Ondrej Holzman The case of Apple vs. FBI made its way to Congress this week, where US lawmakers interviewed representatives of both parties to learn more about the issue. It turned out that the iPhone from the terrorist attack is no longer being dealt with practically, but rather it will be about the whole new legislation.
The depositions lasted over five hours and Bruce Sewell, director of the legal department, was responsible for Apple, who was opposed by FBI director James Comey. Magazine The Next Web, who watched the congressional hearings, picked up a few basic points that Apple and the FBI discussed with the congressmen.
New laws are needed
Even though both parties stand on opposite poles of opinion, they found a common language in Congress at one point. Apple and the FBI are pushing for new laws to help resolve the dispute over whether the US government should be able to hack into a secure iPhone.
The US Department of Justice and the FBI are now invoking the "All Writs Act" of 1789, which is very general and more or less mandates that companies comply with government orders unless it causes them an "undue burden".
It's this detail that Apple refers to, which doesn't consider it too much of a human resource burden or price to create software that would allow investigators to get into a locked iPhone, but says the burden is creating a deliberately weakened system for its customers.
When Apple and the FBI were asked in Congress whether the entire case should be handled on that ground, or if it should be taken up by the courts that the FBI went to first, both sides confirmed that the matter needed new legislation from Congress.
The FBI is aware of the implications
The principle of the dispute between Apple and the FBI is quite simple. The iPhone manufacturer wants to protect the privacy of its users as much as possible, so it creates products that are not easy to get into. But the FBI wants to have access to these devices as well, because it could help in the investigation.
The Californian company has argued from the beginning that creating software to bypass its security will open a backdoor into its products that anyone could then exploit. The FBI director admitted in Congress that he was aware of such possible consequences.
"It will have international ramifications, but we're not sure yet to what extent," FBI Director James Comey said when asked if his investigative agency had thought about possible dangerous actors, such as China. The US government is therefore aware that its demands may have consequences both domestically and internationally.
But at the same time, Comey thinks there could be a "golden middle ground" where strong encryption and government access to data coexist.
It's not about one iPhone anymore
The Justice Department and the FBI have also admitted in Congress that they would like to get a solution that would address the problem comprehensively and not just one iPhone, such as the iPhone 5C found in the hands of the terrorist in the San Bernardino attacks, around which the whole case started.
"There will be an overlap. We're looking for a solution that's not about each phone separately," New York State Attorney Cyrus Vance said when asked if it was a single device. The director of the FBI expressed a similar opinion, admitting that the investigators could then ask the court to unlock every other iPhone.
The FBI has now denied its previous statements, where it tried to claim that it was definitely only a single iPhone and a single case. It is now clear that this one iPhone would have set a precedent, which the FBI admits and Apple considers dangerous.
Congress will now deal mainly with the extent to which a private company has an obligation to cooperate with the government in such cases and what powers the government has. In the end, this could lead to completely new, above-mentioned legislation.
Help for Apple from a New York court
Apart from the events in Congress and the entire dispute that is growing between Apple and the FBI, there was a decision in a New York court that could affect the events between the iPhone manufacturer and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Judge James Orenstein rejected the government's request that Apple unlock an iPhone belonging to a suspect in a Brooklyn drug case. What is important about the entire decision is that the judge did not address whether the government should be able to compel Apple to unlock a certain device, but whether the All Writs Act, which the FBI invokes, can address this issue.
A New York judge ruled that the government's proposal could not be approved under the more than 200-year-old law and rejected it. Apple could certainly use this ruling in a potential lawsuit with the FBI.
It doesn't belong here, but does anyone know the "correct" image format in png, is it suitable for imovie videos? I mean mainly, if I put it in PIP and scale it down to a corner, the logo is "unsmoothed" if you know what I mean. And what about it ? Thanks
You're right, it doesn't belong here.
Try it on http://www.macforum.cz
I'm definitely an Apple fan.
So it's clear where this is going, see "The FBI has now denied its previous statements..."
All that is missing is a popular argument, if it were to save one human life,
I agree with Apple.
Agreed, it would only happen to decent people, people who don't want anyone to get access to their data will additionally encrypt it with some moribundus...
I have a question - Apple shows here how much they care about privacy and data security. I agree - I'm definitely on Apple's side. But I don't understand one thing.
iPhone, iPad are secured - but the MacBook does not contain any security even in the Pro version - why? Even laptops for 20 thousand have a TPM encryption chip and Apple completely ignores it in their MacBooks - I don't understand.
Do you think they will at least do something about it this year?
I don't know if you mean data encryption on the disk, if so, it can be easily turned on in the settings since I have a macbook, so I know about it since 2011, and I don't know about osx lion before that, but I assume it was able to do it before
Well, but it should only be encryption by the system - it does not contain a TPM encryption chip at the HW level like for example the iPhone - or like ThinkPad, HP...