Apple-FBI battle will set precedent for future court orders, FBI director acknowledges
Speaking in front of a Congressional intelligence panel, FBI Director James Comey admitted that the outcome of an Apple-FBI battle over unlocking an iPhone will likely set a legal precedent, despite recent suggestions to the contrary.
Image Credit: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA
The final ruling will probably "guide how other courts handle similar requests," Comey told the panel on Thursday, according to The Guardian. The statement is a change in tone from Sunday, when Comey wrote an editorial stating that the case "isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message."
On Thursday, in fact, Comey also claimed that the case was "unlikely to be a trailblazer," though he added it would be "instructive for other courts." That isn't the agency's intent, he cautioned.
Comey maintained a position that the FBI's request is limited in scope, explaining that legal and technical experts told him the combination of an iPhone 5c and iOS 9 limited the potential applications of the court order. The order is asking Apple not to supply an encryption key, but rather to craft new software to bypass iOS 9's passcode retry limit, which can be set to auto-erase a device when hit. The target phone was owned by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in December's San Bernardino terrorist attack.
Apple has officially filed to vacate the order, arguing that the case would not only set precedent but do so in an unconstitutional manner, paving the way for future rights violations.
Image Credit: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA
The final ruling will probably "guide how other courts handle similar requests," Comey told the panel on Thursday, according to The Guardian. The statement is a change in tone from Sunday, when Comey wrote an editorial stating that the case "isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message."
On Thursday, in fact, Comey also claimed that the case was "unlikely to be a trailblazer," though he added it would be "instructive for other courts." That isn't the agency's intent, he cautioned.
Comey maintained a position that the FBI's request is limited in scope, explaining that legal and technical experts told him the combination of an iPhone 5c and iOS 9 limited the potential applications of the court order. The order is asking Apple not to supply an encryption key, but rather to craft new software to bypass iOS 9's passcode retry limit, which can be set to auto-erase a device when hit. The target phone was owned by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in December's San Bernardino terrorist attack.
Apple has officially filed to vacate the order, arguing that the case would not only set precedent but do so in an unconstitutional manner, paving the way for future rights violations.
Comments
Amazing what just 24 hours will bring forth. And if speaking in front of a Congressional intelligence panel, I assume he is under oath.
Guy should get fired immediately. He told that to Congress right? Lying to Congress is a crime. Jail him now.
Next up: Comey admits the All Writs Act doesn't actually support his agency's request.
The issue was never as simple as "but but but this is just about one phone." If only the trolls would stop using this rhetoric in the forums, and see the bigger picture.
I think this will allow us to focus on the real debate: what kind of future do we want?
http://www.thenation.com/article/snowden-exile-exclusive-interview/
"The surveillance revelations are critically important because they revealed that our rights are being redefined in secret, by secret courts that were never intended to have that role—without the consent of the public, without even the awareness of the majority of our political representatives. However, as important as that is, I don’t think it is the most important thing. I think it is the fact that the director of national intelligence gave a false statement to Congress under oath, which is a felony. If we allow our officials to knowingly break the law publicly and face no consequences, we’re instituting a culture of immunity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#Admission_and_responses
"John Dean, former White House Counsel for President Nixon, has claimed that it is unlikely Clapper would be charged with the three principal criminal statutes that address false statements to Congress: perjury, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements. David Sirota of Salon said that if the U.S. government fails to treat Clapper and Alexander in the same way as it did Roger Clemens, "the message from the government would be that lying to Congress about baseball is more of a felony than lying to Congress about Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights" and that the "message would declare that when it comes to brazen law-breaking, as long as you are personally connected to the president, you get protection rather than the prosecution you deserve."
You notice a trend here time and time again. The financial crisis no accountability, mass surveillance no accountability. Deals are done behind closed doors, actions take place in secrecy, hidden away and encrypted from the world but they hack into and steal information from everyone else. The above interview is worth reading through and has some very good commentary on why this happens:
"we do not live in a revolutionary time. People are not prepared to contest power. We have a system of education that is really a sort of euphemism for indoctrination. It’s not designed to create critical thinkers. We have a media that goes along with the government by parroting phrases intended to provoke a certain emotional response—for example, “national security.” Everyone says “national security” to the point that we now must use the term “national security.” But it is not national security that they’re concerned with; it is state security. And that’s a key distinction. We don’t like to use the phrase “state security” in the United States because it reminds us of all the bad regimes. But it’s a key concept, because when these officials are out on TV, they’re not talking about what’s good for you. They’re not talking about what’s good for business. They’re not talking about what’s good for society. They’re talking about the protection and perpetuation of a national state system.
When this whole issue was brought up in the media, the outlets played to their audience, which is another thing discussed in the interview about partisan online communities helping reinforce people's values but also creating a one-sided rhetoric. The wording of a single headline can project a predefined emotional response onto hundreds of millions of people because of the constant repetitious cycle that lays the groundwork for it. 'Apple refuses FBI request to unlock terrorist phone' projects Apple in the wrong supporting an enemy, projects arrogant attitude playing on an already well-worn media stereotype of Apple, presents FBI as helpful, patriotic with a simple, polite request. In one sentence, in one fraction of a second, hundreds of millions of people can make an emotional decision about who's right and who's wrong and crucially to make a decision on what should be written into law:
https://privacyinternational.org/node/751
"if the Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) was to become law, a telecommunications company receiving a similar demand from the UK Government would not be allowed to publish a letter like the one Apple has. They would be under a gagging order.