US Attorney General Loretta Lynch talks iPhone encryption case with Stephen Colbert
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch toed the line in an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday, and reiterated that the government is merely requesting Apple for help in unlocking a single iPhone linked to last year's San Bernardino terror attack, not a backdoor into iOS.
While not the main topic of discussion, Colbert touched upon the contentious encryption debate sparked by Apple's resistance of a court order compelling its assistance in the ongoing FBI investigation.
"Well, you know we've disagreed publicly in court, and I've had a number of great discussions with [Apple CEO] Tim Cook on issues of privacy," Lynch said. "What I'll say about this, though, is I understand why this is important to everybody, because privacy is an important issue for everyone. It's important to me as the attorney general, it's important to me as a citizen."
Attempting to provide context, Colbert incorrectly claimed the Department of Justice wants Apple to create a backdoor into iPhone, specifically a device issued to terror suspect Syed Rizwan Farook by his former employer the San Bernardino County Health Department. As stated in legal briefs and a very public campaign for public sentiment, the DOJ is asking Apple to create and sign an intentionally flawed version of iOS to suppress the passcode attempt counter on Farook's phone. FBI agents will brute-force the device to extract actionable data pertaining to the case, if any is present.
Colbert brought up one of Apple's main contentions in its case to resist government pressure, noting that the creation of a new operating system puts undue burden on the company's resources. He also made note of the slippery slope argument presented by Cook and other Apple executives in recent interviews.
Apple has argued that a government win in the San Bernardino court case sets dangerous precedent for future law enforcement requests. The FBI and fellow agencies would be granted a powerful tool that could one day be used to compel technical assistance far beyond software construction. For example, Cook and SVP Eddy Cue said in separate interviews that government agents might leverage precedent to force Apple to remotely turn an iPhone camera or microphone.
"First of all, we're not asking for a backdoor, nor are we asking anyone to turn anything on to spy on anyone," Lynch said. "We're asking them to do is do what their customer wants. The real owner of the phone is the county, the employer of one of the terrorists who's now dead."
Lynch said much the same in an interview earlier this month when she suggested Apple treat the case like a normal customer service call.
Last night's segment comes on the heels of a court filing from federal prosecutors in support of the government's request of Apple, a letter that both addressed and attempted to dismantle each of Apple's assertions.
Apple and the DOJ are set to discuss the issue in court on March 22.
While not the main topic of discussion, Colbert touched upon the contentious encryption debate sparked by Apple's resistance of a court order compelling its assistance in the ongoing FBI investigation.
"Well, you know we've disagreed publicly in court, and I've had a number of great discussions with [Apple CEO] Tim Cook on issues of privacy," Lynch said. "What I'll say about this, though, is I understand why this is important to everybody, because privacy is an important issue for everyone. It's important to me as the attorney general, it's important to me as a citizen."
Attempting to provide context, Colbert incorrectly claimed the Department of Justice wants Apple to create a backdoor into iPhone, specifically a device issued to terror suspect Syed Rizwan Farook by his former employer the San Bernardino County Health Department. As stated in legal briefs and a very public campaign for public sentiment, the DOJ is asking Apple to create and sign an intentionally flawed version of iOS to suppress the passcode attempt counter on Farook's phone. FBI agents will brute-force the device to extract actionable data pertaining to the case, if any is present.
Colbert brought up one of Apple's main contentions in its case to resist government pressure, noting that the creation of a new operating system puts undue burden on the company's resources. He also made note of the slippery slope argument presented by Cook and other Apple executives in recent interviews.
Apple has argued that a government win in the San Bernardino court case sets dangerous precedent for future law enforcement requests. The FBI and fellow agencies would be granted a powerful tool that could one day be used to compel technical assistance far beyond software construction. For example, Cook and SVP Eddy Cue said in separate interviews that government agents might leverage precedent to force Apple to remotely turn an iPhone camera or microphone.
"First of all, we're not asking for a backdoor, nor are we asking anyone to turn anything on to spy on anyone," Lynch said. "We're asking them to do is do what their customer wants. The real owner of the phone is the county, the employer of one of the terrorists who's now dead."
Lynch said much the same in an interview earlier this month when she suggested Apple treat the case like a normal customer service call.
Last night's segment comes on the heels of a court filing from federal prosecutors in support of the government's request of Apple, a letter that both addressed and attempted to dismantle each of Apple's assertions.
Apple and the DOJ are set to discuss the issue in court on March 22.
Comments
The owner of the iPhone itself may be the county - but the owner of the data on it belongs to the person who protected it with a passcode - not the county. Just because you buy or otherwise obtain a used iPhone, you do not become the owner of any data that was left on it.
