Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton says Apple's Tim Cook 'omitted critical facts' in encryption stance
In a statement issued on Monday, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, criticized Tim Cook for his defense of strong encryption during a 60 Minutes interview, claiming that the Apple CEO had "omitted critical facts."
"As a society, we don't allow phone companies to design their systems to avoid lawful, court-ordered searches," Cotton said in the statement. "If we apply a different legal standard to companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, we can expect them to become the preferred messaging services of child pornographers, drug traffickers, and terrorists alike -- which neither these companies nor law enforcement want."
During the 60 Minutes piece, Cook argued against government-mandated backdoors in encryption. The executive maintained a long-held position that if Apple coded deliberate holes for U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies, those holes could also be exploited by malicious hackers, including governments wanting to use the Internet against their own citizens.
Apple and other corporations have come under increasing fire from U.S. government officials concerned they will no longer be able to intercept communications from criminals or terrorists. The encryption present in iOS 8 and 9, for instance, is so strong that Apple says it can't break it, even when served with a warrant.
One of the most vocal critics of Apple's policy has been FBI director James Comey. His efforts suffered a setback when the Obama administration decided not to force decryption, although during an October hearing, Comey said that talks with corporations had become "increasingly productive" and less venomous.
"As a society, we don't allow phone companies to design their systems to avoid lawful, court-ordered searches," Cotton said in the statement. "If we apply a different legal standard to companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, we can expect them to become the preferred messaging services of child pornographers, drug traffickers, and terrorists alike -- which neither these companies nor law enforcement want."
During the 60 Minutes piece, Cook argued against government-mandated backdoors in encryption. The executive maintained a long-held position that if Apple coded deliberate holes for U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies, those holes could also be exploited by malicious hackers, including governments wanting to use the Internet against their own citizens.
Apple and other corporations have come under increasing fire from U.S. government officials concerned they will no longer be able to intercept communications from criminals or terrorists. The encryption present in iOS 8 and 9, for instance, is so strong that Apple says it can't break it, even when served with a warrant.
One of the most vocal critics of Apple's policy has been FBI director James Comey. His efforts suffered a setback when the Obama administration decided not to force decryption, although during an October hearing, Comey said that talks with corporations had become "increasingly productive" and less venomous.
Comments
Apple, a company who has not done any wrong by me and has only served to make my life just that little bit easier?
How about the government who wants the ability to have a back door into my system in the off chance I might decide to commit a crime therefore see me as nothing more than a potential criminal meanwhile employing policies that allow them to basically not fix the real issues, not look after the people they are in charge of looking after, and getting rich from what by dictionary definition amounts to bribes?
I worked in the IT Department in the New Zealand Parliament for about 4 months. Frankly that solidified my belief that I shouldn't vote for any government because they are worse than Kindergarten children. Parliament is the scariest place on earth because you quickly realise that those muppets are the ones running the country.
Nope, I'm on Apple's side here people.
(Mr Zimmerman - the creator of PGP, was extremely harassed the US government, but he succeeded to keep the tool free for all.)
Mr Cook should have mentioned the fact that encryption is a basic human right and as such cannot be forbidden or withheld.
Cars are designed to be able to exceed speed limits, they are able to run red lights, transport illegal drugs and terrorists.
Hand guns are specifically designed to kill people - some of the people killed are murdered.
Imposing rules on product use, criminalizing certain behavior, is what governments do. Government should not put the onus on manufacturers to impose arbitrary limits on product.
Terrorism is illegal, it may be facilitated by using encrypted communication just as it may be facilitated by using cars. That does not mean it is reasonable to ban cars (which have many legal uses). Nor is it reasonable to ban encrypted messages (which also have many legal (indeed constitutionally protected)) uses.
No big deal now? You may be happy that current government will not abuse this power-creep - but what about the next government or the one after that?
(just my $0.02 on the subject).
There is no "basic human right" in the USA or even in the more progressive countries to encryption technology. There is not even a "basic right" to privacy in the sense that you are describing it here. Add to that, the ridiculousness of arguing that such rights as might exist are somehow absolute or immutable and you have a big pile of nonsense.
All rights are subject to the rights of others and none of them are absolute in the way you see to imagine.
This is the same guy who thinks he knows something about foreign affairs even though the only thing he really knows something about is how to jam his head up his rear end.
I'd say she got it right: embrace and enjoy technologies promise. don't be afraid of it.