Apple, Government, Julian Apple discussed on 1A

1A
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

This is one A.. I'm Todd Willik in Washington last month. A Saudi Air Force lieutenant training at a US naval base in Pensacola Florida stood up in his classroom and opened fire. He killed three American airmen and wounded eight others the. US government quickly branded that attack an act of terrorism an investigation was underway. But then attorney. General William Jim Barr went to a microphone last week and said one gigantic. US Company we're standing in the way. We have asked apple for their help. In unlocking the shooter's phones owns so far. Apple has not given any substantive assistance. This situation perfectly illustrates why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence once it has obtained a court order based on probable cause we call on apple and other technology companies to help us find a solution so that we can better protect the the lives of the American people and prevent future attacks and so here is the question once again. Should the government force apple and other tech companies too deep to decrypt these devices. And what exactly is it that Apple's refusing fusing to do joining me here in the studio to help us understand what's at stake. Here is Professor Jennifer DASCOMB. She's a professor in the Faculty director at the Tech Law. Security you program at American University's Washington College of law professor. I'm glad you're here. Thank you I'm glad to be here. full disclosure by the American University owns the license for w amu the public radio station. It produces one A.. Joining us from Los Angeles is Cara Swisher. She's the editor at large for recode. A website that covers tech. She's also oh an opinion contributor to the New York Times where she covers technology Cara Swisher. It's great to have you very much and NPR in New York City is Julian Sanchez. Senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He studied technology privacy insecurity with a focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. The Cato Institute is a libertarian. Think tank with the focus on American policy. You can read Julian just last week in the op-ed pages of the New York Times Julian. Welcome to one A.. Thanks going to be here. I like millions of Americans an can I phone user. I take this personally. Julian apple in the DOJ appear to be any yet. Another dispute over iphone encryption. Can you tell us what what their current issue really is. I mean I think before. We asked whether apple should Comply with this request. We ought to ask whether they can comply with this request. As far as I know the answer is no They're not asking in this case for a specific concrete thing that apple can do. They're saying Well we just want your help in and breaking into these phones but of course apple itself Has Increasingly attempted to ensure that the they don't have that capability care. What about San Bernardino? Because as we hear about bill bars reaction to Pensacola this goes back to the terror attack in San Bernandino of course force Is this case fundamentally different or is this just a a another asking kind from the Justice Department is Julian suggested well. It's it's ten percent one hundred percent dumber because at least in that case they were asking for a specific thing. which is this thing that apple dubbed Government Os So in this case they're asking for something nonspecific of something that apple can't do which is correct. Justin was saying And they're pretending that apple can do it so it's both. I Dunno disingenuous ingenious and not very smart and so it's not really clear. What what bill bars game is here? I think it's just to to stoke fear to put pressure on them to take it could vantage the fact. The public doesn't quite understand. It's not just you know. Give us the pass code Again what they WANNA do. I think what they want to do is have that ability ready for apple to redesign its system essentially so that all phones will be vulnerable. You know give them a back door. It's called a backdoor key or a backdoor of some sort so that the the Government would be able to enter anybody's iphone if they need to presumably with a warrant but giving you know government this capability is a massive problem. for privacy and. That's why apple is pushing back so strongly. It can't help it any more than any other technical person who knows how to break into these phones which are quite Quite old actually. It's an iphone five in an iphone seven. I think So it's easier to break into lots and lots of security consultants professor disco. It's true that the government is asking iphone to do something that it knows iphone. Actually can't do. Then what's the game here so I think this is a game. That's similar to the game that took place in with respect to the San Bernardino shooting so after after the big kerfuffle between apple the FBI It turned out that In that case it turns out that the FBI was able with the help of What's been reported to be? Sell your bright able to access that phone via vulnerability and There was a subsequent I g report that came out that that basically made clear that up until the point that there was the very public showdown between Apple Apple. FBI in that case the F. B. I hadn't really engaged Got Part of it's of it's of the FBI that that would be able to Think through the possibility of using this kind of vulnerability to provide access in another way. And there's there's a lot of suggestion that this was done in order to force a a public debate about something that DOJ has wanted for a very long time which is legislation that would require companies to design their systems in in a way that would ensure that they comply with these types of requests. And it seems like this very well may be A similar kind of move to due to riot to raise the public debate. And and and get that dialogue going interesting so really when it comes down to it that view says a PR move sophisticated PR or move to push Congress to where bill barring the Justice Department want them to go on this technology. Yes that's very possible unless time around it didn't work. There was a little bit of legislation that had been kind of put out there. It was widely critiqued and I think there's all kinds of reasons to be concerned about legislation along that front. I'm really really for a range of security reasons. In addition to a whole host of other reasons as well we got this call from Brooke in Winston Salem North Carolina who shared thoughts on whether either apple should comply with. DOJ's request here. Such as it is I am opposed to. They're doing it unless law enforcement has a search warrant which has to be granted by a judge and has to specify what it is they're looking for. We are protected by our Constitution acution from unreasonable search and seizures. And I'm glad to know that apple is demanding that long for Smith follow the Constitution. Eric tweeted apple has no obligation to any government or law enforcement agency. If the government wants to get into an iphone they need to hire better hackers and David it says people have a false sense of morality when privacy is seen as a greater need then safety when we're unsafe or dead. Your privacy means nothing Julian Sanchez is is a warrant. Actually at stake here. Is that the issue In in the Pensacola case in what bill bar is asking for. In both cases there is a warrant There is actually been as far as I know. No legal order to apple apart from subpoenas for the data they had God. I'm so there's two separate questions. One is data in their possession about the user. These phones for example things like I cloud backup. People often a backup their phones remotely to Apple Servers. I I'm so. They were subpoenaed for that data and and turned it over. A you know. A search warrant doesn't require an evil. You just search a house but it doesn't enable you to go recruit all the neighbors and force them to help you search So you know the search warrant means they are legally authorized to attempt to get into the phone But even when you have a lawful search warrant that doesn't automatically mean you can conscripts anyone else who has relevant expertise to assist you in that search That's that's never. In the case in the San Bernardino instance. They attempted to use in a in a quick novel way. A very old Piece of legislation called the All writs act Essentially really let's court issues. Secondary orders to enforce other orders on the Eddie was the order apple to comply To help assist with the execution accused of the search warrants In this case there is a search warrant but again today as far as I know there hasn't been a formal legal order to apple. I I think maybe in part because unlike the San Bernardino case they don't really have a concrete requests. The apple must do X. They're sort of saying we wish we could get into this phone and we wish wish apple had a way to make that happen whether they do or not. We'll apple basis. It's pitch to you on privacy. Insecurity saying they will never give you over to the. US government is that legit or you're a marketing ploy.

Coming up next