Latest in going dark
Last week, the Hill obtained a draft copy of Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Burr's (R-NC) much discussed encryption legislation . Today, the senators made it official, releasing the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016.
The two senators released the following statement:
The Hill has obtained a draft of Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr's much-discussed and long-awaited encryption bill, entitled the "Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016." The bill is designed "to require the provision of data in an intelligible format to a government pursuant to a court order, and for other purposes." I'm sure many Lawfare contributors will have thoughts to share.
Two days ago, Ben predicted that the respite from the Apple v. FBI fight would not be long. He was right. The FBI has now annouced that it will help the Arkansas police unlock an iPhone in an unrelated case. That's about as "in your face" as it gets. From this I draw three quick conclusions:
As readers know, the FBI has accessed the phone of Sayed Farook and the government has withdrawn its motion to compel Apple’s assistance. Paul Rosenzweig and Jason Healy have a wager as to whether or not the FBI tells Apple how it accessed the device within one calendar year. Paul says it won’t disclose, Jason says under a fair application of the Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP), it must. Now that there’s a proven method, I want in on the bet.
Last Thursday I participated in a discussion (not really a debate) about the broader implications of the Apple v. FBI dispute. The event was hosted by George Washington University. I was joined by Ari Schwartz (former WH cyber staffer) and Amitai Etzioni. Our moderator was Professor Lance Hoffman of the GWU Cyber Security and Privacy Reseach Institute. Here is the video:
Who is helping the FBI crack the Apple iPhone? Some skeptics say "noone." Other conspircy theorists say, "the NSA." Now Reuters tells us it is an Israeli firm.
Israel's Cellebrite, a provider of mobile forensic software, is helping the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's attempt to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, California shooters, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper reported on Wednesday.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice filed a motion to vacate a hearing previously scheduled for today on whether Apple can be compelled to unlock the iPhone of Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attacks.
The FBI has asked Magistrate Sheri Pym to postpone a court hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, on the her order that Apple assist the FBI in disabling the “10-wrong-tries-and-phone-is-erased” feature of the San Bernadino terrorist’s iPhone in FBI possession. Magistrate Pym has granted that request.
The very public fight between Apple and the FBI over the last six weeks has not only reinvigorated the broader debate over the “going dark” concern (and the larger, age-old tension between privacy and security) but has also drawn attention to the specific legal question of just how much power current federal law (in the form of the All Writs Act) confers upon judges to compel private persons and companies to take affirmative steps to help the government execute a duly-issued search warrant.
First came the motion to compel Apple to unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters; then Apple's motion to vacate; then the government's opposition to that motion. And now we have Apple's reply to the government's opposition to Apple's motion to vacate.
You can read the brief below or download here.