Home > Article > Personal Technology Encryption vs Homeland Security

Personal Technology Encryption vs Homeland Security

Table of contentsAbout the editorIntroductionGoing dark: Are Technolrivacy, and Public Safety on aChairman Goodlatte Statement at Encryption Hearing March 2,2016Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein Remarks on EncryptionOctober 10

2017Encryption and Cyber SecurityCommunication devicesIntroduction to Encryption Export ControlsEncryption items NOT Subject to the eArTitle 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade Part 740--LICENSEEXCEPTIONSTitle 15: Commerce and foreiradePART 742 CONTROL POLICY- CCL BASED CONTROL

Finally, a reasonable person might also ask, "Cant you just compel the owner of the phoneproduce the password?"Likely, no And even if we could compel them as a legal matter, if wehad a child predator in custody, and he could choose to sit quietly through a 30-daNyNOk herefusing to comply with a court order to produdord or he30-year sentence for production and distribution of child pornography, which dethinwould choose?Case examplThink about life without your smartphone, without Internet access, without texting or e-mail orhe apps you use every day I' m guessing most of you would feel rather lost and left behind Kidsall this fomo, or"fear of missing outwith Going Dark, those of us in law enforcement and public safety have a major fear of missingut---missing out on predators who exploit the most vulnerable among us missing out orlent criminals who target our commua terrorisan and executeCriminals and terrorists would like nothing more than for us to miss out

And the more we as asociety rely on these devices, the more important they are to law enforcement and public safetyofficials we have seen case after case-from homicides andshes to drug traffickingomestic abuse, and child exploitation--where critical evidence came from smartphones, harddrives, and online communicationLet's just talk about cases involving the content of phonesIn Louisiana, a known sex offender posed as a teenage girl to entice a 12-year-old boy to sneakout of his house to meet the supposed young girl This predator, posing as a taxi driver, murderedhe young boy and tried to alter and delete evidence on both his and the victims cell phones toBothinstrumental in shhat the suspecthis taxi He was sentenced to death in April of this yearIn Los angeles police investigated the death of a 2-year-old girl from blunt force trauma to herheaded on heIts' cell phones to oneand to their family members proved the mother caused this young girls death and thatknew what was happening aledxt messages stored on these deviproved that the defendants failed to seek medical attention for hours while their daughterconvulsed in her crib They evet so far as to paint her tiny body with blue paint-to coverher bruises-before calling 911 Confronted with this evidence, both parents pled guiltIn Kansas City, the dEa investigated a drug trafficking organization tied to heroin distributionhomicides, and robberies The dea obtained search warrants for several phones used by thegroup Text messages found on the phones outlined the group's distribd tiedhal heroin that had caused 12 overdoses -and five deaths --includingeveral high school students

car ran a red light and struck them-killing their four dogs, severing the young man,s leg, al 9In Sacramento, a young couple and their four dogs were walking down the street at night wherleaving the young woman in critical condition The driver left the scene, and the young man dieddays later Using"red light cameras" near the scene of the accident, the California HighwayPatrol identified and arrested a suspect and seized his smartphone gps data on his phone placedthe suspect at the scene of the accident and revealed that he had fled California shortly thereafterHe was convicted of second-degree murder and is serving a sentence of 25 years to lifeThe evidence we findxonerate innocent people In Kansas, data from a cell phonwas used to prove the innocence of several teens accused of rape, without access to this phone,or the ability to recover a deleted video, several innocent young men could have been wronglyThese are cases in which we had access to the evidence we needed But we're seeing more andmore cases where we believe significant evidence is on that phone or a laptop but we cant crackthe password If this beI woulduld bestalled, suspects could walk free, and child exploitation might not be discovered or prosecutedJustice may be denied, because of a locked phone or an encrypted hard drive

m deeply concerned about this, as both a law enforcement officer and a citizen I understandsome of this thinking in a post-Snowden world, but I believe it is mostly based on a failure tounderstand why we in law enforcement do what we do and how we do itbelieverule of law but i also believe thatcountry should be above or beyond the law There should be no law-free zone ine and believe very much that we neew the letter of the law to examine the contents ofsomeones closet or someones cell phone, But the notion that the marketplace could createsomething that would prevent that closet froncourt order makes no sensethink it's time to ask: Where are we, as a society? Are we no longer a country governed by theabove or beyond that law? Are wetrustful of governmeand of law enforcement--that we are willing to let bad guys walk away willing to leave victimsin search of justiceere will come a day-and it comes every day in this business-where it will matter a greatdeal to innocent people that we in law enforcement cant access certain types of data ornformation even with legal authorization We have to have these discussions nowI believe people should be skeptical of government power I am This country was founded bypeople who were worried about goveri--who knew that you cannot trust people inpower So they divided government power among three branches, with checks and balances

