US House members mull court filing arguing Congress should decide Apple-FBI encryption fight
A report on Monday claims members of the House Judiciary Committee are mulling an amicus curiae brief filing in the Apple-FBI encryption debate, arguing the dispute should be settled by Congress, not the courts.
Citing multiple sources familiar with the committee's plans, Reuters reports the "friend of the court" filing, if it is lodged, would argue that the government's motion to compel Apple's assistance in unlocking an iPhone involved in last year's San Bernardino shooting threatens the constitutional separation of powers.
The publication said the filing is unlikely to come from the committee itself, but rather individual members on both sides of the aisle. A concrete timeline has yet to be fleshed out, though sources say any potential filing would likely be lodged after Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing on encryption. Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey are scheduled to be in attendance.
Word of prospective congressional pressure comes just hours after a U.S. federal magistrate judge in New York raised similar concerns regarding the separation judicial and legislative powers in a ruling that denied a government motion to compel Apple's assistance in a separate iPhone unlocking case.
"It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking," Magistrate Judge James Orenstein wrote in his ruling.
Commenting on the issue last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook suggested the government withdraw its demands and form a commission to discuss the broader implications of forcing tech firms to break their own security. Cook later reiterated his stance in an ABC News interview. The idea is already being explored by House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Senate Intelligence Committee member Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who are working toward the creation of a bipartisan commission on encryption.
In a related development, Reuters on Monday pointed to a Fox News interview in which U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she hopes Apple ultimately decides to comply with the federal court order handed down in California.
"It is still our hope that they will see their way clear to complying with that order as thousands of other companies do every day," Lynch said.
Citing multiple sources familiar with the committee's plans, Reuters reports the "friend of the court" filing, if it is lodged, would argue that the government's motion to compel Apple's assistance in unlocking an iPhone involved in last year's San Bernardino shooting threatens the constitutional separation of powers.
The publication said the filing is unlikely to come from the committee itself, but rather individual members on both sides of the aisle. A concrete timeline has yet to be fleshed out, though sources say any potential filing would likely be lodged after Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing on encryption. Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey are scheduled to be in attendance.
Word of prospective congressional pressure comes just hours after a U.S. federal magistrate judge in New York raised similar concerns regarding the separation judicial and legislative powers in a ruling that denied a government motion to compel Apple's assistance in a separate iPhone unlocking case.
"It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking," Magistrate Judge James Orenstein wrote in his ruling.
Commenting on the issue last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook suggested the government withdraw its demands and form a commission to discuss the broader implications of forcing tech firms to break their own security. Cook later reiterated his stance in an ABC News interview. The idea is already being explored by House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Senate Intelligence Committee member Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who are working toward the creation of a bipartisan commission on encryption.
In a related development, Reuters on Monday pointed to a Fox News interview in which U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she hopes Apple ultimately decides to comply with the federal court order handed down in California.
"It is still our hope that they will see their way clear to complying with that order as thousands of other companies do every day," Lynch said.
Comments
Hey Lynch, I hope you comply with our constitution. Also, stop lying. Apple has complied with the FBI for two months. Apple shouldn't have to create a tool to break its own software.
Did thousands of other companies break their own security in their software?
Really Loretta? Hate to be cynical, but should we be surprised you are pro-government on this one?
Full investigation into his actions and who authorised them.
Identify and remove all conflict of interests in US government.
FBI pays yearly compensation for wilful damage of reputation. US＄5m sounds good.
Nor do they ever receive such requests as there is no security which the FBI et. al. cannot break themselves.
By going public with this, the FBI has destroyed the US's international reputation.
What a complete cluster fuck.
Lynch = troll bitch from hell
But being political animals, they will have to back off once the public learns the truth and weighs-in. Because the difference, just within the past week - in the more pointed questions the TV reporters are asking in their interviews with various "experts", and what is being written by knowledgeable intelligence agency experts (like Michael Hayden) and OpEd pieces in the mainstream Press like the New York Times - are all on Apple's side. As the true facts about James Comey's contrived agenda come out.
When all the dust has settled, public opinion about personal privacy will win the day. Because public opinion trumps Washington crony politics.
"Madam Attorney General, never mind your opionions on Roe v Wade. Please explain name the thousands of companies you've used to trample the constitutional rights of....."
Well you got that right, you have a remarkably closed mind with no inkling of forward looking vision of the consequences of your position, looking only at your little situation in your own little bubble, showing no humility to even consider that your needs might not suffice for everybody, and dishonestly appropriating the nickname of someone who could actually think, you are indeed indeed a deviate.
You have yet to share any of them here and judging by all the drivel you've spewed on this forum so far, we're not expecting any either, probably your lost honesty again.
Was that your mommy interrupting and calling you up for lunch ? Why don't you go run along now, hopefully you'll lose your way and not be back here.
The SECOND nightmare scenario is Congress decides it's "too good" and therefore it must be Federalized and regulated by government and implemented at all levels in the US on ALL phones.