US Intelligence Chief Opposes UK Order for Apple Encryption Backdoor (msn.com) 29
U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has condemned a British order requiring Apple to break its encrypted storage worldwide as an "egregious" violation of American rights that could breach the CLOUD Act facilitating cross-border investigations. In a letter [PDF] to Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Andy Biggs, Gabbard revealed she has directed a legal review of the secret order, which she learned about through media reports.
"This would be a clear and egregious violation of Americans' privacy and civil liberties, and open up a serious vulnerability for cyber exploitation by adversarial actors," Gabbard wrote. The UK Home Office, under the Investigatory Powers Act, prohibited Apple from disclosing the order to Congress or U.S. regulators. The directive would have forced Apple to compromise its Advanced Data Protection encryption, enabling officials to access individual data. Apple refused compliance, instead withdrawing the secure storage option from UK customers while maintaining it elsewhere globally. Despite Apple's pullback, the UK demand for backdoor creation remains. Gabbard pledged to ensure UK actions protect American privacy rights "consistent with the CLOUD Act and other applicable laws."
"This would be a clear and egregious violation of Americans' privacy and civil liberties, and open up a serious vulnerability for cyber exploitation by adversarial actors," Gabbard wrote. The UK Home Office, under the Investigatory Powers Act, prohibited Apple from disclosing the order to Congress or U.S. regulators. The directive would have forced Apple to compromise its Advanced Data Protection encryption, enabling officials to access individual data. Apple refused compliance, instead withdrawing the secure storage option from UK customers while maintaining it elsewhere globally. Despite Apple's pullback, the UK demand for backdoor creation remains. Gabbard pledged to ensure UK actions protect American privacy rights "consistent with the CLOUD Act and other applicable laws."
Translation (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.S. already has a backdoor and they want to be the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it unreasonable to ask for proof? A definitive statement was made without proof. That makes it a baseless claim. Had the word "probably" been used, that would be acceptable. I believe the US probably does have a backdoor into the system, but I have no proof. That's why I used the word probably...
I have my doubts for the simple fact that the US policing agencies throw massive public shit fits anytime they have the opportunity saying that Apple needs to give them access to their data for something they don't want to do any actual policework to figure out. Granted, I haven't heard one of these in a while, so I'll grant you there's a slim possibility they got that backdoor at some point over the last few years, but it wouldn't strike me as very high on the probability scale.
Re: (Score:2)
I have my doubts for the simple fact that the US policing agencies throw massive public shit fits anytime they have the opportunity saying that Apple needs to give them access to their data for something they don't want to do any actual policework to figure out. Granted, I haven't heard one of these in a while, so I'll grant you there's a slim possibility they got that backdoor at some point over the last few years, but it wouldn't strike me as very high on the probability scale.
I honestly hope you are correct. General distrust of the government always makes me think they do the whole "damn you Apple!" bit just to throw us off.
Re: (Score:2)
I have my doubts for the simple fact that the US policing agencies throw massive public shit fits anytime they have the opportunity saying that Apple needs to give them access to their data for something they don't want to do any actual policework to figure out.
In the past, haven't intelligence agencies done exactly that to make the public think their data was secure from government eavesdropping, even though they weren't actually secure from government eavesdropping?
Re: (Score:2)
I have my doubts for the simple fact that the US policing agencies throw massive public shit fits anytime they have the opportunity saying that Apple needs to give them access to their data for something they don't want to do any actual policework to figure out.
In the past, haven't intelligence agencies done exactly that to make the public think their data was secure from government eavesdropping, even though they weren't actually secure from government eavesdropping?
I'm not sure that's ever been proven to be true, but it certainly tickles the conspiracy theorist part of my brain with, "I could see that," energy.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is it unreasonable to ask for proof? A definitive statement was made without proof. That makes it a baseless claim
A claim is always valid, or at least 'not disproven' if it's against the US. It's the national equivalent of #BelieveAllWomen.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it unreasonable to ask for proof? A definitive statement was made without proof. That makes it a baseless claim.
Apparently, about 1/2 the people in the U.S. are just fine with baseless claims. Mine was a joke -- probably :-) -- many other peoples' aren't ... Maybe if I make about 100 more, I'll get offered a job, or Cabinet position, in the current Administration. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Prove it.
Look back to past back door behaviour (Dual EC DRBG for instance) - they attack the RNGs through standards first.
For the 140-2 era, look at the CRNGT
For the 140-3 era (I.E. Today) look the frankly odd and highly suspect SP800-90A DFs. The guy at NIST in pure political speech said "there were too many cooks making that broth" meaning the NSA were all over it.
