Apple Accuses Justice Department of Trying an End-Run of Congress on Encryption

In its bid to overturn a court order to help federal investigators hack a phone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers, Apple lays out a number of arguments.

Here’s the political angle: Apple is accusing the Justice Department of trying to do an end-run around Congress to get what it wants — namely to force technology companies like Apple to punch holes in their encryption.

The Justice Department has tried the legislative route to require such back doors. The most recent effort would have significantly expanded the reach of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act — the law that defines how private companies can be drafted to help law enforcement when it comes to electronic surveillance.

Law enforcement pushed for access to encrypted communication on devices. But that effort fell flat last October, when the Obama administration made clear it wouldn’t seek passage of the legislation, after companies successfully argued that it would compromise data security.

FBI Director James Comey made a fresh push for access to encrypted information on smartphones after the November terrorist attacks in Paris, renewing his criticisms about how technological advances were cloaking more and more information from law enforcement through a process he called “going dark.”

The rhetoric intensified after the Dec. 2 mass killings in San Bernardino. Earlier this month, Comey foreshadowed last week’s court filing when he told a Senate Intelligence Committee that encryption had prevented law enforcement from gaining access to information on one of the attackers’ phones.

Apple called the Justice Department’s effort to force it to help bypass the security protections on one of its iPhones an attempt to “short-circuit public debate.”

“Whether companies like Apple should be compelled to create a back door to their own operating systems to assist law enforcement is a political question, not a legal one,” Apple writes.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via