Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:81

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
NICOLA T. HANNA, SBN 130694
nhanna@gibsondunn.com
ERIC D. VANDEVELDE, SBN –0699
evandevelde@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
THEODORE B. OLSON, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC, 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
Facsimile: 202.467.0539
MARC J. ZWILLINGER*
marc@zwillgen.com
JEFFFREY G. LANDIS*
jeff@zwillgen.com
ZWILLGEN PLLC
1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.706.5202
Facsimile: 202.706.5298*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAEASTERN DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH
OF AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZEDDURING THE EXECUTION OF A
SEARCH WARRANT ON A BLACK
LEXUS IS300, CALIFORNIA
LICENSE PLATE 35KGD203

ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)APPLE INC’S MOTION TO VACATEORDER COMPELLING APPLE INC.
TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH,
AND OPPOSITION TO
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL ASSISTANCE
Hearing:
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:March 22, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Courtroom 3 or 4
Hon. Sheri Pym

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 47 Page ID #:82

1

Apple Inc. (“Apple”), by and through its counsel of record, hereby files this2

Motion to Vacate the Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, and3

Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Compel Assistance.

4

This Motion and Opposition is based upon the attached memorandum of points

5

and authorities, the attached declarations of Nicola T. Hanna, Lisa Olle, and Erik

6

Neuenschwander and exhibits, the files and records in this case, and such further

7

evidence and argument as the Court may permit.

8
9

Dated: February 25, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLPBy:/s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
Nicola T. Hanna
Eric D. Vandevelde
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Theodore B. Olson
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC, 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
Facsimile: 202.467.0539
Marc J. Zwillinger *Jeffrey G. Landis *ZwillGen PLLC
1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.706.5202
Facsimile: 202.706.5298*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 47 Page ID #:83

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Page

2
3

I.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 14II.

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 55A.

Apple’s Industry-Leading Device Security................................................. 56

B.

The Government Abandoned Efforts To Obtain Legal Authority
For Mandated Back Doors. ......................................................................... 6C.

Apple’s Substantial Assistance In The Government’s Investigation........ 10D.

The Government’s Ex Parte Application Under The All Writs Act,
And This Court’s Order ............................................................................ 11E.

The Resources And Effort Required To Develop The Software
Demanded By The Government ............................................................... 13

7
8
9
10
11
12

III.

ARGUMENT....................................................................................................... 14
A.

13
14

The All Writs Act Does Not Provide A Basis To Conscript AppleTo Create Software Enabling The Government To Hack Into
iPhones. ..................................................................................................... 141.

The All Writs Act Does Not Grant Authority To Compel
Assistance Where Congress Has Considered But Chosen
Not To Confer Such Authority. ...................................................... 15

2.

18

New York Telephone Co. And Its Progeny Confirm That
The All Writs Act Does Not Authorize Courts To Compel
The Unprecedented And Unreasonably Burdensome
Conscription Of Apple That The Government Seeks..................... 20

19a.

Apple’s Connection To The Underlying Case Is “FarRemoved” And Too Attenuated To Compel Its
Assistance ............................................................................. 20b.

The Order Requested By The Government Would
Impose An Unprecedented And Oppressive Burden On
Apple And Citizens Who Use The iPhone. .......................... 23c.

The Government Has Not Demonstrated Apple’s
Assistance Was Necessary To Effectuating The
Warrant. ................................................................................ 29

15
16
17

20
21
22
23
24

3.

25
26

B.

Other Cases The Government Cites Do Not Support The
Type Of Compelled Action Sought Here. ...................................... 30

27

The Order Would Violate The First Amendment And The Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. .......................................................... 32

28

1.

The First Amendment Prohibits The Government From
Compelling Apple To Create Code ................................................ 32

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLPi

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 47 Page ID #:84

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

1
2

2.

3
4

IV.

