Skip to main content

Attorney General strongly hints at being on FBI side, but surprisingly stops short of saying so

lynch

The WSJ, which has seen an advance copy of a speech being made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch later today, says that while she strongly hints at being on the FBI’s side of the dispute, she will not directly say so. This somewhat surprising fact may reflect her audience – a cybersecurity conference whose delegates are likely to be on Apple’s side.

In her speech, Ms. Lynch won’t explicitly take on the encryption issue or Apple, but instead will promise continuing “frank dialogue and fruitful partnership” between the government and the industry on issues of cybersecurity.

Lynch’s remarks, though, do make it clear on which side her sympathies fall …

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. 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 […]

As recent events have made clear, the stakes aren’t theoretical; they bear directly upon our public safety and our national security.

‘Going dark’ is the government’s term for people’s ability to use strong encryption to communicate in ways the government is unable to monitor.

Congress will be hearing from both FBI director James Comey and Apple’s top lawyer Bruce Sewell later today.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. San Bernardino - 8 years ago

    Show us the San Bernardino surveillance video.

    Apple wants to verify the FBI’s story.

    • Apple doesn’t have the authority to demand such things.

      • just-a-random-dude - 8 years ago

        What? Apple is not demanding anything from FBI nor does it want to verify anything. WTF are you talking about?

        Apple is done with the case, it provided all the assistance it can and it can’t do anything else because its job is not to enforce the laws, that’s the FBI’s job and Apple cannot be compelled to do the FBI’s job.

  2. tincan2012 - 8 years ago

    Perhaps she is thinking about her possible nomination to the Supreme Court to replace Scalia.
    Why not go along with the government, even though it is wrong, just this one time?…

  3. Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 8 years ago

    I wonder what would happen if another government, like North Korea forces Apple through the same means that the US government is trying to do, to hack into a stolen iPhone that turns out to belong to someone from the FBI, NSA, etc.?

    • Gregory Wright - 8 years ago

      No, lets not forget the that although most of the AG’s job is spent going after criminals, the position also requires that she protect the people’s interest. Apple’s position is a hard one to fight. Apple could have left the government wiggle room but it chose not to do so. The government is in a hard place. A traditional investigative tool is being taken away. A suspect’s written statement or spoken word is the best evidence when trying to prove a case “beyond reasonable doubt”. Evidence that a suspect provides against himself is better than circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be challenged. Apple’s attempt to protect its customers will, unless the government finds a way around encryption, end up hurting more customers than it helps.

      • Ben Lovejoy - 8 years ago

        That argument ignores the fact that there are masses of encrypted apps out there already. Any criminal or terrorist with half a brain will already be using them. This move would weaken iPhone security with zero benefit.

      • Gregory Wright - 8 years ago

        True, but the average guy committing criminal offenses are not that sophistigated. I realize the focus is on the FBI and NSA intelligence gathering activities. But, what is loss in the intelligence gathering battle is the work of everyday police officer who use to rely on search warrants to obtain evidence from smartphones and computers now find themselves crippled by encryption. The domestic abuser stalking his girlfriend or wife, the dumb street gangbanger, or companies, for matter, who commit crimes against their customers – just to name a few who now will benefit from there ability to encrypt. Encryption is not hard to activate on one’s iPhone. The initial setup asks if you want it activated. Everybody who now realizes what encryption means are most certain toactivated it. That’s the problem for local level police enforcement if they do not have the means to defeat it.

      • realgurahamu - 8 years ago

        And also to extend on Ben’s reply to you, in addition, if a mobile phone is considered the written word of the criminal, then the same laws should apply as they do for the spoken word – you have the right to say nothing, and the government cannot force you to self incriminate. just because the san bernadino shooter is dead, doesn’t remove his rights to say nothing.

      • Gregory Wright - 8 years ago

        @ realgurahamu – Please, do not pretend you have an understanding of the 5th Amendment.

      • PhilBoogie - 8 years ago

        A pity you are getting the facts wrong. It’s Android that asks you during setup if you want to encrypt or not, not an iPhone, or to put it correctly, iOS. And not everything is encrypted within the Apple ecosystem, please read the white papers Apple has on their website.

  4. pretsky - 8 years ago

    So this “ongoing investigation” she can comment on, but not the one involving Hillary’s email server. Why?

  5. PhilBoogie - 8 years ago

    “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”

    And yet some family members of the victims are asking the government to do just the opposite, by not creating a backdoor tool into that iPhone.

    Ms. Lynch, the next time we want your opinion, we’ll give it to you.

  6. John Smith - 8 years ago

    ‘Going dark’

    Just in case Apple really can’t understand this, here’s the basic idea …

    WWII and the spooks are doing a grand job intercepting German U-Boat messages and stopping them killing our sailors crossing the atlantic.

    Some hyper-rich, greedy American corporation sells the germans encryption machines we can’t break then refuses to help fix the problem.

    Unsurprisingly American government official thinks this is not a good idea.

    I think Apple understands it fine well, but up to this point thinks they can sell more phones with this marketing stance.

  7. Jake Becker - 8 years ago

    Statists gonna state.

    Well, most of the time anyway.

  8. Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 8 years ago

    I’m wondering does the government want full access to such a backdoor without having to go through Apple to gain access or do they just want Apple to use this backdoor when issued a court order? What happens if Apple, through whatever means, can’t get access? Maybe the user used other 3rd party security software to further secure their device which designed to prevent the backdoor access?

  9. 89p13 - 8 years ago

    The Chertoff Group has released a White Paper – “The Ground Truth About Encryption and The Consequences of Extraordinary Access.” – with the conclusion (excerpted) being:

    We acknowledge, of course, that most of these conclusions reflect only a considered judgment of the future, not an absolute certainty. But that is the nature of public policy development. Considering all of these factors, our conclusion is that a mandate to require extraordinary lawful access to commercial encryption products would incur greater social, security, and economic costs than the benefits it would achieve. Based on what we know today from the public record, we recommend against the enactment of extraordinary lawful access requirement”

    The full paper can be reached at: http://chertoffgroup.com/cms-assets/documents/238024-282765.groundtruth.pdf

  10. Thomas Marble Peak - 8 years ago

    #StandWithApple 9to5Mac, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Yahoo, WhatsApp, Rep Ted Lieu, and others on this important issue of privacy. Add your name to the petition >>> http://1.usa.gov/1R9A4cM

Author

Avatar for Ben Lovejoy Ben Lovejoy

Ben Lovejoy is a British technology writer and EU Editor for 9to5Mac. He’s known for his op-eds and diary pieces, exploring his experience of Apple products over time, for a more rounded review. He also writes fiction, with two technothriller novels, a couple of SF shorts and a rom-com!


Ben Lovejoy's favorite gear