US Attorney General 'hopes' Apple will unlock San Bernardino iPhone
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in on Apple's fight with the FBI on Tuesday, saying she would prefer that Apple comply with the recent court order directing the company to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.
"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, as noted by Reuters. The comment comes ahead of a scheduled appearance at a Silicon Valley cybersecurity conference.
At the conference, Lynch plans to tell tech companies that there must be a balance between personal security and national security.
"The going-dark problem is a very real threat to law enforcement's mission to protect public safety and ensure that criminals are caught and held accountable," she will say, according to the Wall Street Journal. "We owe it to the victims and to the public, whose safety we must protect, to ensure we have done everything under the law to fully investigate terrorist attacks and criminal activity on American soil."
Most major American tech companies have lined up behind Apple, which scored a significant -- though not decisive -- victory in New York earlier in the week when a judge ruled that the FBI overstepped its bounds in using the All Writs Act to compel Apple's compliance.
"[The FBI's] preferred reading of the law - which allows a court to confer on the executive branch any investigative authority Congress has decided to withhold, so long as it has not affirmatively outlawed it - would transform the AWA from a limited gap-filing statute that ensures the smooth functioning of the judiciary itself into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers by delegating to the judiciary a legislative power bounded only by Congress's superior ability to prohibit or preempt," New York Magistrate Judge James Orenstein wrote in his decision.
"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, as noted by Reuters. The comment comes ahead of a scheduled appearance at a Silicon Valley cybersecurity conference.
At the conference, Lynch plans to tell tech companies that there must be a balance between personal security and national security.
"The going-dark problem is a very real threat to law enforcement's mission to protect public safety and ensure that criminals are caught and held accountable," she will say, according to the Wall Street Journal. "We owe it to the victims and to the public, whose safety we must protect, to ensure we have done everything under the law to fully investigate terrorist attacks and criminal activity on American soil."
Most major American tech companies have lined up behind Apple, which scored a significant -- though not decisive -- victory in New York earlier in the week when a judge ruled that the FBI overstepped its bounds in using the All Writs Act to compel Apple's compliance.
"[The FBI's] preferred reading of the law - which allows a court to confer on the executive branch any investigative authority Congress has decided to withhold, so long as it has not affirmatively outlawed it - would transform the AWA from a limited gap-filing statute that ensures the smooth functioning of the judiciary itself into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers by delegating to the judiciary a legislative power bounded only by Congress's superior ability to prohibit or preempt," New York Magistrate Judge James Orenstein wrote in his decision.
Comments
Are those thousands of other companies being forced to write a custom OS (backdoor) as well? Or are they simply handing over emails after being served with a court order?
Edited: Did she also forget Apple has ALREADY handed over what they were capable of? Like iCloud backups?
Make sure the cost is high enough to make attorneys thing a long time.
After all, they are using Apple's expertise. So they should pay for it.
Who appointed this stupid person? Evidently she has been under a rock the past week and has not been briefed of all the evidence Apple has provided of their assistance to the FBI. Along with the fact it was the work phone which most likely did not have any data on it unlike the personal phone that was destroyed.
Of course, Lynch needs to take a basic class in computers to keep from making misguided comments.
That check was made out for just under $18.00. I doubt it would have been enough to pay for the parking. Also, I had duties at the hospital... they didn't care. There were patients scheduled that would have to be rescheduled on an already full schedule... they didn't care. Had they gone through traditional channels and hired a physician expert witness, the cost would have been significant. This is probably why they chose simply to subpoena someone instead (although I cannot imagine what made them think I would not *destroy* the case of the requesting attorney - because I would have).
Obviously, I didn't roll over and take that. My own attorney made the issue messy enough for them that they dropped me from the list of expert witnesses. But the total cost in dealing with that was several thousand dollars.
But I was only one of many physicians that were subpoenaed in that case. All they needed was one physician not to fight it.
The point is, Apple might ask for a trillion dollars to unlock a phone, but a judge would never grant that. In reality, if they are ordered to do something by the court, and they cannot get it overturned on appeal, they have to do it. With regard to reimbursement, they can't just charge whatever they want.
If successful, and it will be a compromised solution, it will probably be a legal model for other Western countries, and hopefully China. As long as there are no backdoors, I'm good.
I agree. If Apple is forced to unlock the phone they should definitely charge an insane amount for the service. No where in any of this is the FBI asking for this software for free. In addition, the FBI should hand the phone over to Apple and within Apple's facility Apple would unlock it, extract any relevant data, allow the FBI to view the collected data, then immediately wipe the phone clean, destroy the phone through a metal shredder and melt the thing for good measure. If the FBI has any opportunity to copy the software I guarantee they will try it and then in their infamous wonder store it on a server and some hacker will hack into their server and steal the software and proliferate it.
What does the "hope" thing mean?
Is that a weird euphemism?