each And they wrote a Bill of rights to ensure that the"papers and effects"of the peopsecure from unreasonable searchesBut the way I see it, the means by which we conduct surveillance through telecommunicationarriers and those Internet service providers who have developed lawful intercept solutions ismple of government operating in the way the founders intended--that is, the executive, thelegislative, and the judicial branches proposing, enacting, executing, and overseeing legislationpursuant to the rule of lawPerhaps it's time to suggest that the post-Snowden pendulum has swung too far in onedirection-in a direction of fear and mistrust It is time to have open and honest debates aboutberty and securitSome have suggested there is a conflict between liberty and security I disagree At our best, wein law enforcement, national security, and public safety are looking for security that enhanceliberty When a city posts police officers at a dangerous playground, security has promotedliberty--the freedhild play withehe people of the FBi are sworn to protect both security and libertyconflict We must care deeply about protecting liberty through due process of law, while alsosafeguarding the citizee serve-ln every investigationThese are tough issues And finding the space and time in our busy lives to understand thesessues is hard Intelligent people can and do disagree, and thats the beauty of American life-that smart people can come to the right answerve nevebeen someone who is a scaremonger But I,'m in a dangerous business

Soensure that when we discuss limiting the court-authorized law enforcement tools we use toate suspected criminals that we understand what society gains and what we all standWe in the FBi will continue to throw every lawful tool we have at this problem, but it's costlyAnd it takes tirWe need to fix this problem It is long past timeWe need assistance and cooperatiocompanies to cowith lawful court orders so thatcriminals around thed cannot seek safe haven for lawless conduct we need to findround We care about the same things I said it because I meant it These companies are run bygood people And we know an adversarial posture wont take any of us very far down the roadWe understand the private sectors need to remain competitive in the global marketplace Andisn't our intent to stifle innovation or undermine Us companies But we have to find a way tohelp these companies understand what we need, why we need it, and how they can help, while

still protecting privacy rights and providing network security and innovation We needivate sector partners to take a step back, to pause, and to consider changing courseWe also need a regulatory or legislative fix to create a level playing field, so that allcommunicationd to the same standard and so that those ofenforcement, national security, and public safety can continue to do the job you have entrustedus to do, in the way you would want us toPerhaps most importantly, we need to make sure the American public understands the work wedo and the means by which we do itI really do believe we can get there, with a reasoned and practical approand wetogether I don'trfect solution

But I thinkmportant to start the discussionm happy toork with Congreswith our partners in the private sector, with my lawenforcement and national security counterparts, and with the people we serve, to find the rightfind the balandThank you for having me here todayrcehttps://wwwfbigone-darklology-privacy-and-pubsafety-on-a-collision-course

Chairman Goodlatte Statement at Encryption Hearing March 2, 2016e welcome everyone today to this timely and important hearing on encryptioEncryption is a good thing It prevents crime, it prevents terrorist attacks It keepsaluable information safe Yet it is not used as effectively today as is necessary to protectagainst the ever increasing sophistication of foreign governments, criminal enterprises and justlain hackerswe see this manifest almost every weeksses of massive amounts of our mostaluable information from government agencies retailers financial institutions, and individualsFrom identity theft to the compromising of our infrastructure, to our economic and militarythat deencouraged to increase its effectivenessEncryption is a topic that may sound arcane or only the province of"techies, but, in fact, is asubject whose solutions will have far-reaching and lasting consequencese Judiciary Committee is a particularly appropriate forum for this Congressional debate tooccur

