The Public Safety committee continues its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22 this week, even as all the stakeholder briefs on lawful access have still not yet been distributed or published. Late last week, submissions from Apple and the Canadian American Business Council (CABC) were posted online. The Apple brief is well worth a read as it reiterates many of the points raised during its appearance before the committee and provides specific recommendations for reform. The CABC brief is noteworthy since the organization represents many of the largest companies on both sides of the border. And the view of business is unequivocal: the CABC states “We believe Bill C-22 raises fundamental privacy concerns, weakens encryption at a time when Canadians need it more than ever, and threatens our bilateral partnership on data security.”
Post Tagged with: "apple"
Apple on Bill C-22: “This Bill Allows the Government of Canada to Force Companies to Break Encryption by Inserting Backdoors into their Products”
The hearings into Bill C-22 continued yesterday with appearances from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Apple, Google, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and a series of law enforcement associations. The hearings were a mess: the Privacy Commissioner’s reform recommendations sent in advance weren’t distributed to MPs, one Liberal MP admitted to the confusion about how the bill applies, another Liberal MP thought a good strategy would be to target Apple for not being sufficiently supportive of lawful access initiatives, and the final 30 minutes was spent fruitlessly trying to negotiate an extension to the hearings, which have clearly been inadequate to deal with the many issues raised the legislation.
I could go on, but the fundamental takeaway from the day can be summarized in this single 22-second clip from Apple, which makes clear that the bill poses real risks, and the government thus far seems uninterested in addressing them. The Bill C-22 hearing may have been a mess, but the message was clear.
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook
Secure messaging service Signal yesterday became the latest company to warn that Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, could force it to leave the Canadian market rather than comply with provisions it says would compromise its end-to-end encryption and create new cybersecurity risks. Signal vice-president Udbhav Tiwari told the Globe and Mail that the company “would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users.” The comments are part of a steady stream of similar warnings from Apple, Meta, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Cybersecurity Advisors Network, and the chairs of the U.S. House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees. Despite growing concern, the government’s response has been to launch a misleading social media campaign and repeatedly insist that the experts and companies are mistaken.
Why the FBI’s Apple iPhone Demands Are Rotten to the Core
The U.S. government’s attempt to invoke a centuries-old law to obtain a court order to require Apple to create a program that would allow it to break the security safeguards on the iPhone used by a San Bernardino terrorist has sparked an enormous outcry from the technology, privacy, and security communities.
For U.S. officials, a terrorism related rationale for creating encryption backdoors or weakening user security represents the most compelling scenario for mandated assistance. Yet even in those circumstances, companies, courts, and legislatures should resist the urge to remove one of the last bastions of user security and privacy protection.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that this case is about far more than granting U.S. law enforcement access to whatever information remains on a single password-protected iPhone. Investigators already have a near-complete electronic record: all emails and information stored on cloud-based computers, most content on the phone from a cloud back-up completed weeks earlier, telephone records, social media activity, and data that reveals with whom the terrorist interacted. Moreover, given the availability of all of that information, it seems likely that much of the remaining bits of evidence on the phone can be gathered from companies or individuals at the other end of the conversation.
The Trouble With the TPP, Day 32: Illusory Safeguards Against Encryption Backdoors
The news that the U.S. government has obtained a court order requiring Apple to assist law enforcement to break the encryption on an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernadino terrorists has sparked widespread concern. There is some debate over the scope of the judicial order – Techdirt points out that the order does not require Apple to break its encryption but rather allow the government to “brute force” the password without deleting the data – but it is clear that the goal is to limit the effectiveness of the encryption protections found on the popular device. Apple has issued a public letter stating its view that this is a dangerous precedent that could be repeated over and over again. Indeed, if a U.S. court can issue such an order, there is seemingly nothing to stop other governments from doing the same.
What does this have to do with the TPP?
The U.S. has suggested that the TPP would address these issues, claiming that the agreement:
Recent Posts
Improv Policy: The Government Doesn’t Know What To Do About Its Online Streaming Act Mess 
Soft Ban or Hard Verification Requirement?: Why Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Exemption Gets the Incentives Wrong and Comes Too Late to Matter 
New Rights, New Powers, Long Delays: Bill C-36’s Seven-Step Process for Privacy Reform to Take Effect 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 273: Rebroadcast of the Globe and Mail’s The Decibel on Canada’s First Steps Towards a Social Media Ban 
Midnight Madness: The Government Rushes Lawful Access Bill Through the House Without Debate or a Recorded Vote
