It was announced last week that Apple would once again face off against the FBI in Congress this week after its previous testimony over the FBI’s request in the San Bernardino gunmen case. During the hearing today, which was entitled “Deciphering the Debate Over Encryption: Industry and Law Enforcement Perspectives,” Apple’s General Counsel Bruce Sewell continued to defend the need for strong user encryption. He also clarified, however, that Apple has refused requests from China for source code.
During the hearing, Sewell was pressed by law enforcement officials regarding reports that Apple has handed over information to Chinese authorities, despite its refusal to aid in situations like the controversial San Bernardino case. Sewell clarified today, however, that while Apple has received requests from the Chinese government for it to hand over source code, it has not done so. According to Sewell, the requests have come within the last two years and Apple has not complied with any of them.
The allegations were initially brought up by Captain Charles Cohen, commander in the Indiana State Police, who accused Apple of giving information to the Chinese government in exchange for business advantages.
Furthermore, Sewell clarified that Apple has yet to announce passcode encryption on iCloud. Although iCloud backups are encrypted, the keys for the encryption are also stored with Apple. It has been reported in the past that Apple is developing a new backup strategy where the keys would be tied to the local user device in some way, meaning that Apple itself would not be able to comply with law enforcement requests. While Sewell did not deny that Apple is working on something like this, he did clarify that nothing has been announced or rolled out yet.
In presenting his argument for the need for encryption on user devices, Sewell likened phones to authentication devices. The Apple executive explained that phones store so much information in modern times that if you break encryption to gain access to them, the consequences could be dire.
Finally, Sewell concluded by saying that he has proposed private, more casual meetings with the FBI to discuss the need for encryption and how the two parties can work together to better understand where each side is coming from with their arguments. Sewell noted that he was asking for these meetings prior to the San Bernardino case, but is still very much open to having one.
You can watch the full video of the event below:
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The governments of this world are showing their true colors over this security/privacy debate. Turns out they are ALL fascist are their cores. Whether capitalist or socialist/communist they believe they have absolute power over their citizens. The state is all that matters to them, including the government of the United States.
So if Apple makes these iCloud changes does that mean if you forgot your passcode you would be SOL and unable to restore from an iCloud backup?
It seems so, but it’s probably the same as two-factor authentication now. If you lose any of your authenticated devices and your security code, you’re also screwed. But now they’re going to make it infeasible for themselves as well to unlock your account.
Blind leading the blind for almost 4 hours. At 1 hr and 46 minutes everyone collaborated on the idea that customers were unable to install encryption apps on their devices unless those apps were in the US App Store for their perspective devices. This is totally incorrect. With a little effort, you can install apps that are not in the Apple App Store or you can even just switch your country designation for iTunes. For Android, while you are encouraged to only get apps from their Google Play Store, you can download apps from other sites as well. FFS, get a present expert in on these meetings.
https://youtu.be/O4tUx1W3zLc
I continue to wait patiently for some panelist to have the nerve to point out the latest “back door” fiasco. It represents a direct analogy to the often-promoted “safe Deposit Box” example. A few years ago, at the behest of Homeland Security and their TSA brethren that all airline luggage be “openable” by TSA agents in their daily activity of safeguarding the flying public. Good motive, indeed. The “TSA-Approved” lock came into being, where likely billions of suitcases and add-on locks were manufactured to the TSA design – which allowed the owner of the suitcase to lock it, but gave the TSA officials a “secure” key to open any of those locks. Today, there are files available on the internet allowing any number of 3D-manufactureing machines to “cut” the TSA “secret” key. Thus, the entire expense of the public in buying those locks has been defeated. No longer is their luggage safe from bad actors in the transport of baggage protected with those locks.
In a similar scenario (which was mentioned) the industry spent considerable $$$ creating systems that would abide by the NSA’s “Clipper” technology – then the key was broken by a hacker and all that investment was rendered worthless.
There is no way on this Earth that any law enforcement agency could be given a Key that would not eventually be let loose in the wild. It just happens.
Thanks for posting this video it was interesting.I have a better view of what apple is up against, any chance apple can brick my iPhone after 5 tries instead of 10 on the next update haha