As the committee of exclusive jurisdiction over the US Constitution, the Bill of rightnd the federal criminal laws and procedures, we are well-versed in the perennial strugglerivacy and enabling robust public safetsurveillance and government access to communications, particularly the Wiretap Act, the emcustomed to addressing many of the significant legal questions arising from laws that governElectronic Communications Privacy Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and theCommunications assistance to law enforcement act otherwise known as caleaTodays hearing is a continuation of the Committees work on encryptionrk that Congressis best-suited to resolveAs the hearing title indicates, society has been walking a tightrope for generationsemptingbalance the security and privacy of Americans'communicwith the needs of our layenforcement and intelligence agencies In fact, the entire world now faces a similar predicament,particularly as our commerce and communications bleed over international boundaries on a dailyEncryption, in securing data in motion and in storage, is a valuable technological tool thatenhances Americans privacy, protects our personal safety and national security, and ensures thefree flow of our nations commerce Nevertheless, as encryption has increasingly become as technique to secure commudnational debate has arisen concerning the positive and negative implications for public safety andThis growing use of encryption prehallenges for law enforcement seeking to obtaininformation during the course of its investigations, and even more foundationally, tests the basic

amework that our nation has historically used to ensure a fair and impartial evaluation of legalprocess used to obtain evidence of a crimeWe must answer this question: how do we deploy ever stronger, more effective encryptionithout unduly preventincriminals and terrorists intentdoing us harm? This now seems like a perennial question that has challenged us for yearsIn fact, over 15 years ago I led congressional efforts to ensure strong encryption technologies andto ensure that the government could not automatically demand a backdoor key to encryptiontechnologies This enabled the Us encryption market to thrive and produce effective encryptionechnologiesgitimate actors rather than see the market head completely overseas tocompanies that do not have to comply with basic protectionHowever, it is also true that this technology has been a devious tool of malefactors Herewhere our concern lies

Adoption of new communications technologies by those intending harmto the american people is outpacing law enforcement's technological capability to access thosegitimate criminal and national security investirecovered a cell phone owned by the county government but used by one of the terroristsresponsible for the attack After the FBi was unable to unlock the phone and recover itscontents, a federal judge ordered Apple to provide"reasonable technical assistancest lawenforcement agents in obtaining access to the data"on the device, citing the all writs Act as itsauthority to compeprotect its custon, &ed the court order, arguing that its encryption technology is necessary tons' security and privacy, and raising both constitutional andstatutory objections to the magistrates orderThis particular case has some very unique factors involved and as such may not be an ideal caseUpst yesterday, a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York ruled that the% theseto set precedent, Andthe only case in whibeatedernecases illustrate the competing interests at play in this dynamic policy question-a question thatolex to be left to theAmericans surely expect that their private communications are protected Similarly, lawenforcements sworn duty is to ensure that public safety and national security are not jeopardizedif possible solutions exist within their contrle to ensure that technology advances so as to protect our privacy, help keep us safe, any ntralhis body, as well, holds its own Constitutional prerogatives and duties Congress has a ceprevent crime and terrorist attacks Congress must also continue to find new ways to bring toustice criminals and terrorists

We must find a way for physical security not to be at odds with information security

Layenforcement must be able to fight crime and keep us safe, and this country's innovativecompanies must at the same time have the opportunity to offer secure services to keep theirThe question for Americans and lawmakerencryption Is esseinstead, whether law enforcement should be granted access to encrypted communications whenenforcing the law and pursuing their objectives to keep our citizens safeI look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today as the committentinuesoversight of this real-life dilemma facing real people all over the globel/judiesecurity-and-privacy/

About the editorMichael Erbschloe has worked for over 30 years performing analysis of the economicsinformation technology, public policy relating to technology, and utilizing technology inreengineering organization processes He has authored several books on social and managementissues of information technology that were published by Mc Graw Hill and othepublishers He has also taught at several universities and developed technology-relatedcurriculum

His career has focused on several interrelated areasTechnology strategy, analysis, and forecastingTeaching and curriculum developmenWriting books and articlesPublishing and editingPublic policy analysis and program evaluationThreat Level Red: Cyberity Research Programs of theUS Gov(CRC Press)Social Media Warfare: Equal Weapons for All(Auerbach Publications)Walling Out the Insiders: Controlling Access to Improve OrganizationalSecurity(Auerbach Publications)Physical Security for IT(Elsevier ScienceTSpyware(Butterworth-Heg Homeland Security in Enterprise IT(Digital Press)Guide to Disaster Recovery( CourseSocially responsible IT Management(Digital Press)Informaticarfare: How to sCyber Attacks(McGraw HilExs Guide to privacy ma(Mc Graw Hill)et Privacy: A Guide to Developing Implementing an e-businessPrivacy Plan(McGraw Hill)

