Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight
from the a-road-to-Cupertino-conversion dept
On February 18th, Senator Lindsey Graham had this to say about the FBI v. Apple court battle.
Our nation is at war and this iPhone was used to kill Americans. We need to protect our homeland, not terrorists. To Tim Cook and Apple, cooperate with the FBI.As surprised as we were to learn it was an iPhone that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, rather than the attackers and the weapons they wielded, Graham had yet another surprise in store for us.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who last December called on Silicon Valley to stop selling encrypted devices, expressed serious concern on Wednesday about the precedent the Department of Justice would set if it successfully compels Apple to break iPhone security features.This is what happens when legislators stop following their gut instincts on subjects they know little about and actually seek input from those who do know what's involved and what's at stake. Graham -- without speaking to "people in the Intel Community" -- originally presented terrorism as Apple's problem. With the benefit of technically-adept hindsight, Graham is now seeing this for what it is: a push for a dangerous precedent that won't end with this one iPhone and Apple. It will move on to other manufacturers, service providers and communications platforms. Because this one iPhone (which is actually twelve iPhones) is just the foot in the door. Apple does not hold a monopoly on encrypted communications.
“I was all with you until I actually started getting briefed by the people in the Intel Community,” Graham told Attorney General Loretta Lynch during an oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I will say that I’m a person that’s been moved by the arguments about the precedent we set and the damage we might be doing to our own national security.”
“One of the arguments Apple makes is that there are other companies that make encryption,” Graham said to Lynch during the hearing. “So from a terrorist point of view, you’re not limited to Apple’s iPhone to communicate are you?”The FBI -- which sees any communications it can't access as nothing more than a collection of smoking guns comprised of 0s and 1s -- will not stop with Apple. It already has its eyes on WhatsApp, one of the biggest messaging apps in the world -- one that also features end-to-end encryption.
“I think the terrorists use any device they can to communicate,” the Attorney General responded.
“So this encryption issue, if you require Apple to unlock that phone that doesn’t deny terrorist the ability to communicate privately does it, there are others ways they can do this,” Graham noted.
The underlying point Graham is making -- having now spoken with those with the most at stake -- is that a successful push to force American companies to provide unprecedented access to law enforcement does little to stop global terrorism, while causing tremendous damage to those forced into complicity. If the FBI manages to pry open the front door, every other nation in the world is going expect Apple to hold the door open for them as well. And if they can't find a way to force Apple to do that, they may block it from selling its products in their countries. Or Apple may decide the market isn't worth the security hit. Either way, it hurts Apple, and terrorists will just move on to the next service/platform/manufacturer.
It's heartening to see Graham come around on this, especially considering he's spent the last few months coming down harshly on phone manufacturers for refusing to immediately comply with every ridiculous government demand.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, encryption, experts, fbi, going dark, intel community, lindsey graham
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whatever he's drinking, make damn sure it's passed around to every politician in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, when's the Techdirt Deal for a reinforced umbrella strong enough to withstand falling pig poop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Money talks, and Apple got a lot to talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone is doing it.
I wonder why Congress has not fixed it.
I also wonder why Jack Valenti was allowed to write the actual text of the DMCA before Congress rubber stamped it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's that word again.
Along with the 'war' on drugs, the 'war' on poverty, the 'war' on crime, the 'war' in Vietnam, the 'war' in Korea, all of the middle and far east 'wars', etc., there has not been a declared war since WWII. Either commit to a war or stop calling it a war, otherwise it is just propaganda.
Oh, and while you are at it, find a diplomatic way to resolve conflicts, even if you have to eat a little crow (or a lot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's that word again.
Of course that often causes more problems, but that's why you have the world's biggest military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's that word again.
As a matter of constitutional law, nothing at all requires Congress to use any set formula or “magic words.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's that word again.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Followed by...
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
A defense contractor's dream come true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's that word again.
Get it through your head that Congress does not need to use magic words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's that word again.
WTF high horse did your constitutional scholar ass ride in on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's that word again.
I checked three or four at random. They all contained effectively the same language: that the state of war - and they do use that specific phrse - exists between the U.S. and whichever nation/opponent is intended.
To borrow a turn of phrase from various legal papers I've read from time to time, it stands to reason, if Congress had meant to declare war on [drugs | terror | poverty | whatever else], they would have said 'the state of war exists'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's that word again.
For example, Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004)(Emphasis added.)
You don't get to “fundamental and accepted [] incident to war” without “war” in a constitutional sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's that word again.
I refer you to the Geneva Conventions I-IV, to which the U.S. is a signatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's that word again.
Our government commits an enormous number of acts, but that does not make them legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's that word again.
2) "Authorization for Use of Military Force" resolutions passed by Congress for Desert Storm and other actions. Yes, not all campaigns of the last few decades had such 'authorization' - Vietnam a good example.
