8 ms·

Congress finally showed it's willing to fight the FBI on encryption

366 points by magoghm 11y ago

dbrannan 11y ago
Only because major U.S. corporations complained, which tells you who owns congress.
- adventured 11y ago
  It is in fact the other way around. The US Government completely and entirely dominates the private sector economy, controlling nearly every aspect top to bottom. The US is one of the most regulated economies in the G20, with economic regulations continuing to expand rapidly, the government adds thousands of new regulations annually. That blatant government control is why the NSA (US military, executive branch) was able to force Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, et al. to comply against their will, and often against their attempts to defend themselves. It's also why this is even an issue at all. If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening, Apple would have dismissed them with a swipe of its hand, given it's the world's richest private corporation. If corporations owned Congress, the US wouldn't have one of the highest effective corporate tax rates on earth.
  - moonshinefe 11y ago
    What? "If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening"--it's almost as if there can be multiple interests influencing / lobbying for power somehow, and not a single corporation owns all of congress...
graycat 11y ago
Why? Has the FBI found a fast way to factor any product of two large prime numbers? Until they do, what the FBI wants is not always what the FBI can get, Congress or not.
- uniformlyrandom 11y ago
  You do not need to factor large primes (or more likely, reverse point multiplication on elliptic curves), if you can guess a 4-digit pin code instead.
- chipperyman573 11y ago
  You need to break the encryption or find the key. In this case the key has 4^9 bits of entropy (262144) which can be cracked in a matter of minutes if they get a copy of iOS that doesn't have a timeout.
  - caf 11y ago
    Your math is a little off. Presumably you are assuming a 4-digit numeric PIN, which means log_2(10^4) bits of entropy (13.3).
    - graycat 11y ago
      No. I'm not really talking about, thinking about the current FBI/Apple issue and, instead, am trying to be more fundamental and look ahead one step, say, the next step after the FBI/Apple, uh, maybe call it a pissing match. So, IMHO, here's where we are, whatever FBI/Apple do: People, and Apple, will want encryption no one knows how to break. Indeed, IIRC, Apple has already announced that they intend to make an iPhone Apple can claim they can't break. And I suspect that quite broadly and commonly people will just roll back to basic RSA, etc. encryption, say, from little command line programs they can run on an old, not hacked, computer never connected to a network. Then the issue in practice will be the same one that is fundamental in theory: To break the encryption, need to a fast way to factor a product of two, large prime numbers. Pass code, 4-digit PINs, etc. -- I just passed over those as by now trivial and irrelevant.
      - eru 11y ago
        > And I suspect that quite broadly and commonly people will just roll back to basic RSA, etc. encryption, say, from little command line programs they can run on an old, not hacked, computer never connected to a network. Never gonna happen. I am willing to bet.
sigmar 11y ago
I watched most of the hearing (can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw), this article seems like a pretty accurate characterization. Comey's parsing of words in his response to the question of whether any gov't agency can access the phone reminded me of Clapper's "least untruthful" answer (ie his lie about NSA data collection).
- ghayes 11y ago
  To this day, I find to hard to call Clapper's response anything but a direct and intentional lie. I do hope in a post-Snowden world, officials will be more careful not to lie under oath to Congress.
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    Why would they? Clapper has not been charged with perjury, or faced any serious consequences.
    - joering2 11y ago
      He faced consequences... of a promotion. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/2/1228321/-Classic-Government-Cronyism-James-Clapper-Got-a-Promotion-After-His-Bold-Faced-Lie-Before-Congress http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/2/1228321/-Classic-Gove...
  - rurban 11y ago
    All the CIA does lying, day in day out. That's literally their job, besides extra juridical killings. And they usually don't care about Congress or White House. So it's not unexpected that he got caught. He certainly does not care, as he is more powerful than Obama or Congress.
  - griffinmahon 11y ago
    Clapper came to my school to talk and I asked him "to speak about the allegations of perjury". He was not amused, and repeated the line about having forgotten about the PATRIOT Act.
mmanfrin 11y ago
Except for Trey Gowdy, who continued to display himself as a complete and total idiot.
- camillomiller 11y ago
  He looks basically like Draco Malfoy all grown up.
- artursapek 11y ago
  My first impression of him was recently during Martin Shkreli's hearing and he left a similarly bad taste in my mouth after this one.
- joering2 11y ago
  I noticed that too. Before Hillary final testimony I had utmost respect for this man. I took time off and microwave some popcorn for the hearing and then such huge disappointment -- he didn't have nothing against Hillary. Came totally unprepared! If anything he really sounded like this people are wasting tax payers money. And true -- arm wrestling Apple lawyer into "lets skip all this and lets save money lets do this and that" -- truly lost my respect.
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
I'll open the champagne when Congress actually votes on some legislation to prevent the FBI's request from happening. The congressional committee does not represent all of congress, and I don't know how many congressmen would still rally behind the "No privacy ever because TERRORISM" cry if it came to a vote. This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue, and it's difficult to predict how a vote would go.
- joering2 11y ago
