Apple Signs Letter Urging President Obama to Reject Proposals That Weaken Device Security

Apple Signs Letter Urging President Obama to Reject Proposals That Weaken Device Security

Posted by · 5948 views · Translate

Apple is among over 140 companies and organizations who have sent a letter to President Obama urging him to reject any proposal that weakens the security of devices such as the iPhone.

The letter follows statements by FBI Director James B. Comey accusing Apple and other companies of marketing "something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." The DOJ has reportedly gone as far as telling Apple that the encryption on its iPhones will lead to the death of a child.

Tim Cook emphasized the importance of securing user data at the White House Cybersecurity Summit; however, it appears as though law enforcement officials are still pushing for companyies to be forced to reduce the security of their devices.

The letter below was sent to President Obama urging him to reject any such proposals. It was signed by Apple, Google, Adobe, Cisco, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, and many others.

Dear President Obama,

We the undersigned represent a wide variety of civil society organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties, human rights, and innovation online, as well as technology companies, trade associations, and security and policy experts. We are writing today to respond to recent statements by some Administration officials regarding the deployment of strong encryption technology in the devices and services offered by the U.S. technology industry. Those officials have suggested that American companies should refrain from providing any products that are secured by encryption, unless those companies also weaken their security in order to maintain the capability to decrypt their customers’ data at the government’s request. Some officials have gone so far as to suggest that Congress should act to ban such products or mandate such capabilities.

We urge you to reject any proposal that U.S. companies deliberately weaken the security of their products. We request that the White House instead focus on developing policies that will promote rather than undermine the wide adoption of strong encryption technology. Such policies will in turn help to promote and protect cybersecurity, economic growth, and human rights, both here and abroad.

Strong encryption is the cornerstone of the modern information economy’s security. Encryption protects billions of people every day against countless threats—be they street criminals trying to steal our phones and laptops, computer criminals trying to defraud us, corporate spies trying to obtain our companies’ most valuable trade secrets, repressive governments trying to stifle dissent, or foreign intelligence agencies trying to compromise our and our allies’ most sensitive national security secrets.
Encryption thereby protects us from innumerable criminal and national security threats. This protection would be undermined by the mandatory insertion of any new vulnerabilities into encrypted devices and services. Whether you call them “front doors” or “back doors”, introducing intentional vulnerabilities into secure products for the government’s use will make those products less secure against other attackers. Every computer security expert that has spoken publicly on this issue agrees on this point, including the government’s own experts.

In addition to undermining cybersecurity, any kind of vulnerability mandate would also seriously undermine our economic security. U.S. companies are already struggling to maintain international trust in the wake of revelations about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs. Introducing mandatory vulnerabilities into American products would further push many customers—be they domestic or international, individual or institutional—to turn away from those compromised products and services. Instead, they—and many of the bad actors whose behavior the government is hoping to impact—will simply rely on encrypted offerings from foreign providers, or avail themselves of the wide range of free and open source encryption products that are easily available online.

More than undermining every American’s cybersecurity and the nation’s economic security, introducing new vulnerabilities to weaken encrypted products in the U.S. would also undermine human rights and information security around the globe. If American companies maintain the ability to unlock their customers’ data and devices on request, governments other than the United States will demand the same access, and will also be emboldened to demand the same capability from their native companies. The U.S. government, having made the same demands, will have little room to object. The result will be an information environment riddled with vulnerabilities that could be exploited by even the most repressive or dangerous regimes. That’s not a future that the American people or the people of the world deserve.

The Administration faces a critical choice: will it adopt policies that foster a global digital ecosystem that is more secure, or less? That choice may well define the future of the Internet in the 21st century. When faced with a similar choice at the end of the last century, during the so-called “Crypto Wars”, U.S. policymakers weighed many of the same concerns and arguments that have been raised in the current debate, and correctly concluded that the serious costs of undermining encryption technology outweighed the purported benefits. So too did the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, who unanimously recommended in their December 2013 report that the US Government should “(1) fully support and not undermine efforts to create encryption standards; (2) not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available commercial software; and (3) increase the use of encryption and urge US companies to do so, in order to better protect data in transit, at rest, in the cloud, and in other storage.”

We urge the Administration to follow the Review Group’s recommendation and adopt policies that promote rather than undermine the widespread adoption of strong encryption technologies, and by doing so help lead the way to a more secure, prosperous, and rights- respecting future for America and for the world.

Thank you

You can find the full PDF at the link below...

Read More [via WP]

Apple Signs Letter Urging President Obama to Reject Proposals That Weaken Device Security

950sm07 - May 19, 2015 at 7:22pm
"The DOJ has reportedly gone as far as telling Apple that the encryption on its iPhones will lead to the death of a child." How many children hit by cars and die in a year? Should car makers stop making cars following this logic?
dave vangina - May 19, 2015 at 9:10pm
car manufacturers constantly improve safety of cars despite children are not their customers while apple makes safety of phones worse to protect pedophiles because pedophiles are among apple clientele
Grave Hole - May 19, 2015 at 9:13pm
Cars improve because they put real effort like Apple does. They lock away rotten souls like you because you're nothing but a spoiled bi b1tch trying to fool shit because you're one of the stolen minds of the master mind Samsung that goes beyond their expectations of gimmicking and nit-picky what comes to mind.
Can't see the forest because of the trees... - May 19, 2015 at 4:57pm
You make good points commenters, but what you don't realize is that this isn't "Apple vs. Android" or whatever you people troll about on here. It's much bigger than your little dispute over which smart phone is better. It's about our privacy and rights as American Citizens. Are you too enveloped in your petty battle to see that? I don't care if the phone is running OS donkey manure version 1.2 beta, and has the hardware of comparable to a cheap calculator, it's security is what's paramount. Being asked to make any OS less secure is not progression, it is REGRESSION. It is a totalitarian move to further violate my civil liberties and rights as a citizen of the USA. Even beyond the Marxist "Patriot Act". Cheapening this down to a Samsung vs Apple battle is ignorant. It's us vs them. The people vs the state. But you kids are too stupid to see the big picture, and keep focusing on the inane details of who is manufacturing what. Do some research. Learn what is really going on in your country, and the sheer idiocy of your petty "Who makes the better smartphone" debate will decline in importance.
dave vangina - May 19, 2015 at 4:02pm
Samsung does not encourage terrorism, Samsung wins again and does not need to pay Apple. Samsung again protects us from devastating consequences of Apple actions
2 More Comments