What you're asking for - and AFAIK has not happened - is a constitutional challenge for both given the US Constitution expressly states that Congress shall declare war. Many of the AUMFs started out as so-called peacekeeping missions or responding to a request for assistance, but ended up effectively in a war scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's that word again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"people in the Intel Community"
Related question, though; did he really say "Intel(TM) Community" or was it an implied "Intel(ligence) Community"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people in the Intel Community"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "people in the Intel Community"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people in the Intel Community"
Is there a difference?
Intel put in AES & random # instructions, but who can trust them? All the AES instruction has to do is squirrel away your private key somewhere. All the random # instruction has to do is follow NSA's backdoor instructions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case it's good to hear somebody actually listening to the ones that know what they are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm guessing it went something like this:
"Oh yeah, we'll definitely weaken the privacy of the entire nation, but that's a small price to pay for the brand of security we're selling, right? - and you know we're the good guys, right? Certainly not all those iPhone-toting sheeple out there. So yeah, we gotta get Apple and every other company doing business in this nation to open up security holes in their products and let us in, or the bad guys will win, and your family could be next."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computers CAN be used as weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Computers CAN be used as weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Computers CAN be used as weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government trying to avoid an open conflict
And the government has been working to alienate the tech industry while saying they want to avoid a conflict. The NSA secretly tapping intra-data-center communications. Remember how extremely pissed off Google and others were about that? And started encrypting everything! (oh my!)
Hey, I don't want an open conflict with you. I just want to slander you in public, tell lies about you, accuse you of helping terrorists for marketing reasons, etc. I want to force you to expend engineering resources that take away from your next product development cycle. And of course, without any compensation. But I don't want an open conflict, I swear. Oh, and now I might want to force you to give me your source code AND private keys. But really, I don't want a conflict.
Oh, and Mr. tech industry, please, please be my friend. Come work with the government and help us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
Also Apple didn't necessarily WANT the case under seal, they were just okay with fighting it under seal. It's the FBI that decided to make it public thinking the public would be like, "ooh, terrorism!"
Now if I were really conspiracy-minded, I would expect there to be ANOTHER terrorist attack soon, this one much worse, and the government really MUST get at that data because they were part of a group planning more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
That is the loss of money that might have been made by missing a new market opportunity because they are busy writing a new OS for the FBI. That could be a huge cost to the company.
And if not missing a new market, maybe just being a late entrant. Or having a new feature after a competitor rather than before the competitor has it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
Hurling words is not open conflict in D.C. It probably isn't even conflict at all. It is just a press release to them. Normal operating procedure. Throw and insult and then everyone goes out for a beer afterward. It is just part of "the game".
The same goes for "having a conversation". Everyone in D.C. wants to "have a conversation" with Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley (and the rest of us who aren't in Silicon Valley) have already explained this numerous times. But "having a conversation" means something different to them. It means that you go in and tell them what they want to hear that they can sell. If you haven't done that (and clearly, we have not) means that the conversation has not happened.
It is kind of like when they talk about "the people". They aren't actually talking about us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) there WILL be such a massive backlash against the govt. that the whole issue will become as toxic, if not more so, than when SOPA was first defeated. NO ONE in the govt is gonna touch that subject with a 20 ft pole.
2) That whole TTP/TTIP issue, and at large ICSID (International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes) Basically, Apple COULD sue the US Govt over lost profits (which is not a small number last I recall) and future profits, because of a govt action against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If forced to choose between a device that may have been compromised by the USG, and a device that may have been compromised by the Chinese or SK governments, I would choose the latter every single time. If they get their hands on something incriminating or valuable odds are they won't really care as they've got bigger fish to fry in their own countries and what they could gain from me is less than what it would cost them to get it.
On the other hand between good old evidence laundering and sloppy security allowing access to massive treasure troves of personal and valuable data to anyone who cares to make a grab for it, the same data in the hands of the USG has a much higher chance of causing problems for me, which means I'm safer with a foreign government spying on me than I am with my own doing the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With today's sentiments displayed by the voters one has to ask, when does Senator Lindsey Graham come up for election? If it is this coming year, then the reason for his turn around may have nothing to do with what the security branches want but rather with saving his own political hide.
Even if his reelection is another 3 years away, there is still his own party to consider in this. Pushing the unpopular and much unwanted by the public won't endear his party to the voters either.
Seems the only time the political gang listen to the voters is when their own jobs are on the line. At this point in time, given past history, I place no faith in Senator Graham suddenly getting religion on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why does one have to ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So were the roads, cars, guns, food, water etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnaround, in public too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iraqi War Afganistan War Syrian War etc..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devices aren't responsible ... Until they are?? huh?
So you aren't blaming the tools used by people ("the attackers") to kill other people?
"... and the weapons they wielded"
Oh, then you are blaming tools used by people to kill other people. - Wait a minute, I'm confused.
No matter what type of tool is used in the commission of crime, ultimately it was a person making wilful decisions and controlling those devices. It is completely illogical to try and blame the crime on an inanimate object(s) - whether the object was a smartphone, a crowbar or a gun - The sole responsibility lies with the one capable of thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]