Page
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause Prohibits The
Government From Compelling Apple To Create The
Request Code .................................................................................. 34

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 35

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLPii

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 47 Page ID #:85

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Page(s)Cases
321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.,307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................... 32
Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. Inc. v. Elan Corp.,2013 WL 8744216 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013)........................................................... 18
In the Matter of an Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Authorizing
Disclosure of Location Info. of a Specified Wireless Tel.,
849 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Md. 2011).......................................................................... 15
Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Authorizing an In-Progress Traceof Wire Commc’ns over Tel. Facilities, 616 F.2d 1122 ......................... 21, 22, 27, 29
In re Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Directing a Provider ofCommc’n Servs. to Provide Tech. Assistance to Agents of the U.S.
Drug Enf’t Admin.,2015 WL 5233551 (D.P.R. Aug. 27, 2015).............................................................. 27
In re Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Directing X to Provide
Access to Videotapes (“Videotapes”),
2003 WL 22053105 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2003) ..................................................... 21, 27
Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC,
2013 WL 4784190 (D. Md. Sept. 5, 2013) ................................................................. 5
Baker v. Carr,
369 U.S. 186 (1962).................................................................................................. 19
Bernstein v. Dep’t of State,
922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ......................................................................... 32
Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A.,
511 U.S. 164 (1994).................................................................................................. 18
Clark v. Martinez,
543 U.S. 371 (2005).................................................................................................. 18
Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681 (1997).................................................................................................. 1828
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLPi

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 47 Page ID #:86

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(Continued)
Page(s)Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis,
523 U.S. 833 (1998).................................................................................................. 34
Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.,
627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................. 34
Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
447 U.S. 303 (1980).................................................................................................. 19
Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw.,
441 U.S. 211 (1979).................................................................................................. 33
Grannis v. Ordean,
234 U.S. 385 (1914).................................................................................................. 11
Junger v. Daley,
209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................... 32
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent,
466 U.S. 789 (1984).................................................................................................. 34
Mich. Bell Telephone Co. v. United States,
565 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................... 29
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co.,
339 U.S. 306 (1950).................................................................................................. 11
In re Order,
2015 WL 5920207 ........................................................................................ 16, 19, 22
In re Order Requiring [XXX], Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search
Warrant Issued by This Court by Unlocking a Cellphone,2014 WL 5510865 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2014) (“Order Requiring[XXX]”) ..................................................................................................................... 28
In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search
Warrant Issued by the Court,
E.D.N.Y No. 15 MC 1902, Dkt. 19 .......................................................................... 22
In re Order Requiring Apple, Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search
Warrant Issued by this Court,
E.D.N.Y No. 15-MC-1902, Dkt. 27 ........................................................................... 3

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLPii

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 47 Page ID #:87

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(Continued)
Page(s)Pa. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv.,
474 U.S. 34 (1985).................................................................................................... 15

Pipe Trades Council, U.A. Loc. 159 v. Underground Contractors Ass’n,
835 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................... 5
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.,
514 U.S. 211 (1995).................................................................................................. 18
Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton,
608 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir. 1979) ............................................................ 1, 14, 15, 31, 32
Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc.,
529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................... 17
Riley v. California,
134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).............................................................................................. 25
Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind of N.C., Inc.,
487 U.S. 781,796 (1988)........................................................................................... 32
Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,
774 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) ............................................................... 19
In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the
Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, Cal. License
Plate 35KGD203,
No. ED 15-0451M (Feb. 16, 2016), Dkt. 19 ................................................ 12, 22, 31
State v. Underdahl,
767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009) ................................................................................. 24
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC,
512 U.S. 622 (1994).................................................................................................. 33
United States v. Budziak,
697 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 24
United States v. Cameron,699 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2012)..................................................................................... 26
United States v. Catoggio,
698 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) .................................................................. 30

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

iii

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 47 Page ID #:88

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(Continued)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Page(s)United States v. Cooper,
983 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................... 24