ntroductionIn recent years, new methods of electronic communication have transformed our society, mostisibly by enabling ubiquitous digital communications and facilitating broad e-commerce Asportant for our global economy and our national security to have strong encryptionstandards The development and robust adoption of strong encryption is a keycommerce and t

rade, safeguard private information, promote free expression and association, andstrengthen cyber securityrivate Citizens care deeply about privacy, and rightly so Many companies have beenThe benefits of our increasingly digital lives, however, have been accompanied by new dangerswe nave been forcensider how criminals and terrorists might use advances inexample, malicctors can take advantage of the internetto covertly plot violent robberies, murders, and kidnappings; sex offenders can establish virtualcommunities to buy, sell, and encourage the creation of new depictions of horrific sexual abusef children; and individuals, organized criminal networks, and nation-states can exploitweaknessesber-defenses to steal our sensitive, personal informationInvestigating andecuting these offenders is a core responsibility and priority of the Department of Justice

ASnal security and criminal threats continue to evolve, the department has worked hard to staychanging threats and changing technologyThe more we as a society rely on electronic devices to communicate and store inforlikelormation thatfound in filing cabietters,and photo albiwill now be storedn electronic form We have seen case after case-from hkidnappings, to drug trafficking, financial fraud, and child exploitation-where critical evidencecame from smart phones, computers, and online communicationsWhen changes in technology hinder law enforcements ability to exercise investigativefollow critical leads, we may not be able to identify and stop terrorists who are using socialmedia to recruit, plan, and execute an attack in our country We may not be able to root out thechild predators hiding in the shadows of the Internet, or find and arrest violent criminals who aretargeting our neighborhoods We may not be able to recover critical information from a devicethat belongs to a victim who cannot provide us with the password, especially when time is of theessenceOf course, encryption is not the only technology terrorists and criminals use to further their endTerrorist groups, such as ISIL, use the Internet to great effect With the widespread horizontaldistribution of social media, terrorists can spot, assess, recruit, and radicalize vulnerablendividualses in the united states either to travnd attack As aresult, foreign terrorist organizations now have direct access into the United States like neverbefore For example, in recent arrests, a group of individuals was contacted by a known Isupporter who had already successfully traveled to Syria and encouraged them to do the same

Some of these conversations occur in publicly accessed social networking sites, but others takelace via private messaging platforms These encrypted direct messaging platforms aretremendously problematic when used by terrorist plottersIn a world where users have sole control over access to their devices ando can easily block all lawfully authorized access to their data, the jury would not have been ableo consider that evidence, unless the truck driver, against his own interest, provided the data Andthe theoretical availability of other types of evidence, irrelevant to the case, would have made nodifference In that world, the grim likelihood that he would go free is a cost that we mustforthrightly acknowledge and conIn addition to the Constitution, two statutes are particularly relevant to the going dark problempeakorder for the government totimeelectronic surveillance of the content of a suspect's communications, it must meet the standardsset forth in either the amended versions of title iii of the omnibus crime control and safeStreets Act of 1968(often referred to as "Title Illor the "Wiretap Act)or the Foreigne Surveillance Act of 1978(or"FISA") Title Ill authorizes the ga court order to conduct surveillance of wire, oral or electronic communicatauthorization, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(FISC), to approvesurveillance directed at foreign intelligence and international terrorism threats

Regardlesshich statute govens however the standards for the real-time electronic surveillance of UnitedStates persons communications are demanding For instance, if federal law enforcement seekthe authority to intercept phone calls in a criminal case using the wiretap Act, a federal districtcourt judge must findThat thebelieve thewhcations are targeted forinterception is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, a felony offenseThat alternative investigative procedures have failed, are unlikely to succeed, or are tooThat tidence of the felony will be obtained through theThe law also requires that before an application is even brought to a court, it must be approvedby a high-ranking Department of Justice official In addition, court orders allowing wiretaputhority expire after 30 days; if the government seeks to extend surveillance beyond this periodmust submit another application with a fresh showing of probable cause and investigativenecessity And the government is required to minimize to the extent possible its electronicterceptions to exclude non-pertinent and privileged communications All of these requirementsare approved by a federal courtThe statutory requirements for electronic surveillance ofpersons under FIsa are alsdemanding To approve that surveillance, the FIsC, must, among other things, find probableelThat the targetsurveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power; and

