asked of Apple was not unduly difficult, and so he thought they would likely be ordered to assist.
Now of course, if what is being asked of them cannot be done, the law cannot compel them to do it. If what is asked of them infringes upon their rights to any serious degree, that also will prevent the legal system from compelling them to do it.
But if it is as I believe, that this is both easy for Apple to do, and can be done in such a way that all of their design and other intellectual property rights can be protected, then the law should compel them to assist, so long as a warrant or writ is obtained to allow a law enforcement agency to look in someone's phone.
How can "providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle or other Software image File (“SIF”)" possibly be interpreted in such a way that the FBI never gets custody of the software "provided" to it?
Did Bill Clinton teach you the art of parsing, or did you teach him?
Even if this were to be stipulated, "unseemly" does not mean "unlawful". For instance, there was a case in the news a few months back about some Wall Street weasel drastically raising the price of a drug essential for some medical cases. The general consensus is that the guy is 1)a jerk and 2)within his legal rights.
Actually, this problem has nothing to do with unions. Government managers and elected politicians — the prime source of the largest abuses — are not unionized.
I don't believe the tech industry is arguing from "authority" because the only people who really know how Apple's stuff works, is Apple. I believe the tech industry is arguing "ad populum" meaning they have the opinions they do because other people have those opinions.
Now ctdonath2 seems to think the security functions exist in hardware, and are therefore impossible to defeat, and I think they exist in firmware and perhaps utilize flash ram or hardware registers somewhere, and can be accessible either directly or indirectly through a firmware update.
I think the rest of the tech industry will have to come down between these two extremes as to the "how", but it is obvious most of them has already come down to a single position on the question of "whether."
The "how" is a legitimate "from Authority" point, but the "whether" is mostly a "from popularity" position on the part of the "tech industry."
You've got to get it out of the way initially. Eventually people realize it doesn't really serve any purpose because nobody is impressed with someones ability to call them names.
And then Repetition makes it boring.
I suppose it's possible that you have some sort of masochistic compulsion to bore yourself.
I generally have a compulsion to not bore myself.
They constituted the majority?
Actually, even the Church generally agreed with Galileo on the science -- he didn't get in trouble for being a heliocentrist, he got in trouble for being a jerk (writing a buffoonish character who was an obviously meant to correspond to the current Pope into his Dialogues).
That may be, but if that is so, why did they make him publicly denounce the science?
Apple shall assist in enabling the search
Apple's assistance shall accomplish three functions
Apple may provide the FBI with iPhone software.
Apple can use other methods to accomplish the three functions
It's a virtual world nowadays. "Provided" does not have to mean "custody." Indeed, the order specifically allows Apple to retain custody of the phone throughout the duration.
If the judge was insistent that the FBI be given physical custody of the software, why would she let Apple inc keep the phone?
People keep trying to read stuff in to the order that is not really within the spirit of the order.
I do admit that Apple needs to use their legal staff to file a motion for the judge to further clarify the order so as to explicitly protect Apple's Intellectual Property rights, but that is a simple thing for them to do.
When the iPhone 5c launched September 20, 2013 it featured iOS 7
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/09/23First-Weekend-iPhone-Sales-Top-Nine-Million-Sets-New-Record.html
The subject iPhone 5c had been updated to os version 9
iOS versions 8.0, 8.0.1, 8.0.2, and 8.1 the failed passcode attempt limit was not always enforced. This was corrected in version 8.1.1
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204418
https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-4451#VulnChangeHistoryDiv
This demonstrates that the behavior of the failed passcode attempt limit can be modified via the ordinary system update process.
I am not concerned about what is popular. I am concerned about principles. I am not in favor of fascism.
All that the next wave of computer-illiterate, corruptible magistrate judges would interpret this to be that Apple was compelled to help the FBI crack their iphones. Regardless of how much or how little this particular request works, it would seem to set a legal precedent and open the legal precedent floodgates to compelling Apple, Samsung and anyone else to write OSs with convenient backdoor keys.
You know, like the locks on your luggage that prevent anyone but yourself and TSA from riffling through your luggage... right? No worries! your stuff is protected by law!
How to open TSA luggage locks without a TSA key
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtJx3j7AhQk
No, YOU don't recent recognize concrete knowledge when you see it. YOU have a reading comprehension problem. I posted that information in earlier threads, asshat. You are LATE to this topic.
I have been the keeper of the Apple/Mac/iPhone/iOS ping list for more than TWELVE years on FreeRepublic. These topics have been under discussion for years before you even JOINED FreeRepublic.
My work is in this area for over 35 years (not, of course, with iPhones for all that time). YOURS ISN'T, and YOU DO NOT EVEN OWN ANY APPLE PRODUCTS.
I still dispute your mis-interpretation of YOUR link to a 2012 White Paper on Apple Security which was released about the PREVIOUS A5 SERIES OF PROCESSORS A5 to the A6 installed in the iPhone 5C. I gave you a detailed description of exactly how the Encryption Engine works in the A6 processor installed in the iPhone 5C as well as in the A5. which shows that even in the Apple 4S which had the A5, using an earlier version of the Encryption Engine, getting around the passcode is not trivial. YOU IGNORED IT. I posted a more up-to-date quotation from 2014 a security paper on the later A6 processor than your 2012 one, inclusive of the A6 Encryption Engine in the iPhone 5C. YOU IGNORED THAT and kept repeating your mis-interpretation of your EARLIER 2012 paper which continue to ignore what I showed you was ALREADY in that earlier version of iOS.
I again repeat, asshat, don't try to teach us, who have use these devices for years, how to use them. YOU DON'T HAVE EVEN AN INKLING OF A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT and it comes through in every single reply you post.
Only in your bizarro irrational world.
Now you claim to know my work experience and what products I own. Amazing.
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.