United States v. Elcom Ltd.,
203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................... 32
United States v. Fricosu,
841 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D. Colo. 2012) ..................................................................... 30
United States v. Hall,583 F. Supp. 717 (E.D. Va. 1984) ................................................................ 21, 23, 27
United States v. Navarro,
No. 13-CR-5525 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2013), ECF No. 39................................... 28
United States v. New York Telephone Co.,
434 U.S. 159 (1977).......................................................................... 20, 21, 22, 29, 30
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley,
273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... 32
Vieth v. Jubelirer,
541 U.S. 267 (2004) (plurality opinion) ................................................................... 19
Xi v. INS,
298 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................... 19
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
343 U.S. 579 (1952).................................................................................................. 18
Statutes

22

18 U.S.C. § 2518(4) ....................................................................................................... 1723

18 U.S.C. § 3282 ............................................................................................................ 35

24

28 U.S.C. § 1651 ................................................................................................ 11, 15, 19

25
26
27

47 U.S.C. § 1001 ........................................................................................................ 8, 17
47 U.S.C. § 1002 .................................................................................................. 8, 16, 17

28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

iv

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 47 Page ID #:89

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(Continued)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page(s)Other Authorities

Apple Inc., A Message to Our Customers (Feb. 16, 2016) ....................................... 3, 22
Apple Inc. and Apple Distrib. Int’l, Written Evidence (IPB0093), (Dec.
21, 2015) ..................................................................................................................... 7
Apple Inc., iCloud: Back up your iOS device to iCloud................................................ 11Apple Inc., iOS Security: iOS 9.0 or later (September 2015). ........................................ 6
Apple Inc., Privacy, Government Information Requests ............................................... 33
Cyrus R. Vance Jr., No Smartphone Lies Beyond the Reach of a Judicial
Search Warrant, N.Y. Times (Feb. 18, 2016) .................................................... 10, 24
Damian Paletta, How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps
Develop It, Wall St. J. (Feb. 22, 2016) ....................................................................... 6
Ellen Nakashima, Hacks of OPM Databases Compromised 22.1 Million
People, Federal Authorities Say, Wash. Post (July 9, 2015) ..................................... 1
Ellen Nakashima and Mark Berman, FBI Asked San Bernardino to Resetthe Password for Shooter’s Phone Backup, Wash. Post (Feb. 20, 2016) ................ 34
Ellen Nakashima, Proposal Seeks to Fine Tech Companies for
Noncompliance with Wiretap Orders, Wash. Post (Apr. 28, 2013) ........................... 9
FBI, Operational Technology, Going Dark Issue (last visited Feb. 23,
2016) ....................................................................................................................... 4, 7
Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Update on the Cyberwar, Wall St. J. (Feb.
17, 2016) ..................................................................................................................... 5
H.R. 2233, 114th Cong. (2015) (same, adding additional amendments to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) ................................................... 9
H.R. Rep. No. 103-827(I), (1994) ............................................................................. 8, 17James Comey, Director Discusses Encryption, Patriot Act Provisions(May 20, 2015) ......................................................................................................... 10
James Comey, Encryption, Public Safety, and “Going Dark,” ...................................... 4

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLPv

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 47 Page ID #:90

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(Continued)
Page(s)James Comey, Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balances
Between Public Safety and Encryption, Joint Statement with Deputy
Atty Gen. Sally Quillian Yates Before the Sen. Judiciary Comm. (July8, 2015) ....................................................................................................................... 7
James Comey, Statement Before the Senate Comm. on Homeland Sec. &Governmental Affairs (Oct. 8, 2015) .......................................................................... 9James Comey, We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not
Follow This Lead ........................................................................................................ 4
Kara Swisher, White House. Red Chair. Obama Meets Swisher (Feb. 15,2015) ......................................................................................................................... 10
Margaret Coker, et al., The Attacks in Paris: Islamic State Teaches Tech
Savvy, Wall St. J. (Nov. 17, 2015) .............................................................................. 4
Mike McConnell et al., Why The Fear Over Ubiquitous Data Encryption
Is Overblown, Wash. Post (July 28, 2015) ................................................................. 8
New America’s Open Technology Institute, Joint Letter to President
Barack Obama (May 19, 2015) .................................................................................. 9
NPR, Weekend Edition, It’s Not Just the iPhone Law Enforcement Wants
to Unlock (Feb. 21, 2016) ......................................................................................... 10