  But what has happens is weakening their position. Remember - they went to judge - judge said no - they suggest congress - no congress is giving them no as well - going back to the judge(s) will definitely get them annoyed.
- rqebmm 11y ago
  > This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue. I think that's great, because it means there's a chance it actually gets addressed.
- sathackr 11y ago
  This will probably be decided, like most constitutional issues, by a Judge that will be forced to interpret the 4th/5th amendment, in the ever changing light of 'reasonableness', as it applies to the case at hand. It will then become precedent, adding to the long list of very important judicial decisions that must decide how to apply a law with very loosely defined vocabulary. How a normal citizen is expected to remain apprised of every single law, every interpretation of the law, and every precedent set by a judge ruling on the law, is beyond me. If the original laws (in this case, the Bill of Rights) were defined as well as many judicial rulings are, we likely wouldn't be arguing if what is being asked of Apple is 'reasonable' -- as what constitutes 'reasonable' would be defined by the law itself.
  - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
    This doesn't need to become a constitutional argument. Congress can pass a law forbidding the government from forcing a manufacturer to build a back door. Simple as that.
frenchie14 11y ago
I wonder if most members of congress owning locked/encrypted iPhones with personal information made this issue feel a little closer to home.
dikdik 11y ago
Isn't it amazing when corporate interests actually align with American peoples' interests?
- nindalf 11y ago
  What's more interesting in the Apple case is that protecting citizens' 4th amendment rights is contingent on protecting corporation's 1st amendment rights. Apple claimed that since code is speech, being forced to create and digitally sign the backdoor code is forced speech. The Citizens United decision from 2010 guarantees a corporation's 1st amendment rights, but I wonder if Apple could still use this defense if that decision was overturned.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    Citizens United depends on the concept that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. But it did not create that concept. That has actually been settled law for a long time; it is how newspapers (which are corporations) are able to enjoy freedom of the press--not just the reporters individually. So Citizens United could be overturned and it would not hurt Apple's case at all.
    - emergentcypher 11y ago
      Umm, newspapers enjoy freedom of the press because the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees freedom of the press. > Congress shall make no law [...] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
- refurb 11y ago
  The only reason they align is because Apple wants to maintain or grow it's market share. It's intelligently recognizes that consumers want privacy, so they are fighting for it.
  - adventured 11y ago
    You say "only" as though that's a bad thing. You don't need more than one reason. You say they want to grow or maintain their market share. As opposed to wanting to go bankrupt and fire 100,000 people. You mean, Apple wants to continue to exist? That's exactly correct. Rational self-interest is a wonderful thing, including Apple responding to their customer demands.
rubyfan 11y ago
Does the NSA have some new found powers? FTA: "For example, why hasn’t the FBI attempted to get the NSA’s help to get into the phone, since hacking is their job?" Is it in fact their job? I'd assume there are some ground rules for operations among the executive branch of government but apparently congress thinks this is their charge?
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  The allegation in the San Bernadino case is that it was international terrorism, so the NSA would reasonably have jurisdiction.
studentrob 11y ago
Agreed except for Sensenbrenner and Gowdy. Sensenbrenner - https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s Gowdy - https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s Both of these characters basically bullied and badgered Apple's legal counsel, Mr. Sewell, to write and lobby for legislation with which Apple would agree. Neither would consider that perhaps no additional legislation is necessary to protect Apple's rights. Gowdy also mentioned names of a few of his friends at the end of his questioning who probably think along the same lines he does.
- jonlucc 11y ago
  What does Sensenbrenner even mean by "you aren't going to like what we come up with". It sounds like he was pissed off that Apple didn't come with a bill to hand him to do his job for him. And his last part sounds quite like a threat.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    It does sound like a threat at the end. He's basically saying, "you don't want to give us a new bill? Okay, we'll write a one-sided one, and you're going to hate it, but too bad because all you wanted to do was debate and discuss the issue". He sounds like he has already made up his mind, is in a rush, and does not want to engage in debate. He already agrees with the DOJ and nothing is going to change his mind. It is unreasonable for him to expect Apple to propose legislation before even one congressional hearing on the issue is complete. Even after one hearing we can't expect the public and Congress expect to be so informed on the implications of curtailing encryption that they should be prepared to legislate on the issue. Sensenbrenner claims Apple is saying "No no no" but in reality he is the one doing the censure. Apple has repeatedly said they're willing to discuss the issue in public.
atmosx 11y ago
> “You have had apparently 70 prior instances where you have not taken the steps available to you,” Judge Orenstein said to Apple’s lawyers during a hearing. From http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruling-in-new-york-iphone-hacking-order.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruli...
- studentrob 11y ago
  Apple apparently grew a pair.
krp 11y ago
Am I mishearing, or did Comey whisper "god damn it" after the oath @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw&t=51m0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw&t=51m0s ?

