Golden Frog and our sister company Foundry Data is pleased to announce that we have introduced amicus brief to the court in the Apple case against the FBI. Our memory is in favor of Apple.
Why we presented the memory
We submitted the brief because we believe that everyone has the right to privacy and security and to contribute strong encryption for protection. A Golden Frog, we believe encryption is the second amendment to the internet and we fully support Apple's decision to fight against the request of the FBI to provide access to encrypted iPhone. This case is huge, and we want to be a part of it.
Highlights of our memory is included below, and you can access the full document here.
Introduction and Background
There is a clear and present danger posed by hackers and organizations financed by the state are trying to surveil citizens. As such, companies to build security into their products and devices to protect both their operations and their clients. In many cases, including the case of Apple, the decryption key is in the hands of users only.
What the government ordered
In an investigation surrounding the San Bernardino case of terrorism, the FBI has asked Apple to design new software to defeat existing security protections in place in iPhones. It was under cover the government to access a single device only once. All Writs Act (which is over 0 years old law) was used to justify this decision. The order specifically the Apple forced government to provide "reasonable technical assistance", including. 'Signed phone software file, and a binder recovery files or other software file (SIF) to load on the device object 'This information would allow the government to "crack" the encryption and access communications on the device, which Apple does not have access now.
Why we oppose
the use of the Act All writs here is too expansive. It contradicts other limitations Congress has established to govern how the application of the law can not (and can not not) require companies to assist in their investigations. in addition, the Act All writs can not create a new authority in contradiction with existing communications for law law enforcement (CALEA), it can not not make an exception to CALEA and require companies to break the encryption. The way the case was conducted, and the urgency with which it was made, apart due process. Furthermore, this decision could have huge and devastating implications for small businesses across the country.
Details filing
ARGUMENT 1: order of the Court is incorrect and unprecedented extension of the reach of all brief Act
the current government's position is not supported by the historical context of the Act All writs. the current interpretation of the Government of the Act All Writs is too wide, and there is no precedent for providing "assistance" to ensure that the government is looking into the case Apple.
- the historical context in which the Act All writs was adopted weighs against the broad interpretation of the Government
- context original Act All writs was to support a limited reading of commands that have been "nice" to the principles of law. The next day it was passed, the Congress approved the Fourth Amendment, in direct response to the aversion of employees Brief of the Act All Writs. The law has not been at its creation, the intention to authorize conscription orders private citizens serving in government.
- The courts have not applied the Act All Writs to Compel companies to create new technologies to Undermine Basic characteristics of their businesses
- Act All writs says a federal court may order as "necessary or appropriate." - but in this context, the government has gone beyond any historical use of this "aid" the Act All writs has never been used to force the invention of technology that did not exist before, or that a company does not create otherwise. nor has forced the creation of technology that is harmful a company and its customers.
- Requiring a company to develop technology that affects safety is "offensive" and against the important interests of the company
- beyond the above argument, the law Any wrist included a caveat - that the aid was not necessary if it was "offensive" to the activity of the business or imposed "undue burden." In this case, a convincing business to create a technology that affects the security is both offensive and goes against the interests of society. Cyber threats are real and increasingly common in today's world, and the implications for individuals and businesses (including the financial implications) are enormous. In addition, the Executive has already called on US companies to strengthen security and to innovate to protect consumer information. The FTC urges same "privacy by design", including encryption of data both in transit and at rest.
- An order to invent and create new technology to help law enforcement is too heavy, particularly on small and emerging technology companies
- the cost and burden of complying with an order like this is too great for small businesses that do not have sufficient resources. earlier requests under the Act All Writs were much easier for companies to comply. Creating a new technology involves further costs and if this is a burden to Apple - one of the largest companies and most valuable in the world - it would certainly be an "undue burden" for small businesses. The alternatives are all negative: going out of business, choosing not to innovate, or construction of permanent insecurity in devices
ARGUMENT 2 :. CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement) limits the application of the Act to Require All writs of assistance out encryption controlled by the user
courts can not use the Act All writs to grant powers that Congress has already considered and refused to give. In short, it can not be used to create a new authority. This authority has been denied in CALEA, which describes the terms to help the security forces who do not understand the requirement regarding encrypted communications.
- CALEA imposes strict limits on the government's ability to Compel Access to Encrypted command Communications Particularity Tech design
- demand CALEA was narrowly defined to apply to a set of "common carriers." This list later included Internet broadband and VoIP, yet information services "excluded" - or Internet-based services. This means things like cloud storage services, social networking and chat applications would be excluded. Congress also wrote CALEA equilibrium can the security needs of privacy, and included two exceptions to compliance. The law did not require that they adopt any "specific design of the equipment, facilities, services, features or configurations of the system," nor does it mandate suppliers to "decrypt or to ensure the ability of governments to decrypt "all communications of the user.
- the government's attempt to distinguish CALEA CALEA creates an exception to this rule would swallow
- Using the law All writs to create exceptions to CALEA would minimize the existing law and have negative consequences. the law states that the probable cause must be used. in addition, it is said that cases serious and urgent may receive an exception, such as those with sensitive data in time. this is not true in the case of Apple, indicating the government's logic is flawed
ARGUMENT 3 :. Ex parte nature of the government's request and order of the Court is incorrect and involves the procedural rights of companies obligated under all writs Act
a disturbing process was used in case Apple - the one where the decision came from a judge without all parties present. There was no proper notice to Apple, which should have been heard first and had the opportunity to respond. However, their input was missing. There was no need to use this procedure. The government acted too fast, without a good reason to override due process. The phone - and information - have always been there. Also, when you think about it in the context of the size of the company, Apple had trouble keeping up, so we have to ask - how a small business would be able to
Read the full? Briefly, we submitted for details.
who joined us in the memory
We joined with several other organizations to submit this amicus curiae, including AVG Technologies, data Foundry, Golden Frog, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the Internet Association, and the Coalition of the Internet infrastructure ( "from i2Coalition")
Many other businesses across the country - . including giants like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, EFF and ACLU also submitted amicus briefs in support of Apple in this case. We are encouraged that so many influential groups and businesses are standing together, and hopes that this fight will be successful and the right to privacy and encryption is confirmed.
Read our position in the case of Apple
do you want to fight? Sign the petition Access Now to support Apple
0 Komentar