Apple is set to officially make a statement before Congress tomorrow regarding its refusal to fulfill a judge’s request to help the FBI unlock a suspect’s iPhone in the high-profile San Bernardino attacks. Apple’s General Counsel Bruce Sewell, likely alongside other Apple employees, will deliver the prepared statement below at the hearing titled Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy before addressing the panel and answering questions from Congress (via The Verge).
In the full statement (below), Apple echoed many of the past statements CEO Tim Cook and other representatives have given throughout the controversy, explaining that the FBI’s demands for a backdoor into iOS “would set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion on the privacy and safety of its citizens.”
The FBI has asked a Court to order us to give them something we don’t have. To create an operating system that does not exist — because it would be too dangerous. They are asking for a backdoor into the iPhone — specifically to build a software tool that can break the encryption system which protects personal information on every iPhone.
As we have told them — and as we have told the American public — building that software tool would not affect just one iPhone. It would weaken the security for all of them. In fact, just last week Director Comey agreed that the FBI would likely use this precedent in other cases involving other phones.
And as Apple prepares to deliver the above statement to Congress tomorrow, the company’s lawyer Ted Boutrous appeared on CNBC today for a 15 minute chat about the case. Boutrous shared a lot of thoughts similar to those in Apple’s prepared statements for Congress tomorrow, calling the case a broad “political and policy question” and saying that it’s not appropriate to deal with it in the courts.
“there are all sorts of risks… the government is trying to portray this as national security and law enforcement against other interests, but they overlook the security interests of citizens, their data. We do think this is a very significant risk and that we’re better off protecting data and not creating this tool…”
Lastly, investor Warren Buffet is the latest to weigh in on the case with his thoughts in an interview with CBNC today. Buffet said he would be willing to trust the head of the FBI on requests for access to government data, and in cases important enough to national security companies should try to cooperate with government requests.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdQ0Hd-zkI]
Apple’s full prepared statements for Congress tomorrow below:
I want to repeat something we have said since the beginning — that the victims and families of the San Bernardino attacks have our deepest sympathies and we strongly agree that justice should be served. Apple has no sympathy for terrorists.
We have the utmost respect for law enforcement and share their goal of creating a safer world. We have a team of dedicated professionals that are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to assist law enforcement. When the FBI came to us in the immediate aftermath of the San Bernardino attacks, we gave all the information we had related to their investigation. And we went beyond that by making Apple engineers available to advise them on a number of additional investigative options.
But we now find ourselves at the center of an extraordinary circumstance. The FBI has asked a Court to order us to give them something we don’t have. To create an operating system that does not exist — because it would be too dangerous. They are asking for a backdoor into the iPhone — specifically to build a software tool that can break the encryption system which protects personal information on every iPhone.
As we have told them — and as we have told the American public — building that software tool would not affect just one iPhone. It would weaken the security for all of them. In fact, just last week Director Comey agreed that the FBI would likely use this precedent in other cases involving other phones. District Attorney Vance has also said he would absolutely plan to use this on over 175 phones. We can all agree this is not about access to just one iPhone.
The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products. Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety. It would set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion on the privacy and safety of its citizens.
Hundreds of millions of law-abiding people trust Apple’s products with the most intimate details of their daily lives – photos, private conversations, health data, financial accounts, and information about the user’s location as well as the location of their friends and families. Some of you might have an iPhone in your pocket right now, and if you think about it, there’s probably more information stored on that iPhone than a thief could steal by breaking into your house. The only way we know to protect that data is through strong encryption.
Every day, over a trillion transactions occur safely over the Internet as a result of encrypted communications. These range from online banking and credit card transactions to the exchange of healthcare records, ideas that will change the world for the better, and communications between loved ones. The US government has spent tens of millions of dollars through the Open Technology Fund and other US government programs to fund strong encryption. The Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, convened by President Obama, urged the US government to fully support and not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available commercial software.
Encryption is a good thing, a necessary thing. We have been using it in our products for over a decade. As attacks on our customers’ data become increasingly sophisticated, the tools we use to defend against them must get stronger too. Weakening encryption will only hurt consumers and other well-meaning users who rely on companies like Apple to protect their personal information.
Today’s hearing is titled Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy. We believe we can, and we must, have both. Protecting our data with encryption and other methods preserves our privacy and it keeps people safe.
The American people deserve an honest conversation around the important questions stemming from the FBI’s current demand:
Do we want to put a limit on the technology that protects our data, and therefore our privacy and our safety, in the face of increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks? Should the FBI be allowed to stop Apple, or any company, from offering the American people the safest and most secure product it can make?
