Allowing courts to decide on encryption would result in haphazard approach, claims Apple lawyer
Appearing in a TV interview on Wednesday, Apple lawyer Ted Olson once again called for the U.S. Congress and not courts to decide whether the company can be made to crack a device's security, suggesting that relying on courts could deliver a piecemeal approach.
"You might have one court going one way and another court going another way," Olson told Bloomberg. "If you do this on a case-by-case basis, you're going to have different outcomes." The comment was in response to a recent argument by U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch that encryption-related cases should be judged one at a time.
Olson nevertheless cited a recent decision by a New York federal judge as supporting the view that Apple can't be forced to build a way into the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. In a separate case involving the iPhone of a suspected drug trafficker, New York Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that asking Apple to build and distribute a vulnerable operating system would impose an "unreasonable burden" on the company.
Apple has a reponsibility to protect the privacy of its customers, Olson added.
"We're talking about the rights of Apple to make sure its iPhone has the integrity that it carefully built into it," he said. "Everyone has civil rights in this country, not just those accused of crime."
The debate in the San Bernardino case intensified on Tuesday as people like FBI Director James Comey and Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell testified in front of a House Judiciary Committee. The company has also filed a formal objection to the Central District of California's order to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone, making reference to the New York case.
"You might have one court going one way and another court going another way," Olson told Bloomberg. "If you do this on a case-by-case basis, you're going to have different outcomes." The comment was in response to a recent argument by U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch that encryption-related cases should be judged one at a time.
Olson nevertheless cited a recent decision by a New York federal judge as supporting the view that Apple can't be forced to build a way into the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. In a separate case involving the iPhone of a suspected drug trafficker, New York Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that asking Apple to build and distribute a vulnerable operating system would impose an "unreasonable burden" on the company.
Apple has a reponsibility to protect the privacy of its customers, Olson added.
"We're talking about the rights of Apple to make sure its iPhone has the integrity that it carefully built into it," he said. "Everyone has civil rights in this country, not just those accused of crime."
The debate in the San Bernardino case intensified on Tuesday as people like FBI Director James Comey and Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell testified in front of a House Judiciary Committee. The company has also filed a formal objection to the Central District of California's order to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone, making reference to the New York case.
Comments
So far.
Now that it is Apple's legal position, everyone is on-board. I'm digging on the irony.
backdoor or you can't sell here anymore. I'm sure they'll oblige and take the money.
Free of course
>:x
My comprehension is just fine. AI clipped the part about him saying "American people and Congress". Perhaps it's time to re-up on your A.D.D. meds?
Here's the important quote:
Again, as I said "Encryption is a good and right thing. No question asked." So no, we still disagree with AT&T CEO (and thinks he's a jerk) because Congress doesn't have to decide that.
Your reading comprehension is worse than my son.
I am a hard-core and loyal Apple consumer and was firmly on Apple's side in this case until I learned Apple hired Ted Olson. It's true that Olson did one good thing by joining David Boies in the fight to support gay marriage. But Olson also fought for Citizen's United in 2010 - a Supreme Court decision that resulted in the ridiculous assertion, made by Mitt Romney in 2012, that "corporations are people too, my friend." Olson has a maniacal hatred of the Clintons and has been operating behind the scenes in almost every so-called "criminal" investigation of them for over 20 years. Olson assisted his good friend, Kenneth Starr, in the years long, incessant investigations of the Clintons in the 1990s. An investigation that cost taxpayers $70 million and eventually resulted in nothing except lurid details about Bill's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Yet Congress impeached Bill for lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. But Olson, himself, lied to Congress about his involvement in the Arkansas Project and not one thing happened to him. Look it up! Olson is currently representing Citizen's United again in an attempt to gain access to Hillary Clinton's emails. His hatred knows no bounds. And let's not forget the most egregious of all - Olson represented Bush in Bush v Gore - a decision that resulted in the Supreme Court overruling the will of the people in the 2000 Presidential election! We all know the consequences of that one! One can argue - rightfully - that everyone is entitled to the best defense one's money can buy. But surely Apple could have found a less partisan and polarizing attorney. Whether Apple wins or not, Olson's $1,800 per hour fee will - ultimately - be paid by Apple Consumers. If that's how you want your money to be spent then that's also your right. But as of now I'm boycotting Apple for hiring Olson. Oh - yeah - and also because their products really started sucking BIG TIME after Steve Jobs died!
I'll re-cap for you because you seem dumber than I thought. Congress doesn't have to decide whether encryption is right. But if govt. want to force companies to weaken their products, hell yeah.. that should be made into law by Congress, not doing judge-by-judge.
I suggest YOU read my first reply to you here again and again.