Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,523
30,811



Apple's head lawyer Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey today testified at a U.S. congressional hearing on encryption issues, where both sides reiterated many of the same arguments that have been circulating since Apple was ordered to help the FBI unlock the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.

applefbi-800x453.jpg

Several interesting tidbits came up throughout the testimony, which lasted for most of the day. One of the most concerning points raised at the hearing (via The Verge) covered the precedent that would be set for other countries around the world should Apple be forced to break into an iPhone in the United States.
I think the world is watching what happens in our government right now and what happens right now with this particular debate. Our ability to maintain a consistent position around the world, our ability to say we will not compromise the safety and security of any of our users around the world, is substantially weakened if we are forced to make that compromise here in our own country."
Sewell went on to say that Apple has not received similar demands for data from "any other country," but that if the company is ordered to comply, "it will be a hot minute before we get those requests from other places."

Sewell also shared an interesting tidbit on the disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 when asked how quickly Apple is able to respond to government requests for assistance. When the flight went missing, Apple started working with officials "within one hour" to attempt to locate the plane. "We had Apple operators working with telephone providers all over the world, with the airlines, and with the FBI to find a ping," he said.

At the hearing, FBI Director James Comey testified during the first panel, while Sewell testified during the second, accompanied by Worcester Polytechnic Institute professor Susan Landau, who sided with Apple, and New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who sided with the FBI.


Comey asked the committee to consider the implications of places law enforcement can't reach. "If there are warrant-proof spaces in American life, what does that mean? What are the costs?" Comey also reiterated the FBI's position that no other agency, such as the National Security Agency, could or would provide the FBI with a tool able to break an iPhone 5c running iOS 9.

Susan Landau raised some salient questions about the FBI's available technology, suggesting the government agency needs to focus on innovating and recruiting talent to build better tools rather than asking Apple to build the software. "Instead of laws and regulations that weaken our protections, we should enable law enforcement to develop twenty-first century capabilities for conducting investigations," she said.

New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance said New York now has more than a hundred devices it would like to see unlocked, further confirming Apple's point that the argument isn't about just one iPhone. "No device or company, no matter how popular, should be able to exempt itself from court obligations unilaterally," he told the committee.

Statements from Comey, Sewell, Landau, and Vance outlining their positions are available from the Judiciary Committee website, as is a video that includes some of the testimony from the hearing. Apple and the FBI will face off at a court hearing over the iPhone issue on March 22.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: At Congressional Hearing Apple Says 'The World is Watching' iPhone Unlocking Battle
 

Matstrenet

macrumors newbie
Feb 23, 2016
4
8
Australia
The statement that the federal agencies need to move into the 21st century is correct. If it is possible for Apple to build the software to unlock the iPhones, why is it then not possible for the FBI to build it themselves. If I ran a business that relied on the security of my system, I would not knowingly infringe on that security by building something that can break into it, this lowers the transparency of the safety of the data of consumers. Lock pickers can crack safes, hackers can breach encryption. The right people just need to be hired.
 

Nunyabinez

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2010
1,758
2,230
Provo, UT
It's amazing that the FBI has forgotten about all the trouble that the founding fathers went to to protect people from unreasonable searches and self incrimination. I know that this case is very different, but at least our politicians in the beginning were clear that government had to be limited in its power over people's freedoms.
 

Nunyabinez

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2010
1,758
2,230
Provo, UT
To me the key issue here is that the FBI is not asking for access to Apple's records, they are trying to conscript them to write custom software to do things that Apple is morally opposed to. Imagine that the FBI is successful. What would stop them from getting a court order for anyone to make something for them that they could use to do things that you find morally repugnant. It's about more than just data and security, it's about the right of the government to force you to create something that you believe is wrong. Not a world I want to live in.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
Why has there been the assumption that the gov't wants a permanent backdoor to iOS on all devices vs having Apple create a version of iOS for internal purposes only that can be used when petitioned?
 

KALLT

macrumors 603
Sep 23, 2008
5,361
3,378
Is the video broken? I cannot skip to the second part of the hearing...
 

Nunyabinez

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2010
1,758
2,230
Provo, UT
Why has there been the assumption that the gov't wants a permanent backdoor to iOS on all devices vs having Apple create a version of iOS for internal purposes only that can be used when petitioned?

Well the FBI said they have 12 phones they would like to use it on and the NY DA just said they had 100 phones they would like to use it on. Once it exists, it's hard to imagine that the powers that be will just let Apple delete it.
 

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
did anyone actually watch the entire 4 hours ? ... i fell asleep half way through... (I thought there was a 2 hour limit on Youtube videos or something... )

What i saw so far, are they saying an iPhone 5c has "better" encryption than an encryption such as Google the NSA by-passed to collect their data regarding PRISM? I find that hard to believe.. Might be a bit of false accusations there.

How can u have a better encryption than the best ? which by the way, all banks use etc...

If i can actually watch the whole 4 hour this time, i'll celebrate at the end

She did have an iPhone with her... i thought that was interesting.....
 
Last edited:

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
Well the FBI said they have 12 phones they would like to use it on and the NY AG just said they had 100 phones they would like to use it on. Once it exists, it's hard to imagine that the powers that be will just let Apple delete it.

No I understand that. What I mean is that in other threads - people are assuming that they want Apple to create a backdoor that the FBI can access - thereby weakening iOS and a potential to be a further security risk. My point was - isn't it possible what they want (esp in this one case) is for Apple to create a version of their iOS which can be transferred to the phone in question to allow for brute force attacks to gain access?
 

Benjamin Frost

Suspended
May 9, 2015
2,405
5,001
London, England
To me the key issue here is that the FBI is not asking for access to Apple's records, they are trying to conscript them to write custom software to do things that Apple is morally opposed to. Imagine that the FBI is successful. What would stop them from getting a court order for anyone to make something for them that they could use to do things that you find morally repugnant. It's about more than just data and security, it's about the right of the government to force you to create something that you believe is wrong. Not a world I want to live in.

Indeed.

Like bakers being forced to bake cakes for those who wilfully sin.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.