Bloomberg reports that a Manhattan District Attorney is challenging recent moves by Apple, Google and other tech companies by suggesting government pass laws that prevent mobile devices from being “sealed off from law enforcement.” In an interview this week, the government official called it “an issue of public safety.”
Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Google Inc. (GOOG) should be legally required to give police access to customer data necessary to investigate crimes, New York County’s top prosecutor said… Federal and state governments should consider passing laws that forbid smartphones, tablets and other such devices from being “sealed off from law enforcement,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said today in an interview at a cybersecurity conference in New York.
Late last year other government officials criticized Apple’s policy on encrypting user data including statements made by United States Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI director James Comey in September. The statement came at the same time Apple published an open letter on privacy from the CEO alongside an updated website dedicated to presenting Apple’s policy on user privacy and data regarding government requests for information. In the updated policies, Apple clarified that much of a user’s data in iOS 8 is encrypted and not accessible by it or law enforcement:
On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it’s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.
Another twist to the story came in October of last year when a Virginia District Court ruled that while phone passcodes are protected by the 5th Amendment, which says that those accused of crimes cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves, there is no such protection against using a suspect’s fingerprint to unlock a phone.
“It’s developed into a sort of high-stakes game,” Vance said. “They’ve eliminated accessibility in order to market the product. Now that means we have to figure out how to solve a problem that we didn’t create.”
FBI Director James Comey is scheduled to talk tomorrow at the same cybersecurity conference that Vance appeared at today.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I don’t want them anywhere near my phone or anything else I own. What ever happened to freedom and privacy?
It’s called the Patriot Act. You gave up your right to freedom and privacy when you allowed your elected officials to create the law.
someone repeal that God-awful act and soon
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin
More FBI “FUD” (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to take away our rights to privacy. IF Apple gives up this battle the 6Plus with iOS 8.1 may be my final phone.
Even with my limited knowledge of the subject I know that the “terrorists” don’t use Apple or Google and are/have written their own crypo communication software so unless he’s suggesting we unlearn open source cryptography then I’m at a loss as to who the targets actually are.
advocates against the right for individuals to feel safe in their possessions is as offensive as racial slander, and public employees who advocate for revoking an individuals 4th amendment rights should be fired from their positions of authority. We did not vote for elected officials or hire individuals in places of authority who are going to threaten to revoke the laws they are obligated to uphold. I did not vote for a police chief sworn to uphold the constitution, tell me the constitution, that put him in power, is invalid. He sounds like one of the pigs in 1984 who once got the power, now wants to change the rules.
Please remember that NO law enforcement official can view the contents of a mobile device with a valid search warrant. Pursuant to the SCOTUS ruling in ‘Riley v. California’, you do not have to provide access into your mobile device without being presented with a valid search warrant.
Unless they plan on lengthy torture as a means to obtain my phone’s passcode, warrant or not, I’m not giving them my passcode.
Nobody disputes that.
I cannot believe I defend the DA here, but his concern is that even with a warrant, it is impossible to decrypt the phone without owner’s cooperation. Apple cannot decrypt even if wanted to.
That said, I do not see it an issue, but DA does
“It’s developed into a sort of high-stakes game,” Vance said. “They’ve eliminated accessibility in order to market the product. Now that means we have to figure out how to solve a problem that we didn’t create.”
He IS the problem.
In George Orwell’s “1984”, the pigs were put in power and then changed the rules to everyone else surprise. I would like to ask the District Attorney of The State of New York aren’t you like a pig, who placed in power, now wants to change the rules?
Animal Farm, not “1984”.
The police are out of control. While we have the unfortunate situation in which at least 5/9 Supreme Court Justices do not believe in a right to privacy, private property has to be respected. Period.
Speaking from personal experience, these are the same police who fail to prosecute iPhone thieves even when you identify the thief by name, address and employer. Cops are turning into wimps (unless people of color are involved).
