Building unlock tool for FBI could create dangerous international precedent, says Apple lawyer
One of Apple's major concerns about creating a tool to unlock the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook is that doing so for the FBI would set a precedent in other countries, a lawyer for the company said on Monday.
"If Apple were willing to do this in this one -- this particular case, every other country is going to say, 'Well then you have to do it for us'," Ted Boutrous explained in a TV interview with CNBC. The network suggested that Apple might be worried about a "snowball" effect in countries like the U.K. and China.
Boutros otherwise focused on most of Apple's repeated talking points, including the view that the issue needs to be examined by the U.S. Congress, and that the FBI and Department of Justice are effectively trying to create new law. Courts shouldn't have the authority to demand that companies like Apple build new, "degraded" software, he said.
Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell is due to testify in front of a House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. A transcript of his prepared speech has already been published, in which Sewell focuses on the potential for an exploit to be commandeered beyond Farook's phone, including by other domestic law enforcement agencies, despite the FBI's assurances of a limited scope.
Earlier this month, a U.S. magistrate judge ordered apple to build a tool that would allow the FBI to bypass the passcode retry limit on Farook's iPhone 5c. That step is necessary to attempt a brute-force unlock of the device, which is currently set to auto-erase its data once the passcode limit is reached.
Apple has vowed to resist the order as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, although another lawyer for Apple -- Ted Olson -- recently indicated that Apple will probably cave if it loses there.
"If Apple were willing to do this in this one -- this particular case, every other country is going to say, 'Well then you have to do it for us'," Ted Boutrous explained in a TV interview with CNBC. The network suggested that Apple might be worried about a "snowball" effect in countries like the U.K. and China.
Boutros otherwise focused on most of Apple's repeated talking points, including the view that the issue needs to be examined by the U.S. Congress, and that the FBI and Department of Justice are effectively trying to create new law. Courts shouldn't have the authority to demand that companies like Apple build new, "degraded" software, he said.
Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell is due to testify in front of a House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. A transcript of his prepared speech has already been published, in which Sewell focuses on the potential for an exploit to be commandeered beyond Farook's phone, including by other domestic law enforcement agencies, despite the FBI's assurances of a limited scope.
Earlier this month, a U.S. magistrate judge ordered apple to build a tool that would allow the FBI to bypass the passcode retry limit on Farook's iPhone 5c. That step is necessary to attempt a brute-force unlock of the device, which is currently set to auto-erase its data once the passcode limit is reached.
Apple has vowed to resist the order as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, although another lawyer for Apple -- Ted Olson -- recently indicated that Apple will probably cave if it loses there.
Comments
Another story saying basically the same thing.
BTW, App for AI's forum is the worst I ever see. It is impossible to edit the text after typed.
Thanks
I think Sewell has finally mentioned the real fear, that is other countries could force Apple to do the same for them. Unfortunately for Apple, the cat is out of the bag. Now that they know about it, what's to keep them from requesting it now? China could prevent any sales in their country unless they have the ability to compromise a phone's security.
And this debate will soon be about backdoors, because the iPhone is almost uncrackable already and a future model will be completely.
"Feb 29 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Brooklyn, New York denied the U.S. government's motion to compel Apple Inc. to provide access into an iPhone used in a drug case, according to court documents released on Monday.
The government sought access to the phone in October, months before a judge in California ordered Apple to give the government access to the phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, California attacks. (Reporting by Julia Edwards; Editing by Chris Reese)"
The San Bernardino case is still ahead.
Apple wins legal round in security feud with FBI
He's very skeptical of the applicability of the All Writs Act to this usage. And that's not even in his case about writing new software (the phone in that ones running iOS 7 IIRC).
Yes. Endless slight adjustments interrupted by submitting and then re-openning for edit. Tedious and dumb.
https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/Orenstein-Order-Apple-iPhone-02292016.pdf
And here is greater detail:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/apple-prevails-in-forced-iphone-unlock-case-in-new-york-court/
This is huge, setting the precedent they needed.