366 points by magoghm 11y ago

dbrannan 11y ago

Only because major U.S. corporations complained, which tells you who owns congress.

adventured 11y ago
It is in fact the other way around. The US Government completely and entirely dominates the private sector economy, controlling nearly every aspect top to bottom. The US is one of the most regulated economies in the G20, with economic regulations continuing to expand rapidly, the government adds thousands of new regulations annually. That blatant government control is why the NSA (US military, executive branch) was able to force Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, et al. to comply against their will, and often against their attempts to defend themselves. It's also why this is even an issue at all. If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening, Apple would have dismissed them with a swipe of its hand, given it's the world's richest private corporation. If corporations owned Congress, the US wouldn't have one of the highest effective corporate tax rates on earth.
- moonshinefe 11y ago
  What? "If Congress were owned by corporations, none of this would be happening"--it's almost as if there can be multiple interests influencing / lobbying for power somehow, and not a single corporation owns all of congress...

graycat 11y ago

Why? Has the FBI found a fast way to factor any product of two large prime numbers? Until they do, what the FBI wants is not always what the FBI can get, Congress or not.

uniformlyrandom 11y ago
You do not need to factor large primes (or more likely, reverse point multiplication on elliptic curves), if you can guess a 4-digit pin code instead.
chipperyman573 11y ago
You need to break the encryption or find the key. In this case the key has 4^9 bits of entropy (262144) which can be cracked in a matter of minutes if they get a copy of iOS that doesn't have a timeout.
- caf 11y ago
  Your math is a little off. Presumably you are assuming a 4-digit numeric PIN, which means log_2(10^4) bits of entropy (13.3).
  - graycat 11y ago
    No. I'm not really talking about, thinking about the current FBI/Apple issue and, instead, am trying to be more fundamental and look ahead one step, say, the next step after the FBI/Apple, uh, maybe call it a pissing match. So, IMHO, here's where we are, whatever FBI/Apple do: People, and Apple, will want encryption no one knows how to break. Indeed, IIRC, Apple has already announced that they intend to make an iPhone Apple can claim they can't break. And I suspect that quite broadly and commonly people will just roll back to basic RSA, etc. encryption, say, from little command line programs they can run on an old, not hacked, computer never connected to a network. Then the issue in practice will be the same one that is fundamental in theory: To break the encryption, need to a fast way to factor a product of two, large prime numbers. Pass code, 4-digit PINs, etc. -- I just passed over those as by now trivial and irrelevant.
    - eru 11y ago
      > And I suspect that quite broadly and commonly people will just roll back to basic RSA, etc. encryption, say, from little command line programs they can run on an old, not hacked, computer never connected to a network. Never gonna happen. I am willing to bet.