For entropy extraction, look how the 90B non IID tests over-estimate the entropy when there is very low entropy from the source. Cross correlate that wi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The US has zero moral standing in this debate.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree the US has been highly hypocritical in these sorts of discussions (through multiple administrations), I do appreciate Gabbard's position on this.
I'd also love it if someone in the same room followed up with "Well said, Ms. Gabbard. By the way, that statement is equally true with regard to the following multiple US activities..."
Re: (Score:2)
A broken clock is correct twice a day, or once outside of the USA. Tulsi is yet another of those, "If Trump likes someone, that person is incompetent" people.
Re: (Score:3)
A broken clock is correct twice a day, or once outside of the USA. Tulsi is yet another of those, "If Trump likes someone, that person is incompetent" people.
To be fair, Trump also likes and even admires some complete assholes. For example, Putin is one of those. But "incompetent"? Putin? No. Come to think of it, Hitler and his helpers were also not "incompetent" either and Elon seems to like and admire them.
Re: (Score:2)
In Gabbard's case, it's more like "If Trump likes someone, that person is hateful and happy to stigmatize and attack his declared list of undesirables."
Gabbard established and built her political career on a foundation of hatred and discrimination against LGBT people and... aside from a fake "apology" during her run for president like Bloomberg spewed out for stop-and-frisk... she was unrelenting and unwavering about it right up to when she dropped the "NIO" from "DINO." And seeing as LGBT people are #2, a
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree the US has been highly hypocritical in these sorts of discussions (through multiple administrations), I do appreciate Gabbard's position on this.
I'd also love it if someone in the same room followed up with "Well said, Ms. Gabbard. By the way, that statement is equally true with regard to the following multiple US activities..."
Gabbard has been a consistent critic on US spooks' domestic spying in the US, at least for spying on US citizens. When various Senators of both parties demanded that she brand Edward Snowden a traitor, she refused to do so. She was even a critic on Section 702 until, if you believe political gossip, she was basically told by Senators that she wouldn't be confirmed unless she endorsed it. Regardless of 702, she still maintains that the rest of FISA is overly broad and intrusive.
In her own words [cnn.com]:
“Section 702, unlike other FISA authorities, is crucial for gathering foreign intelligence on non-U.S. persons abroad. This unique capability cannot be replicated and must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans,” Gabbard said in the statement to CNN.
“My prior concerns about FISA were based on insufficient protections for civil liberties, particularly regarding the FBI’s misuse of warrantless search powers on American citizens. Significant FISA reforms have been enacted since my time in Congress to address these issues. If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people,” she added.
The national
Re: (Score:2)
Gabbard herself seems like someone who would be willing to dismantle our domestic state
Re: (Score:2)
But Tulsi Gabtard doesn't even know that. She's just pissed that a foreigners are meddling in "american" businesses.
Hahaha ⦠hypocrisy (Score:1)
As if the US has never tried jurisdictional overreach, secret attempts to access data or force Apple to break their encryption.
Not Jurisdictional Overreach (Score:1)
As if the US has never tried jurisdictional overreach
What the UK is requiring is not jurisdictional overreach. It is requiring that Apple be able to decrypt its storage for people that are in the UK either visiting or living there and so subject to UK law. The fact that Apple says that it can only comply by giving them access to anyone in the world's encrypted storage is Apple's choice - largely based on what's cheap and expedient for them - not of overreach on the UK government's part. If the rights of US citizens, at least those not under UK jurisdistion,
Yeah right... (Score:1)
HYPOCRITES. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but this is just posturing theatrical bullshit given that the US and UK are both in five eyes and Apple is part of PRISM.
Fuck off you asked for this too (Score:2)
There's even a wikipedia entry about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Five (Brown) Eyes. (Score:2)
The Five Eyes Intelligence collective comprises of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It’s been in existence for over eighty years. How often has Five Eyes, been is all the backdoor they need? They need more power than that now?
Bad enough the Five Eyez Boyz loopholed around their own principles to spy on each other via outsourced private agencies that laundered that (Unconstitutional) dirty work very efficiently. Guessing they want access to automate and abu
Ha ha ha (Score:2)
"This would be a clear and egregious violation of Americans' privacy and civil liberties,
Have you looked at what is going on in America? Privacy and civil liberties are just words with no meaning. The only way you can have privacy is if you abandon all technology and not own anything. LPR keeps tabs of your car. Bluetooth and WiFi keep track of your tech. Facial recognition and DNA databases. Everything is for sale and there is nothing you can legally do about it. Now we also have AI.
Please stop pretending.