Apple

Russell Brandom:

If the bill becomes law, Apple and other companies will have a much harder time resisting similar legal demands. Essentially any hard encryption — that is, encryption that cannot be broken by the company providing it — would be in violation of the proposed measures, presenting a massive problem for a broad range of tech companies.

I did not expect to see a bill this quickly. Quite frankly, I expected people to be intelligent and not even try to pass this sort of garbage.

My bad.

Rene Ritchie posted Apple’s statement on iMore:

From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. As a result of the government’s dismissal, neither of these occurred. This case should never have been brought.

We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated.

Apple believes deeply that people in the United States and around the world deserve data protection, security and privacy. Sacrificing one for the other only puts people and countries at greater risk.

This case raised issues which deserve a national conversation about our civil liberties, and our collective security and privacy. Apple remains committed to participating in that discussion.

Though this particular case is over, the war goes on, and I’m certain this issue will appear in the news sooner or later.

Russell Brandom:

After months of work, the FBI finally has a way into the San Bernardino iPhone. In a court filing today, prosecutors told the court the new method for breaking into the phone is sound, and Apple’s assistance is no longer required. “The government has now successfully accessed the data stored on Farook’s iPhone,” the filing reads, “and therefore no longer requires assistance from Apple.” The filing provides no further details on the nature of the new method. Still, the result effectively finishes the court fight that has consumed Apple since February.

Question is: will they now go after Congress to ban encryption, or try to weaken it by law?

John Markoff, Katie Benner & Brian X. Chen:

Apple employees are already discussing what they will do if ordered to help law enforcement authorities. Some say they may balk at the work, while others may even quit their high-paying jobs rather than undermine the security of the software they have already created, according to more than a half-dozen current and former Apple employees.

Among those interviewed were Apple engineers who are involved in the development of mobile products and security, as well as former security engineers and executives.

I can’t help but wonder how far this will go.

Steven Levy:

As with the first round of the crypto wars, the stakes could not be higher. Once again, the government is seeking to control that genie first released by Diffie and Hellman. But the physics of computer security have not changed. Last July, a panel of fifteen eminent security specialists and cryptographers — many of whom are veterans of the first crypto war — released a report confirming there was no way for the government to demand a means of bypassing encryption without a dire compromise of security. It just doesn’t work.

There is no middle ground.