The FBI v APPLE encryption talk is now on Bloomberg news and Cspan3. See it live on Cspan - http://www.c-span.org/video/?405442-1/hearing-encryption-federal-investigations
12:20 - James Comey is at the table now defending and delivering his stance.
12:25 - James Comey begins to be questioned.
watching now thanks for the link
wow darrell is ripping that guy apart on the lack of requesting source code
I am surprised on how well the panel knows this case and all of the technology and such.
thats a good thing though because it will make the fbi guy look completely dumb and might help the case
It looks like Comey just gave up mentally and emotionally. He looks very sad.
the idea that issa gave though is a damn good one honestly. almost like @wendell said where the data stored on icloud cant protect itself. well the data not running on the phone cant protect itself
Oh boy they brought up the Junitper network ordeal.
yeah they did. was that ever confirmed as originating from nsa?
Not that I'm aware of I just know it's a messy ordeal.
i really like how they keep saying that even if this gets allowed the terrorists will still have access to this stuff
Because that's the truth. There will always be a way to hide data or information.
That's Wendell. He's a shapeshifter!
i had to tune out for a bit. i will have to go back and watch the whole thing i wanna see how badly they burned the fbi director
wow apple legal guy is just reading tim cook's letter
Issa is awesome as always. He was like this with the IRS till Lerner took the 5th. You won't see him on the networks.
i never thought of this being a 1st amendment issue for Apple. much as i dont think corporations should have rights, kinda glad they do right now
This was fascinating to watch, from a legal standpoint as someone with a law degree. Even though I'm not from the US. I loved the "bad cases make bad laws" argument, and I agree fully. Can you imagine the havoc that this would bring if law enforcement (and criminals ultimately) were granted such power over the population based on nothing more than an assumption that they might find something useful on the phone? What a terrible idea.
I loved some of the arguments and questions that were asked. I found two arguments particularly interesting that I don't remember hearing about anywhere else. The exhaustion of other options that are available to FBI prior to asking Apple to build a new tool (didn't even ask Apple for source code, yet they say it's impossible), and how would the FBI even know if Apple is complying with the court order.
That was a good question. Apple could easily say that they've been trying but they just can't do it. Even if they set a precedent it would be a bad one because it couldn't be effectively enforced. And if you can't enforce a precedent you need new laws. Those new laws would be terrible. They would have to undermine the very nature of encryption, privacy and ability of tech companies to develop and innovate new technologies without interference from government. It would basically open the door to literal fascism.
I can not remember who on the panel said it. But some man said that if a defendant was in court being sued for attempted murder, murder, or for shooting someone. The defendant could say that he didn't do it because he does not own the gun that was used, or something like that, and can ask the court to have the bullet removed from the plaintiff to prove whether or not he really committed the crime. By comparing the ammo that he has from the ammo that is inside the person. If the plaintiff does not want to have surgery to remove the bullet the case gets thrown out or delayed.
I can not remember word for word what was said but that was interesting.