sigmar 11y ago

I watched most of the hearing (can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw), this article seems like a pretty accurate characterization. Comey's parsing of words in his response to the question of whether any gov't agency can access the phone reminded me of Clapper's "least untruthful" answer (ie his lie about NSA data collection).

ghayes 11y ago
To this day, I find to hard to call Clapper's response anything but a direct and intentional lie. I do hope in a post-Snowden world, officials will be more careful not to lie under oath to Congress.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  Why would they? Clapper has not been charged with perjury, or faced any serious consequences.
  - joering2 11y ago
    He faced consequences... of a promotion. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/2/1228321/-Classic-Government-Cronyism-James-Clapper-Got-a-Promotion-After-His-Bold-Faced-Lie-Before-Congress http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/2/1228321/-Classic-Gove...
- rurban 11y ago
  All the CIA does lying, day in day out. That's literally their job, besides extra juridical killings. And they usually don't care about Congress or White House. So it's not unexpected that he got caught. He certainly does not care, as he is more powerful than Obama or Congress.
- griffinmahon 11y ago
  Clapper came to my school to talk and I asked him "to speak about the allegations of perjury". He was not amused, and repeated the line about having forgotten about the PATRIOT Act.

mmanfrin 11y ago

Except for Trey Gowdy, who continued to display himself as a complete and total idiot.

camillomiller 11y ago
He looks basically like Draco Malfoy all grown up.
artursapek 11y ago
My first impression of him was recently during Martin Shkreli's hearing and he left a similarly bad taste in my mouth after this one.
joering2 11y ago
I noticed that too. Before Hillary final testimony I had utmost respect for this man. I took time off and microwave some popcorn for the hearing and then such huge disappointment -- he didn't have nothing against Hillary. Came totally unprepared! If anything he really sounded like this people are wasting tax payers money. And true -- arm wrestling Apple lawyer into "lets skip all this and lets save money lets do this and that" -- truly lost my respect.

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

I'll open the champagne when Congress actually votes on some legislation to prevent the FBI's request from happening. The congressional committee does not represent all of congress, and I don't know how many congressmen would still rally behind the "No privacy ever because TERRORISM" cry if it came to a vote. This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue, and it's difficult to predict how a vote would go.

joering2 11y ago
But what has happens is weakening their position. Remember - they went to judge - judge said no - they suggest congress - no congress is giving them no as well - going back to the judge(s) will definitely get them annoyed.
rqebmm 11y ago
> This is, unfortunately, not a clear-cut partisan issue. I think that's great, because it means there's a chance it actually gets addressed.
sathackr 11y ago
This will probably be decided, like most constitutional issues, by a Judge that will be forced to interpret the 4th/5th amendment, in the ever changing light of 'reasonableness', as it applies to the case at hand. It will then become precedent, adding to the long list of very important judicial decisions that must decide how to apply a law with very loosely defined vocabulary. How a normal citizen is expected to remain apprised of every single law, every interpretation of the law, and every precedent set by a judge ruling on the law, is beyond me. If the original laws (in this case, the Bill of Rights) were defined as well as many judicial rulings are, we likely wouldn't be arguing if what is being asked of Apple is 'reasonable' -- as what constitutes 'reasonable' would be defined by the law itself.
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  This doesn't need to become a constitutional argument. Congress can pass a law forbidding the government from forcing a manufacturer to build a back door. Simple as that.