That each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is beinused or is about to be used by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign powerIvestigators seek access to electronic information stored -iedata atmartphone, they are likewise bound by the mandates of theFourth Amendment, which typically require them to demonstrate probable cause to a neutraldge, who independently decides whether to issue a search warrant for that datahttps://wwwfbigow/news/testimony/going-dark-encryption-technology-and-the-balances-between-pisafety-and-privacyertain technolochanges and theres thatofficials may be unable to keep pace with technological advances and conduct electronsurveillance if they cannot access certain information Originally, the going dark debate centeredcept real-time communications More recent technologchanges haommunications, but stored data as well There are concerns that enhanced encryption may affectlaw enforcement investigations, though there is limited empirical evidence

If evidence arisethat investigations are hampered, policy makers may question what, if any, actions they shouldtake One option is that Congress could update electronic surveillance laws to cover data storedhones Congress could also prohibit the enon of data unless law entcess the encrypted data They may also consider enhancing layfinancial resources and manpower, which could involve enhancing training for existing officershiring more personnel with strong technology expertiseSome of these options may involve the application of a"back door"or"golden key"that canallow for access to smartphones However, as has been noted, when you build a back door forthe good guys, you can be assured that the bad guys will figure out how to use it as well This ise tradeoff Policy makers may debate wlydvantageous forased security coupled with potentially fewer data breaches andblypaired with potentially greater vulnerability to malicious actorSource:https://wwwhsdlorg/?view&did=787160

Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public Safety on a CollisionCourse?ames B ComeyFederal Bureau of InvestigationBrookings institutionWashington D cOctober 162014Remarks as deliveredI have been on the job as FBI Director for one year and one month I like to express my tenure interms of months, and I joke that I have eight years and 1 l months to go, as if I'm incarceratedBut the truth is, I love this job, and I wake up every day excited to be part of the FBOver the past year, I have confirmed what I long believed--that the FBI is filled with amazingpeople, doing an amazing array of things around the world, and doing them well I have alsoonfirmed what i have long known that atment to the rule of law andbertiesthe core of the FBl It is the organizations spinet we confront serious threats-threats that are changing every day

so I want to make sure Ihave every lawful tool available to keep you safe from those threatsAn Opportunity to Begin a National ConversationI wanted to meet with you to talk in a serious way about the impact of emerging technology oniblic safety And within that context, I think it's important to talk about the work we doFBI and what we need to do the job you have entrusteddoere are a lot of misconceptions in the public eye about what we in the government collect andapabilities we have for collecting informy job is to explain and clarify where I can with regard to the work of the FBl But at the sametime, I want to get a better handle on your thoughts, because those of us in law enforcement cantdo what we need to do without your trust and your support We have no monopoly on wisdomy goal today isnt to tell people what to do My goal is to urge our fellow citizens to participateconversation as a country about where we are, and where we want to be, with respect to theauthority of law enforcementThe Challenge of going dark

echnology has forever changed the world we live in Were online, in one way or another, aly long Our phones and computers have become reflections of our personalities, our interestsd our identities They hold much that is important to usAnd with that comes a desire to protect our privacy and our datayou want to share your liyith the people you choose I sure do But the FBi has a sworn duty to keep every American safefrom crime and terrorism, and technology has become the tool of choice for some verUnfortunately, the law hasnt kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created acharged with protecting our peot always able tothe evidencd torime and prevent terrorism even with lawful authority We have the legaintercept and access communications and information pursuant to court order, but we often lackthe technical abilityWe face two overlapping challenges The first concerns real-time court-ordered interception ofwhat we call"data in motion, "such as phone calls, e-mail, and live chat sessions The secondchallenge concerns court-ordered access to data stored on our devices, such as e-mail,textmessages, photos, and videos--or what wedata at rest " and both real-time communicatioand stored data are increasingly encryptedLets talk about court-ordered interception first, and then we 'll talk about challenges posed bydifferent means of encryptionIn the past, conducting electronic surveillance was more straightforward We identified a targetphone being used by a bad guy, with a single carrier