19

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron of the United
Kingdom in Joint Press Conference (Jan. 16, 2015) ................................................ 10

20

Secure Data Act of 2015, H.R. 726, 114th Cong. (2015)................................................ 9

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Secure Data Act of 2015, S.135, 114th Cong. (2015) ..................................................... 9
Senior House Judiciary Committee Democrats Express Concern Over
Government Attempts to Undermine Encryption, House Comm. on the
Judiciary, Democrats (Feb. 18, 2016)......................................................................... 9
Seung Lee, The Murder Victim Whose Phone Couldn’t Be Cracked andOther Apple Encryption Stories, Newsweek (Feb. 19, 2016) .................................... 3
Susan Landau, The National-Security Needs for Ubiquitous Encryption(Feb. 1, 2016) .............................................................................................................. 7

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLPvi

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 47 Page ID #:91

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(Continued)

1
2
3
4
5

Page(s)RulesFed. R. Evid. 404 ........................................................................................................... 35
Fed. R. Evid. 702 ........................................................................................................... 24

6Constitutional Provisions

7

U.S. Const. amend. I ...................................................................................................... 32

8

U.S. Const. amend. IV ................................................................................................... 35

9U.S. Const. amend. V .................................................................................................... 34

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

vii

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 47 Page ID #:92

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION

3This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the4

Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that

5

Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like

6Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of

7

individuals around the globe. The government demands that Apple create a back door

8

to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its users’ most confidential and9personal information vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, hostile foreign agents, and10

unwarranted government surveillance. The All Writs Act, first enacted in 1789 and on

11

which the government bases its entire case, “does not give the district court a roving

12

commission” to conscript and commandeer Apple in this manner. Plum Creek Lumber

13

Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). In fact, no court has ever14

authorized what the government now seeks, no law supports such unlimited and15

sweeping use of the judicial process, and the Constitution forbids it.

16

Since the dawn of the computer age, there have been malicious people dedicated17

to breaching security and stealing stored personal information. Indeed, the government

18

itself falls victim to hackers, cyber-criminals, and foreign agents on a regular basis,

19

most famously when foreign hackers breached Office of Personnel Management20

databases and gained access to personnel records, affecting over 22 million current and21

former federal workers and family members.1 In the face of this daily siege, Apple is22

dedicated to enhancing the security of its devices, so that when customers use an

23

iPhone, they can feel confident that their most private personal information—financial

24

records and credit card information, health information, location data, calendars,25

personal and political beliefs, family photographs, information about their children—

26
27
28

1

See, e.g., Hanna Decl. Ex. A [Ellen Nakashima, Hacks of OPM Databases
Compromised 22.1 Million People, Federal Authorities Say, Wash. Post (July 9,2015)] (explaining that hackers used stolen logins and passwords to gain access tofederal employee records databases for six months before detection).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

1

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 47 Page ID #:93

1will be safe and secure. To this end, Apple uses encryption to protect its customers

2from cyber-attack and works hard to improve security with every software release3

because the threats are becoming more frequent and sophisticated. Beginning with4

iOS 8, Apple added additional security features that incorporate the passcode into the5encryption system. It is these protections that the government now seeks to roll back6

by judicial decree.

7

There are two important and legitimate interests in this case: the needs of law

8

enforcement and the privacy and personal safety interests of the public. In furtherance

9of its law enforcement interests, the government had the opportunity to seek

10

amendments to existing law, to ask Congress to adopt the position it urges here. But

11rather than pursue new legislation, the government backed away from Congress and12turned to the courts, a forum ill-suited to address the myriad competing interests,

13

potential ramifications, and unintended consequences presented by the government’s

14

unprecedented demand. And more importantly, by invoking “terrorism” and moving

15

ex parte behind closed courtroom doors, the government sought to cut off debate and16

circumvent thoughtful analysis.