frenchie14 11y ago

I wonder if most members of congress owning locked/encrypted iPhones with personal information made this issue feel a little closer to home.

dikdik 11y ago

Isn't it amazing when corporate interests actually align with American peoples' interests?

nindalf 11y ago
What's more interesting in the Apple case is that protecting citizens' 4th amendment rights is contingent on protecting corporation's 1st amendment rights. Apple claimed that since code is speech, being forced to create and digitally sign the backdoor code is forced speech. The Citizens United decision from 2010 guarantees a corporation's 1st amendment rights, but I wonder if Apple could still use this defense if that decision was overturned.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Citizens United depends on the concept that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. But it did not create that concept. That has actually been settled law for a long time; it is how newspapers (which are corporations) are able to enjoy freedom of the press--not just the reporters individually. So Citizens United could be overturned and it would not hurt Apple's case at all.
  - emergentcypher 11y ago
    Umm, newspapers enjoy freedom of the press because the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees freedom of the press. > Congress shall make no law [...] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
refurb 11y ago
The only reason they align is because Apple wants to maintain or grow it's market share. It's intelligently recognizes that consumers want privacy, so they are fighting for it.
- adventured 11y ago
  You say "only" as though that's a bad thing. You don't need more than one reason. You say they want to grow or maintain their market share. As opposed to wanting to go bankrupt and fire 100,000 people. You mean, Apple wants to continue to exist? That's exactly correct. Rational self-interest is a wonderful thing, including Apple responding to their customer demands.

rubyfan 11y ago

Does the NSA have some new found powers? FTA: "For example, why hasn’t the FBI attempted to get the NSA’s help to get into the phone, since hacking is their job?" Is it in fact their job? I'd assume there are some ground rules for operations among the executive branch of government but apparently congress thinks this is their charge?

snowwrestler 11y ago
The allegation in the San Bernadino case is that it was international terrorism, so the NSA would reasonably have jurisdiction.

studentrob 11y ago

Agreed except for Sensenbrenner and Gowdy. Sensenbrenner - https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s Gowdy - https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s Both of these characters basically bullied and badgered Apple's legal counsel, Mr. Sewell, to write and lobby for legislation with which Apple would agree. Neither would consider that perhaps no additional legislation is necessary to protect Apple's rights. Gowdy also mentioned names of a few of his friends at the end of his questioning who probably think along the same lines he does.

jonlucc 11y ago
What does Sensenbrenner even mean by "you aren't going to like what we come up with". It sounds like he was pissed off that Apple didn't come with a bill to hand him to do his job for him. And his last part sounds quite like a threat.
- studentrob 11y ago
  It does sound like a threat at the end. He's basically saying, "you don't want to give us a new bill? Okay, we'll write a one-sided one, and you're going to hate it, but too bad because all you wanted to do was debate and discuss the issue". He sounds like he has already made up his mind, is in a rush, and does not want to engage in debate. He already agrees with the DOJ and nothing is going to change his mind. It is unreasonable for him to expect Apple to propose legislation before even one congressional hearing on the issue is complete. Even after one hearing we can't expect the public and Congress expect to be so informed on the implications of curtailing encryption that they should be prepared to legislate on the issue. Sensenbrenner claims Apple is saying "No no no" but in reality he is the one doing the censure. Apple has repeatedly said they're willing to discuss the issue in public.

atmosx 11y ago

> “You have had apparently 70 prior instances where you have not taken the steps available to you,” Judge Orenstein said to Apple’s lawyers during a hearing. From http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruling-in-new-york-iphone-hacking-order.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/technology/apple-wins-ruli...

studentrob 11y ago
Apple apparently grew a pair.

krp 11y ago

Am I mishearing, or did Comey whisper "god damn it" after the oath @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw&t=51m0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw&t=51m0s ?