|
 FBI Director James Comey and the DOJ - who are fighting to access
an iPhone tied to the San Bernardino attacks – have long tried and
failed to convince other departments to join the broader battle
against unbreakable encryption, the current and former government
officials said.
Federal justice officials argue that strong encryption makes it
harder to track criminals, a central contention in the iPhone case.
But officials in other departments - including Commerce, State and
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy - counter
that encryption is integral to protecting U.S. secrets and the
technology industry. The issue has been discussed in meetings of the
interagency National Security Council and elsewhere.
Some government officials also worry that confronting the tech
sector on the issue could heighten distrust of American products
overseas and drive terrorists and top criminals to seek foreign-made
encryption.
Several key officials in the National Security Agency and the
Department of Homeland Security opposed the fight with Apple based
on those concerns, the sources said.
Luke Dembosky - until recently the deputy assistant attorney general
for national security and the senior cybersecurity prosecutor on
some of the biggest hacking cases in recent years - cast the broader
disagreements over encryption as "very healthy."
 "It's a very big government, and everyone is trying to do the right
thing," said Dembosky, who last week joined the law firm Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP. "There are countries where they don't have these
debates."
NSA Director Michael Rogers has taken a middle ground, saying that
strong encryption is important but compromise is desirable.
Years of interagency debates over encryption have left the Obama
administration lacking a cohesive policy stance on the issue, many
tech industry leaders have said.
The Justice Department last month persuaded a federal judge to order
Apple Inc to write software to help unlock an iPhone used by shooter
Rizwan Farook in the December attack in San Bernardino. Apple is
fighting the order, calling the case an overreach by prosecutors
that threatens the security of all iPhones. A hearing on the matter
is scheduled for later this month.
NO GOVERNMENT CONSENSUS
As is customary in such cases, the decision to take action against
Apple was made without consulting the White House, said two sources
familiar with the matter.
"The DOJ and FBI pursue all such matters independent of the White
House," a senior administration official said.
The official added that the White House does not intend to seek
legislation mandating back doors.
In an interview, John Carlin, assistant attorney general for
national security, dismissed suggestions that some administration
officials did not support the Justice Department's action in the
Apple case. The effort was never intended to settle the encryption
debate, he said, but rather to assist San Bernardino County, which
asked for help in unlocking Farook's county-owned iPhone 5c.
The tech industry has united behind Apple, with more than 40
companies this week submitting legal briefs arguing that compliance
with the judge's order would undermine encryption and public trust
in Internet security.
[to top of second column] |
By contrast, the division among government agencies has left some
administration officials in an awkward position of publicly
supporting the Justice Department's case against Apple while also
acknowledging the need for strong encryption. They have been more
vocal about their concerns behind closed doors, according to four
people who have spoken with them or their subordinates.
"Just to cut to the chase, I'm not a believer in back doors or a
single technical approach," Defense Secretary Ash Carter told a
largely pro-Apple crowd at the RSA security conference on Wednesday.
"I don't think we ought to let one case drive a single solution."
Congress is also divided on the issue, with liberal Democrats
joining libertarian Republicans in opposing government back doors.
ELUSIVE COMPROMISE
The lack of consensus prompted the White House last year to abandon
a push for legislation that would require U.S. technology firms to
provide law enforcement a way around encryption.
Privately, however, President Obama sought a compromise, asking
large telecommunications and technology firms, including Apple and
Microsoft, to work toward an "exceptional access" agreement that
would provide investigators access to content that is typically
encrypted, said two sources with knowledge of the discussion.
An Apple spokesman said that the company never seriously considered
installing a back door and tried to shift the discussion to a
broader conversation about law enforcement cooperation.
Either way, Apple CEO Tim Cook lambasted the White House for not
publicly affirming support for strong encryption at a January summit
in San Jose, Calif. between technology executives and senior
national security officials convened largely to discuss online
extremism, sources familiar with the meeting said.
Cook's comments aggravated White House Chief of Staff Denis
McDonough, who thought the iPhone maker was backtracking on its
earlier commitment to work collaboratively on resolving law
enforcement's encryption concerns, according to one person with
knowledge of the situation.
That confrontation helps explain why, after months of apparent
respectful disagreement in public and private pursuit of compromise,
both sides suddenly came to battle heavily armed.
Amid the hostilities between Apple and the FBI, some have called for
President Obama to weigh in to help resolve the standoff.
"I'm waiting to hear what the president has to say about it,"
Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who supports Apple, said in an
interview. "I know [White House Press Secretary] Josh Earnest has
said he is for the Justice Department, [but] I want to hear from the
president."
(Editing by Jonathan Weber, Sue Horton and Brian Thevenot)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