Hey - here's an unrelated question. I have an iPhone protected by the Activation Lock feature. Nobody has my Apple ID password. What happens if I die unexpectedly? If I bequeath the phone to my son - how will he be able to get past the Activation Lock in order to set it up with his Apple ID? Will Apple disable the Activation Lock upon presentation of a death certificate?
2) Good question. There is probably a way to do this. Plenty of folks die without disclosing their password to their next of kin - must be a lot of folks just forgetting the passwords. I suppose it would be bad form to use the finger of the deceased at an open casket funeral to unlock the phone.
There are no consequences anymore, apparently.
It's just ridiculous that the FBI is hanging its hat on this one iPhone, which just happens to be the one thing the perp didn't destroy...hint, hint, maybe because it's got nothing on it worth hiding...
So let's break down this paragraph in reverse. Yes it's true that the county is the owner and they are asking Apple to do what they want. But, just like any other customer, Apple can't retrieve your login credentials. You loose them then you need to start over. This is no different then any encrypted software like 1password or File Vault. If you loose the key the data can't be retrieved period.
Lynch is correct that in that they have not asked to turn on anything to spy on anyone. But that is not to say that once the first hurdle is crossed, by writing iOS software to bypass security features that it would be easier to then require a software vendor to take that next step.
As far as the first sentence, Lynch is correct but only with semantics. With everything discussed it's disingenuous to state this position. In order to comply with the last sentence, one must write software which creates a back door. She is also ignoring the testimony Comey who even stayed on the record that there are over a hundred other phones, where law enforcement wants access, and can use this as a precedent.
Total sham.
This is yet another great example that shows how inept, inefficient, and ineffective government agencies are as a whole. Yeah, they're understaffed, underfunded, don't get to skim from the top of the talent pool, some are ridiculously underpaid for the responsibilities they hold, some are grossly overpaid for the load they add to the system, everyone loves to hate them, and they are frustrated and jealous of the compensation that their peers in industry enjoy. But in many parts of the country the government is the largest employer and government jobs and bureaucracy are basically what keeps the unemployment rate less than 30-40% that it would otherwise be. When you add in government contractors and other entities sucking money from the never ending supply of money in government coffers - all of which is squeezed from taxpayers, the impact of government bureaucracy on everyday life in the US is staggering. If not for the relatively few private entities, Apple included, that actually create wealth and value outside of the constantly flowing pipeline of government spending we'd all be working for the government. You could argue that the US government creates and secures an environment in which companies like Apple can be successful - and to a large extent you'd be right - if it were 1975 today. But in a global economy the situation has changed.
The only way companies like Apple can be successful on a global scale and in the global economy is to have global credibility around protecting the fundamental rights of all of its customers in all of the markets it serves. It has to provide products that are intrinsically secure and private. If individual countries or other entities decide that they don't want to allow Apple's products to be used in their pure form in their environments, there are non-Apple tools like MDM to allow masters of government and industry to foist control over their subjects. The tools are there. If the FBI, NSA, DOJ, or a mom & pop hot dog stand business issues an asset that they need total control over to their subjects that is their prerogative and a condition of employment for everyone who signs on with the employer. That's the way it should work. All these terrorphobics who think the FBI should have the power to compel Apple to break their product for the investigation of a crime should have no opposition to signing up to have an FBI managed MDM system installed on their phone. Make it opt-in and then we'll see how many people would back their commitment to law enforcement based on the will of the enforcer. On the other hand the government should not be allowed to force Apple to automatically and universally opt-in all of its customers into an expansion of the mass surveillance programs already in place. Those kinds of actions should not take place in a democracy. Maybe in North Korea, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or whatever rebranding would come to the US if Trump becomes Grand Master of the Republican Party - maybe Trumpsylvania?
The bottom line: owners of smartphones already have ways to provide total control of their devices in a way that circumvents the Apple provided privacy protections. If they choose not to use these tools that's their problem, not Apple's. If other owners of devices want to opt-in to other device management programs run by other agencies, say the FBI, DOJ, Google, or whatever, they should be allow to do so by by choice. Anything less than "by choice" is unacceptable.
The US Govt clearly does not have America's best interests in mind and we are now left with the private sector defending our interests. It is sad.
Maybe one thing Apple could possibly do is allow the creation of a secondary passcode on a device, which can be used in case of death. Better yet, allow you to designate another idevice(s) to receive an authentication code which can unlock your device. This way no codes are given out manually. Thus a trusted device. Now that Apple has a management system, which they will be releasing soon, for the education market maybe features could be added to manage devices within a household/trusted member.