17

The order demanded by the government compels Apple to create a new

18

operating system—effectively a “back door” to the iPhone—that Apple believes is too

19

dangerous to build. Specifically, the government would force Apple to create new

20

software with functions to remove security features and add a new capability to the21

operating system to attack iPhone encryption, allowing a passcode to be input

22

electronically. This would make it easier to unlock the iPhone by “brute force,” trying

23

thousands or millions of passcode combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

24

In short, the government wants to compel Apple to create a crippled and insecure

25

product. Once the process is created, it provides an avenue for criminals and foreign

26

agents to access millions of iPhones. And once developed for our government, it is27

only a matter of time before foreign governments demand the same tool.

28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

2

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 14 of 47 Page ID #:94

1

The government says: “Just this once” and “Just this phone.” But the2government knows those statements are not true; indeed the government has filed

3

multiple other applications for similar orders, some of which are pending in other4

courts.2 And as news of this Court’s order broke last week, state and local officials

5

publicly declared their intent to use the proposed operating system to open hundreds of6other seized devices—in cases having nothing to do with terrorism.3 If this order is7permitted to stand, it will only be a matter of days before some other prosecutor, in8

some other important case, before some other judge, seeks a similar order using this9case as precedent. Once the floodgates open, they cannot be closed, and the device

10

security that Apple has worked so tirelessly to achieve will be unwound without so

11much as a congressional vote. As Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, recently noted: “Once12

created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.

13

In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening

14

hundreds of millions of locks—from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No

15

reasonable person would find that acceptable.” Declaration of Nicola T. Hanna

16(“Hanna Decl.”), Ex. D [Apple Inc., A Message to Our Customers (Feb. 16, 2016)].

17

Despite the context of this particular action, no legal principle would limit the18

use of this technology to domestic terrorism cases—but even if such limitations could

19

be imposed, it would only drive our adversaries further underground, using encryption

20

technology made by foreign companies that cannot be conscripted into U.S.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Hanna Decl. Ex. B [Letter to Court, In re Order Requiring Apple, Inc. to Assist in
the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by this Court, E.D.N.Y No. 15-MC-1902,
Dkt. 27].
3
E.g., Hanna Decl. Ex. C [Seung Lee, The Murder Victim Whose Phone Couldn’t Be
Cracked and Other Apple Encryption Stories, Newsweek (Feb. 19, 2016)] (Cyrus
Vance, Manhattan District Attorney stating that he has “155 to 160” devices that hewould like to access, while officials in Sacramento have “well over 100” devices
for which they would like Apple to produce unique software so that they can accessthe devices’ contents); Hanna Decl. ¶ 5 at 18:28 [Charlie Rose, TelevisionInterview of Cyrus Vance (Feb. 18, 2016)] (Vance stating “absolutely” that he“want[s] access to all those phones that [he thinks] are crucial in a criminal
proceeding”).
2

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

3

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 15 of 47 Page ID #:95

1

government service4—leaving law-abiding individuals shouldering all of the burdens

2

on liberty, without any offsetting benefit to public safety. Indeed, the FBI’s repeated3

warnings that criminals and terrorists are able to “go dark” behind end-to-end

4encryption methods proves this very point. See Hanna Decl. Ex. F [FBI, Operational

5Technology, Going Dark Issue (last visited Feb. 23, 2016) (“FBI, Going Dark”)].
Finally, given the government’s boundless interpretation of the All Writs Act, it

6
7

is hard to conceive of any limits on the orders the government could obtain in the