We obtained aorder for a wiretap,nd,under the supervision of a judge, we collected the evidence we needed for prosecutionToday there aretless networks andfrom the soccer field to Starbucks, over many networks, using any number of apps And5oc ocommunicating We have laptops, smartphones, and tablets We take them to work and to schothose conspiring to harm us They use the same devices, the same networks, and the same appsmake plans to target victims and tohat theyre doing And that makes it tough for uIf a suspected criminal is in his car, and he switches from cellular coverage to Wi-Fi, we may beIf he switchesone app to anothefrom cellularmessaging app, we may lose him We may not have the capabilickly switch lawfulurveillance between devices methods, and networks The bad guys knowtheyre takingadvantage of it every dayIn the wake of the Snowden disclosures, the prevailing view is that the governallcommunications That is not true And unfortunately, the idea that the governmenthas access to all communications at all times has extended-unfairly--to the investigations of

law enforcement agencies that obtain individual warrants, approved by judges, to intercept thecommunications of sSome believe that the Fbi has these phenomenal capabilities to access any information at anytime-that we can get what we want whernt it, by flipping some sort of switch It may btrue in the movies or on TV It is simply not the case in real lifefrustrates me, because I want people to understand that law enforcement needs to be able toccess communications and information to bring peoplustice we dont to thef law, with clear guidance and striwith lawful authorite to access the evidence and the information we needCurrent lawand broadband providers to build interception capabilities into their networks for court-orderedsurveillance But that law the Communications assistance for Law Enforcement Act orCALEA, was enacted 20 years ago-a lifetime in the Internet age And it doesnt cover newofmunication Thousands ofquired by statute to provide lawful intercept capabilities to lawWhat this means is that an order from a judge to monitor a suspects communication may amountthing more than a piece of paper Some companies fail to comply with the court order

ome cant comply, because they have not developed interception capabilities Other providerswant to provide assistance, but they have to build interception capabilities, and that takes timeThehether companies not currently subject to the Cortions assistance for layEnforcement Act should be required to build lawful intercept capabWe arent seeking to expand our authority to intercept communications We are struggling toeep up with changing technology and to maintain our ability to actually collect thecommunications we are authorized to inteAnd if the challenges of real-time interception threaten to leave us in the dark, encryptioneatens to lead all of us to a very dark placeyption is nothing new But the challenge to law enforcement and national security officialkedly worse, with recent default encryption settings and encrypted devices and networks-all designed to increase security and privacyWitlnew operating system, the information stored on many iPhones and other Aldevices will be encrypted by default Shortly after Apples announcement, Google announceplans to follow suit with its Android operating system This means the companies themselveson't be able to unlock phones, laptops, and tablets to reveal photos, documents, e-mail, andrecordings stored with

Both companiehat they perceive is a market demandBut the place they are leading us is one we shouldnt go to without careful thought and debate asa countryAt the outset, Apple says something that is reasonable-that it's not that big a deal Algues, for example, that its users can back-up and store much of their data in"the cloud"andthat the fbi can still access that data with lawful authority But uploading to the cloud doesn'tinclude all of the stored data on a bad guys phone, which has the potential to create a black holeAnd if the bad guys don't back up their phones routinely, or if they opt out of uploading to thecloud, the data will only be found on the encrypted devices themselves And it is people mostorried about whatphone who will be most likely to avoid the cloud and tothat law enforcement canrcess incriminating datEncryption isn't just a technical feature; it's a marketing pitch But it will have very seriousforandall lecriminals will come to count on these means of evading detection It's the equivalent of a closetopened A sacant be cracked And my question is, at what cost?Correcting MisconceptionsSome argue that we will still have access to metadata, which includes telephone records andocation information from telecommunications carriers That is true But metadata doesnprovide the content of any communication It's incomplete information, and even this is difficultto access when time is of the essence I wish we had time in our work, especially when lives arethe line

Wedon tThere is a misconception that building a lawful intercept solution into a system requires a scalled"back door, one that foreign adversaries and hackers may try to exploitBut that isnt true We arent seeking a back-door approach We want to use the front door, withclarity and transparency, and with clear guidance provided by law We are completelycomfortable with court orders and legal process--front doors that provide the evidence andttackst it makes more sense to addressany security risks by developing intercept solutions during the design phase, rather than resortingto a patchwork solution when law enforcement comes knocking after the fact And withophisticated encryption, there might beon leaving the government at a dead end--allAnother misperception is that we can somehow guess the password or break into the phone witha so-called"brute force"attack Even a supercomputer would have difficulty with todays highelome devices have a sesomeone makes too many attempts to break the password, meaning no one can access that data