By control you mean administrators. The average cop on the beat could give a crap.
couldn’t is the word you’re looking for
Thanks Irelandjnr……
Just a little hypothetical scenario (though not a million miles from a real case) …
Guy has an iPad running latest IOS. He’s secured it with a 10 character password, no dictionary words, uppercase, lowercase and numbers. iPad does not have touch-id and it has not been backed up to iCloud or to a PC.
He has formed a relationship with a single woman who is the mother of a 4 year old little girl. Mother alleges that he has filmed himself having penetrative sex with the little girl and the video is on his iPad.
Cops arrest him. Judge issues a search warrant.
The alleged rape happened some weeks ago and no forensic evidence is found.
He refuses to give up the iPad password (obviously).
Apple has supplied encryption that is infeasible to break.
Discuss.
Medical exam…..testimony…..maybe throw in some cop work…….BOOM…..Jail time
Alleged rape occurred 2 months prior to mother reporting.
Everyone has showered (several times). Clothes and bed linen washed (several times). Guy has legitimate access to child, bedroom etc etc. – presence of his semen, pubic hair etc in washing machine or laundry basket would be without value in court.
Examination of little girl finds nothing – she is not (physically) injured.
He has gone ‘no comment’ at interview – they just sit there saying ‘no comment’ ‘no comment’ ‘no comment’ to every question.
Testimony of a 4 year old girl? Not pleasant. Not guaranteed to happen – she may not even speak about it in private, let alone in a video link evidence or worse yet a court. Even then, not guaranteed to convict once a competent defence lawyer does their job.
Alternative to all of the above is the video on his iPad.
Cops have a lawful warrant from a judge.
Should apple assist or obstruct the inquiry?
Sounds like the DA will have to decide if there is enough evidence (sans iPad) to pursue a Jury Trial and see if he gets convicted. Regardless of what the DA decides to do, that woman should sever all ties with the man and provide counseling for her 4 year old daughter.
If man knows he is innocent, he should definitely let that dingbat hit the road and not look back. She’s obviously a paranoid schizophrenic.
Apple – if they have any tools that may assist law enforcement in cracking the encryption, would be obliged to help. If there’s nothing they can do, it’s too bad. Encryption software isn’t illegal to possess, create, market, sell, or distribute. Neither is “Good Encryption Software”. “Good” being “unbreakable”. That’s the purpose of encryption software, to do exactly this – prevent anyone from knowing what you have encrypted.
Pick any “controversial topic” like this – it’s a question of Life or Liberty. Having Liberty (in society) as a priority means that “Life” is of secondary concern. When Life is not the primary concern, then it is expendable: situations like you posited, while potentially a tragic situation, are acceptable. Many people who don’t serve in our Armed Forces, perhaps unknowingly/unwittingly, give their lives each year in service to our liberty. From the fetus’s that are aborted, to victims of gunshots, and those who die in traffic accidents – their death is acceptable because Liberty in Society is more important. If it weren’t, we’d have speed limiters on cars, breathalyzers before cars could be turned on, no guns, no hate/offensive speech, and no abortions.
That’s not to say we should prioritize “Life” over “Liberty”. The government cannot safeguard Life. It’s too big of a task and there aren’t enough resources. Even then, what you propose is that Liberty be given up in service to Life. North Korea exists to demonstrate how a society like that is possible. The ironic part of prioritizing “Life” is that more life is generally lost. Nothing really protects “Life” as well as “Liberty”. When you put people in charge of safeguarding their own “Life” they tend to do a pretty darn good job.
A purely hypothetical example meant to evoke an emotional response instead of a logical one.
Just a little hypothetical scenario (though not a million miles from a real case) and interestingly pretty much how the justice system worked in the 17th century …
Guy has an iPad running latest IOS. He’s secured it with a 10 character password, no dictionary words, uppercase, lowercase and numbers. iPad does not have touch-id and it has not been backed up to iCloud or to a PC.
He has formed a relationship with a single woman who is the mother of a 4 year old little girl. Mother alleges that he has filmed himself having penetrative sex with the little girl and the video is on his iPad.
Cops arrest him. Judge issues a search warrant.
The alleged rape happened some weeks ago and no forensic evidence is found.
