House Committee on the Judiciary
3 HN recommenders · recommended in 5 months, 2016–2017
5:31:07 · 174K views · Mar 2, 2016
A 2016 House Judiciary Committee hearing on encryption, held during the Apple and FBI iPhone dispute. It features testimony from Apple, the FBI and outside experts including Susan Landau, and runs over five hours.
HN users cite it as primary-source testimony, especially for the argument that weakening encryption is security versus security, not privacy versus security.
20 comments from Hacker News
It has been explained to them multiple times in congressional hearings. If you have a long time, the recent House Judiciary Committee Hearing is worth the watch: The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy this video There was another one that I watched back in June, but I cannot find the video at the moment. Should have bookmarked it! In the rietta.com article, I linked the this hearing, starting with Susan Landau's testimony starting at this video . But there is more must watch portions of the hearing. I like GnuPG and I use it regularly with work as does my team. And some of our clients do too, but not nearly enough. But my mom and dad are never going to use it. They do both use iPhones though. So being able to protect them is important.
I sat through the YouTube presentation (which is available at this video if you have four hours to spare). In general the discussions were quite well presented, apart from a couple of rabid questioners suggesting that public security trumped any one individuals' right to personal security. I've written up a summary of the hearings at InfoQ here: [LINK] The general responses from Apple were that it wouldn't be possible to write this just for one phone; that once the FBiOS was available for one it would be available for any phone. Dr Landon also highlighted the fact that most people now use their phones as part of a two-factor authentication, and that the easiest way to break into a system (such as the IRS leak) is to compromise login credentials. The fear is, therefore, that once pandora's box is opened that the operating system would be installable on any device and thus potentially give access to any state actor to any account simply through device compromise. The entire hearing was very well laid out, though in a few cases Apple's witnesses weren't quite as fluid as the FBI's. The congress members have five days to ask additional questions, after which presumably a report will be made. More information is available at the House page here: [LINK]
Susan Landau's congressional testimony - with Comey siting one table away - applies to this as well. She explains in detail not only the problem with backdoors, but also how the FBI badly needs to update their methods. The quote from the NSA that legal access doesn't mean that access will be easy should have ended this brouhaha last year. this video
I'd love to see a transcript [2], or list of participants [4] and find out which representatives present lean towards Apple or towards the FBI. I skipped around the video. I mostly saw support for Apple, with a few exceptions, one being Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner, a House republican of Wisconsin, asked Apple what legislation they would support, and Mr. Sewell, Apple's general counsel, said they support debate on the subject [1] The congressman was clearly bullying Mr. Sewell here and using his position as congressman to make it appear as though Apple is not being agreeable. Well, encouraging debate before writing one-sided legislation sounds like great teamwork to me. The congressman should have been reminded that not supporting new legislation is a valid position, and that every problem we face need not be solved with new laws. Perhaps Mr. Sewell is trying to be respectful to the congressman. But I think he should not shy from responding in kind. Treat others as they treat you. No one will judge you for it. I think Apple missed an opportunity here to say they do not feel new legislation is needed, since guaranteeing back doors into devices would be an abridgement of consumers' right to privacy, and Apple's right to create safe products for consumers as it sees fit. Overall though this seemed like a productive session. Mr. Gowdy, a House republican of South Carolina, also bullies Sewell in the same manner [3], literally asking Apple to lobby for legislation. In othe
There was another discussion about this which dropped off the front page [1] I am not as bothered by Obama's conclusions as I am bothered by the errors in his supporting facts. These are going to contribute to the mis-education of portions of the American public. Here is his full keynote which I think we all should watch [2] One year ago President Obama held nearly the opposite view. He spoke with President Xi in China about legislation Beijing was considering that would similarly handcuff tech companies [3]. He criticized Xi for this and pointed out that it would damage their economy. I don't know whether Obama continues to hold the view that mandating backdoors would damage a country's economy or not. Perhaps he does think it will hurt our economy but is worth the cost. Perhaps he thinks it is better for our security too. Of course he is wrong. I am baffled that nobody, to date, has been able to explain the entirety of the issues we must balance to maintain public safety and security to our President. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was able to achieve that understanding [4] Shouldn't the President have access to the best minds in technology? It's not as if any of us would refuse his phone call. Note I don't claim to be a best mind but I think I can talk through the issue to present understanding of the full tech side of the picture to a layperson, and at the same time be respectful of the challenges faced by the DOJ when trying to give justice to victims and security to the