Should the FBI have the right to compel a company to produce a product it doesn’t already make, to the FBI’s exact specifications and for the FBI’s use?
We believe that each of these questions deserves a healthy discussion, and any decision should be made after a thoughtful and honest consideration of the facts.
Most importantly, the decisions should be made by you and your colleagues as representatives of the people, rather than through a warrant request based on a 220 year- old-statute.
At Apple, we are ready to have this conversation. The feedback and support we’re hearing indicate to us that the American people are ready, too.
We feel strongly that our customers, their families, their friends and their neighbors will be better protected from thieves and terrorists if we can offer the very best protections for their data. And at the same time, the freedoms and liberties we all cherish will be more secure.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your questions.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
“Buffet said he would be willing to trust the head of the FBI on requests for access to government data, and in cases important enough to national security companies should try to cooperate with government requests.”
Why is it every single person who publicly comes out in support of the FBI seem to have missed the part where Apple has been cooperating with the government requests, but refuse to do this ONE thing that is a bit too far?
They are either ignorant or liars.
Well, with Buffett it could be both.
He may trust the head of then FBI but how about every District Attorney in the US? How about every Prosecutor and Defense Attorney in the US down to the county level? In Russia? China? Iran? Nigeria? Byelorussia? How about WHEN this gets leaked by some low level staffer and ends up on the Internet for every internet fraud ring in the world to use? How much will Buffet’s investment be worth then? How will this help National Security when all the bad guys, and many of the good, start using third party encrypted communication tools.
You are correct. The director of the FBI may be trustworthy (Although there have been cross-dressing predecessors that have abused that position) BUT the tool will have to be given to some ‘worker bee’ who will get it from a long chain of managers … So there’s that potential for leaks, abuse and malicious distribution.
You also correctly mention foreign countries who will immediately demand the ‘backdoor installation O/S’ for ‘their security’ or block Apple from selling their products in their countries.
But, more importantly, we spend an enormous amount of money on defense and security so, you would figure that somewhere along the way they might actually manage to hire some folks talented enough to write the ‘Backdoor O/S’ themselves and then just get a proper warrant from the courts every time they decide they need to use it.
My guess is that the US, China and probably Israel already have tools to do the job but the FBI wants to use this particular ‘Terrorist’ connection to gain public support and approval while they ‘officially’ rob us of one more right to privacy. As it is, we may never get back the rights that were obliterated with the Patriot Act so we really need to stop this nibbling away at our rights before we have none at all.
Is it unconstitutional to hack a phone ? I think it is.
Interestingly enough, if you follow the strict rules espoused by the late Scalia and his conservative brethren I’d think not. The Constitution does not say anything about phones and encryption so they logically should not be protected.
However back herew in the real world I think it would have to be.
Interestingly enough, if you follow the strict rules espoused by the late Scalia and his conservative brethren I’d think not. The Constitution does not say anything about phones and encryption so they logically should not be protected.
However back here in the real world I think it would have to be.
Although a few years old an article for Piers Morgan when he was still on CNN points to exactly why Warren should stay out of this discussion:
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/22/warren-buffett-on-cell-phones-email-and-material-goods/
I love the guy but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to technology.
dear mr Buffet, I value my privacy.
Warren is an old man who is uninformed about this debate. He should’ve said I’ll stay out of this one. A comment I posted pending moderation links to a CNN article in which he practically admits to being technology illiterate.
the us would be a stronger country if there were more wise people like warren buffet
Warren is an investor plain and simple. Why he decided to make a public opinion on this conversation one can only guess. He’s admitted to sending 1 email in his life.
He’s likely got a short position AAPL and/or other techs.
I suppose. If you like parasites.
Sorry but I have no respect for the old cockroach. He wants to add billions to the billions he already has and does not give a damn who he has to screw to get it.
I don’t begrudge anyone who makes good money and my research has shown him to be calculating but fair. However when it comes to technology he knows nothing.
He may be fair. But a few years ago when he had that “why should I be paying less than my secretary?” thing going on, I realized what a pompous, attention seeking fraud he was/is.
If he felt so strongly that he should be paying more in taxes, there was literally nothing stopping him but his own desire to pay as little in taxes as allowed. He could have easily instructed his highly paid tax attorneys (the same ones he pays to keep his tax liability low) to claim the standard deduction, not itemize deductions, and paid a much higher rate. So he is nothing more than a fraud.
The world will be a better place if you fell down a mine shaft.
The worst part about all of this is that some poor muppet had to die for Ted Boutrous’ hairpiece.
#StandWithApple 9to5Mac, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Yahoo, WhatsApp, RepTedLieu, and others on this important issue of privacy. Add your name to the petition >>> http://1.usa.gov/1R9A4cM