He refuses to give up the iPad password (obviously).
Torture until he confesses to the crime or gives up the password.
Discuss.
—————–
Is there a person on here who wouldn’t violate any and every law on the planet to save their child? The sad fact is that our laws were made the way that they were for a reason. The founding fathers came from a world in which the thinking was, “it is far better that a few innocents be punished than a guilty man be left unpunished”. They made it so that in the new nation it is more likely that a few guilty people will go free than an innocent man be punished. Now our government wants to go back to that historic world where innocents should be punished (have their rights taken away) just to make sure that no guilty people go free.
If we start giving up our rights on the little things (right to privacy) today then over time the extreme (torture) of today becomes the little thing of tomorrow.
Abraham was willing to sacrifice Issac, and He’s someone we are to emulate. I would hope everyone here wouldn’t violate every and any law to save their children. Children like gold are not things to worship or hold up as idols. There are something’s worth dying for. The question is; is the fourth amendment worth dying for? Is it worth defending from enemies foreign and domestic?
This isn’t a question of balancing torture versus no conviction.
It’s balancing apple providing access to an electronic device on receipt of a lawful warrant vs no conviction.
With a warrant, cops can enter a home and search. This would be compliant with US constitution or European human rights convention. Does a phone or iPad deserve greater protection in law than our homes?
Good point John Smith. Maybe this Republican congress will pass a law forcing companies to permit law enforcement access. Apple is appeasing “some” of its customer base. You know, the whiners who would tolerate law breaking over some perceived privacy violation.
Just a little hypothetical scenario (though not a million miles from a real case) …
Guy lives in some town and it’s the 1980’s. There are no cell phones, digital cameras. Only analog forms of recording.
He has formed a relationship with a single woman who is the mother of a 4 year old little girl. Mother alleges that he has filmed himself having penetrative sex with the little girl and the video is on his video camera
Cops arrest him. Judge issues a search warrant.
The alleged rape happened some weeks ago and no forensic evidence is found.
Warrant uncovers that he sent the tape to a Swiss deposit box, which he and the Swiss government won’t give up(obviously).
Discuss.
It’s not hard… he’s found in contempt of court, and sits in jail until he give them the password.
Anything they can do to infringe upon your rights and make us modern day slaves with with no voice.
F*** these guys. The U.S. Constitution gives me the right to privacy unless they have a search warrant.
Correct. DA’s point is a bit different though. Even with a warrant, Apple cannot decrypt phone’s data. According to DA, that is an issue.
My mother taught me this one thing, if you’re going to do anything wrong do it all by yourself. This way its only one story, yours… As it applies to this, don’t make record of you incriminating yourself. Be it verbally, or digitally. Or better yet, just have some integrity.
Ha. Maybe new york should first concentrate on getting their police to actually do their jobs before worrying about how they can abuse our rights during.
Should we be forced to have cameras and audio listening devices in our houses too as a matter of public safety? What GIVES LAW enforcement the right to listen into a private conversation between me and my wife. NOTHING DOES!
I do not want to be rude, but it seems to me NY DA is “an issue of public safety” now…
I find it interesting that so far I have not seen a single similar statement from any EU-state law official reported on any news website. Correct me if I am wrong.
So what are they gonna do? Threaten to police even less until they get their way on this issue?
1) How did law enforcement solve crimes before iPads and iPhones? …..
2) The NSA surely is smart enough to decrypt anything
3) If Apple and Google used the NRA’s or the Koch brothers’ lobbying methods to defend the privacy issue, we would never hear about it again
So what exactly did Police do before they had the opportunity to spy on cell phones remotely without any oversight? I know the Fourth Amendment is inconvenient and all, but folks should have an expectation of privacy. Likewise, if we leave these devices open for the police to venture in, what’s to say someone else won’t as well (British news papers and all…)
The real issue of “public safety” is the piss poor training they give these cops in how to use their equipment correctly.
I’ll just leave this here… no one look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9SNXpeORY
This one is much shorter and a bit more humorous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iR2qXq9Rw