Skip to main content

Lawfare

See All Stories

Legal analysis of anti-encryption bill says it’s unconstitutional, unenforceable and would harm investigations

An anti-government protester holds up his iPhone with a sign "No Entry" during a demonstration near the Apple store on Fifth Avenue in New York on February 23, 2016. Apple is battling the US government over unlocking devices in at least 10 cases in addition to its high-profile dispute involving the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino attackers, court documents show. Apple has been locked in a legal and public relations battle with the US government in the California case, where the FBI is seeking technical assistance in hacking the iPhone of Syed Farook, a US citizen, who with his Pakistani wife Tashfeen Malik in December gunned down 14 people. / AFP / Jewel SamadJEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images ORIG FILE ID: 549279033

While the FBI abandoned its court case against Apple, the dispute of course still rumbles on in Congress, with hearings today and a proposed bill to force U.S. tech companies to break encrypted devices on demand. But at least one legal expert thinks the Feinstein-Burr bill is deeply flawed, arguing that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable and would harm U.S. investigative capabilities.

And not just any legal expert: you can’t really ask for better credentials in this area than those of Paul Rosenzweig.

Paul Rosenzweig is the founder of Red Branch Consulting PLLC, a homeland security consulting company [and] formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security. He is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute. He also serves as a Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University [and] a Senior Editor of the Journal of National Security Law & Policy.

In a blog post on Lawfare, Rosenzweig sets out the three problems he sees with the Feinstein-Burr bill …


Expand
Expanding
Close