Apple’s general counsel and FBI Director will testify on encryption on March 1

BY Evan Selleck

Published 25 Feb 2016

Apple Australia

The fight between Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is heating up, as an initial court date has been green-lit.

It has been reported that Apple’s general counsel, Bruce Sewell, will testify in front of a congressional hearing on Tuesday, March 1. It has also been confirmed that the Director of the FBI, James Comey, will be in attendance on a separate panel to testify on the opposite side of the debate.

BuzzFeed News has confirmed in a separate report that Susan Landau of the Worcester Polytechnic University, and the New York County District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, will also be testifying at the hearing.

The congressional hearing is entitle, “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” is all about examining encryption technology, and the impact it has on people that utilize the technology, both for personal and other uses. The goal here is to find a solution that will let law enforcement agencies do their job, but also keep securities of the people in place.

“The widespread use of strong encryption has implications both for Americans’ privacy and security. As technology companies have made great strides to enhance the security of Americans’ personal and private information, law enforcement agencies face new challenges when attempting to access encrypted information. Americans have a right to strong privacy protections and Congress should fully examine the issue to be sure those are in place while finding ways to help law enforcement fight crime and keep us safe.”

This is in response to the on-going fight between the Apple and FBI regarding an iPhone 5c used by one of the shooters at the San Bernardino event in 2015. Tim Cook has opined on his stance regarding security for Apple users, and seen support from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, along with many other executives and companies.

The FBI’s Director, Comey, believes that this particular case will not set a precedent, even while admitting that it could affect the decision of courts in future cases of similar nature.

[via @CNBCNow; @fwd]