SoylentNews

takyon [soylentnews.org] writes:

Apple's general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to explain their positions on a court order that would force Apple to unlock the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters. Comey sang a different tune before Congress [reuters.com]:

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey told a congressional panel on Tuesday that a court order forcing Apple Inc to give the FBI data from an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters would be "potentially precedential" in other cases where the agency might request similar cooperation from technology companies. The remarks are a slight change to Comey's statement last week that forcing Apple to unlock the phone was "unlikely to be a trailblazer" for setting a precedent for other cases. [...] Comey acknowledged on Tuesday that the FBI would seek to use the same statute it is trying to apply in the San Bernardino case to compel Apple to unlock other phones, "if (the statute) is available to us."

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee seized on Comey's statement that the case could set a legal precedent allowing the agency access to any encrypted device. "Given... that Congress has explicitly denied you that authority so far, can you appreciate our frustration that this case appears to be little more than an end run around this committee?" asked the committee's ranking minority member, Michigan Representative John Conyers. Comey responded that the FBI was not asking to expand the government's surveillance authority, but rather to maintain its ability to obtain electronic information under legal authorities that Congress has already provided.

Sewell argued [washingtonpost.com] that unlocking the iPhone would weaken the security of all of them, and that the issue should be settled by Congress:

"We can all agree this is not about access to just one iPhone," Sewell, Apple's general counsel, said in his prepared opening remarks. "The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products." Sewell also argued that the debate should be had by Congress and elected leaders, rather than a warrant requested under the All Writs Act, a 1789 law that is central to the cases in California and New York.

Sewell also said [marketwatch.com] that Apple is capable of creating new software that removes some security functionality, that being forced to write code is a First Amendment issue, and that Apple hasn't gotten similar demands from China or any other country, but expects to if Apple is forced to comply with the court order.

Previously: New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone [soylentnews.org]

Original Submission