Apple, FBI face off before Congress over iPhone encryption - CNET

Cupertino, Califoia-based Apple, however, argues that removing those safeguards requires the company to create new software that could be exploited to break into all iPhones. Technology companies ranging from Google to Microsoft have sided with Apple in its opposition to intentionally weakening its own encryption.

"This is not about the San Beardino case," Sewell said. "The tool we are asked to create will work on every iPhone. The notion that this is only about opening one lock is a misnomer."

Industry insiders have argued that forcing Apple to follow the FBI's request could not only lead to the company being forced to help in other cases but also to it having to bow to demands from other govements. This happened to Facebook on Tuesday, when one of its executives in Brazil was reportedly arrested for not complying with police requests in a drug-trafficking case to access messages sent over its WhatsApp service.

Last week, Apple filed a 65-page response to the court that contends the court order violates the company's constitutional rights. A hearing to discuss the standoff between Apple and the FBI is set for March 22 in federal court in Riverside, Califoia.

Removing the 'guard dog'

Comey pushed back against the notion that this debate was about a "back door."

"There already is a door on that iPhone," he said. "We're asking [Apple] to take away the guard dog so we can pick the lock."

Comey, however, acknowledged that the tool created by Apple could be used in other iPhones down the line. He also said that the case with Apple could create a precedent.

Apple may already have a precedent in place after a US District Court judge on Monday dismissed a similar govement request in a case involving a drug dealer in Queens, New York. Apple believes the ruling could sway the case. The Department of Justice said it was "disappointed" by the ruling.

Comey admitted that the FBI and county authorities made a mistake in the San Beardino case by wiping the iCloud password for the device, which prevented them from making a copy of data on the phone. But even if that hadn't occurred, they wouldn't have been able to get all the information out of the backup.

Comey waed the committee about entering a world where there are secure places that no authorities will be able to touch, which would create a haven for terrorists and criminals.

"Before these devices came around, there was no closet, basement or drawer in America that could not be entered with a judge's order," he said. Privacy is important, Comey said, but so is stopping murder, violence and pedophilia.

Grilling Apple

Sewell took offense at Comey's depiction that Apple's emphasis on security was merely part of the company's marketing. "To say it's a marketing ploy diminishes what should be a serious conversation," he said.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), meanwhile, challenged Sewell to come up with a scenario in which Apple would cooperate with the authorities on a security back door or to offer its own legislative suggestions.

While Sewell said Apple was happy to continue the debate, he didn't offer any suggestions, much to the ire of both representatives.

"I guarantee you won't like what comes out of Congress," Sensenbrenner waed.

Gowdy noted that the govement could compel a doctor to perform surgery to remove a bullet if it pertains to an investigation. "If you can penetrate the body to get evidence, how the hell can you not access the phone?"

Hypotheticals such as the threat of a nuclear bomb and specific scenarios such as the disappearance of Malaysia Air 370 were presented, and Sewell said Apple has cooperated with authorities within its capabilities.