- YouTuber shamed for fake call with Caroline Flack after her death 4 Years Ago
- This MAGA-loving Keanu Reeves imposter isn’t fooling anyone Today 10:16 AM
- How to watch ‘Outlander’ season 5 online Today 8:00 AM
- Kobe Bryant’s complicated online legacy isn’t buried with him Today 6:00 AM
- TikTok teen’s reaction to discovering boyfriend’s cheating goes viral Saturday 4:46 PM
- This may be the creepiest Amazon review you’ll ever read Saturday 3:58 PM
- Bill Maher booed on own show over defense of Bloomberg Saturday 3:37 PM
- Vidgo provides competitive streaming options in both English and Spanish Saturday 3:34 PM
- The Sun allegedly deletes negative Caroline Flack story after her death Saturday 2:48 PM
- How to watch ‘American Idol’ season 18 Saturday 2:00 PM
- James Blake defends girlfriend Jameela Jamil amid allegations she’s faking her illnesses Saturday 1:46 PM
- Viral video purports to show doctors with guns amid coronavirus outbreak Saturday 1:07 PM
- Russian YouTubers pretend to be Greta Thunberg, share alleged prank call with Bernie Sanders Saturday 11:07 AM
- TikTok teens are shaving off their eyebrows to ‘look like’ Kendall Jenner, Bella Hadid Saturday 10:25 AM
- Wendy’s fires employees over viral TikTok sink bath Saturday 9:05 AM
FBI director admits that the Apple order could ‘potentially’ set a precedent
‘Any decision by a judge may be potentially precedential.’
FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday said that the bureau’s legal battle with Apple over unlocking an iPhone could “potentially” set a precedent giving the government greater abilities to compel companies to invent new software.
In the case in question, FBI investigators want Apple to write new code that would let the bureau flood the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook with password guesses. This would let them access whatever data is on the phone, potentially including evidence of collaboration between Farook and his wife and third parties.
Apple, which is contesting the ruling, has said that complying would set a dangerous precedent, ceding to the government the authority to compel assistance of a currently limitless nature.
The question of precedent sits at the heart of the debate that the government ignited when it sought and won the court order compelling Apple to write the code.
At a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the committee’s ranking member, said the government’s “assertion of power is without limiting principle and likely has sweeping consequences.”
Comey said last week that the verdict in the California case would “guide other courts,” but his comments at Tuesday’s hearing marked the first time he acknowledged the likelihood that the case would set a precedent.
“Any decision by a judge may be potentially precedential,” Comey said. “Not necessarily binding, but guiding. That’s the way the law works, and I happen to think it’s a good thing.”
Conyers suggested that, “if you win you, will have won the ability to access encrypted devices, at least for now.” The Michigan Democrat said he was frustrated that “Congress has explicitly denied [the FBI] that authority so far”—by writing certain laws to exclude this authority—and said that “this case appears to little more than an end-run around this committee.”
Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee sharply challenged Comey, who said that the courts and Congress have to make crucial decisions about what the FBI can and cannot do.
“The logic of encryption will bring us to a place where all of our conversation and all of our papers and effects are private,” Comey said. “There’s a lot of benefits to this, all of us will be able to keep private from thieves everything that matters to us. There’s a lot to love about this. There are [also] many costs to this.”
Comey pointed out that public safety has always depended on law enforcement obtaining warrants and carrying out lawful searches, which he called “part of the balance in ordered liberty.”
“Everyone should care about it,” he said, “and everyone should ask: If there are warrant-proof spaces in American life what does that mean?”
Illustration via Max Fleishman
Patrick Howell O'Neill is a notable cybersecurity reporter whose work has focused on the dark net, national security, and law enforcement. A former senior writer at the Daily Dot, O'Neill joined CyberScoop in October 2016. I am a cybersecurity journalist at CyberScoop. I cover the security industry, national security and law enforcement.