8

future. For example, if Apple can be forced to write code in this case to bypass

9

security features and create new accessibility, what is to stop the government from10

demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government

11

surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on

12location services to track the phone’s user? Nothing.
As FBI Director James Comey expressly recognized:
Democracies resolve such tensions through robust debate. . . . It may bethat, as a people, we decide the benefits [of strong encryption] outweighthe costs and that there is no sensible, technically feasible way to optimize
privacy and safety in this particular context, or that public safety folks
will be able to do their job well enough in the world of universal strong
encryption. Those are decisions Americans should make, but I think partof my job is [to] make sure the debate is informed by a reasonable
understanding of the costs.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Hanna Decl. Ex. G [James Comey, Encryption, Public Safety, and “Going Dark,”
Lawfare (July 6, 2015, 10:38 AM) (“Comey, Going Dark”)]; see also Hanna Decl. Ex.
H [James Comey, We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow
This Lead, Lawfare (Feb. 21, 2016, 9:03 PM) (“Comey, Follow This Lead”)](reiterating that the tension between national security and individual safety and privacy“should not be resolved by the FBI, which investigates for a living[, but rather] . . . by
the American people . . . .”). The government, by seeking an order mandating that4

See Hanna Decl. Ex. E [Margaret Coker, et al., The Attacks in Paris: Islamic State
Teaches Tech Savvy, Wall St. J. (Nov. 17, 2015) (“Coker, Tech Savvy”)](describing the technological sophistication of terrorists groups, including, forexample, ISIS’s ability and willingness to shift to more secure communication
methods).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

4

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 16 of 47 Page ID #:96

1

Apple create software to destabilize the security of the iPhone and the law-abiding

2

citizens who use it to store data touching on every facet of their private lives, is not3

acting to inform or contribute to the debate; it is seeking to avoid it.

4Apple strongly supports, and will continue to support, the efforts of law

5

enforcement in pursuing justice against terrorists and other criminals—just as it has in6

this case and many others. But the unprecedented order requested by the government

7

finds no support in the law and would violate the Constitution. Such an order would

8

inflict significant harm—to civil liberties, society, and national security—and would

9

preempt decisions that should be left to the will of the people through laws passed by

10

Congress and signed by the President. Accordingly, the Court should vacate the order11and deny the government’s motion to compel.5

12
13

II.
A.

BACKGROUNDApple’s Industry-Leading Device Security.
Apple is committed to data security. Encryption provides Apple with the1415strongest means available to ensure the safety and privacy of its customers against

16

threats known and unknown.6 For several years, iPhones have featured hardware- and

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The government filed its motion to compel notwithstanding the Court allowing aneight-day period within which Apple could challenge the order compelling
assistance, Apple’s express indication during the parties’ February 18 statusconference that it intended to seek relief from the order, the Court’s entry of abriefing schedule to permit the parties to address the validity of the order, and the
Court’s own skepticism about the utility of such a motion. That skepticism proved
warranted. Only three pages into the government’s 25-page motion, it concedes the
motion is “not legally necessary.” Dkt. 1 at 3 n.3. Nor could the government claim
otherwise, as the motion—substantial portions of which appear to have been cut
and pasted from the government’s ex parte application—seeks no relief beyond that
contemplated by the order compelling assistance. Because the government’s
motion serves no legal purpose, and the issues it raises will be fully briefed andaddressed in Apple’s motion to vacate and the government’s opposition thereto, itshould be denied. See, e.g., Pipe Trades Council, U.A. Loc. 159 v. Underground
Contractors Ass’n, 835 F.2d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1987) (concluding a district court
properly denied a motion to compel as premature); cf. Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Serv.,
LLC, 2013 WL 4784190, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 5, 2013) (striking sua sponte a motionthat was “not technically ripe” and “meandering, redundant, transparent, and largely
oblivious to the posture of the case”).
6
Former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden has recognized that, on balance,
America is more secure because of “end-to-end unbreakable encryption.” Hanna
Decl. Ex. I [Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Update on the Cyberwar, Wall St. J.
5(Cont'd on next page)

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

5

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 17 of 47 Page ID #:97

1

software-based encryption of their password-protected contents. Declaration of Erik

2

Neuenschwander (“Neuenschwander Decl.”) ¶ 8. These protections safeguard the3encryption keys on the device with a passcode designated by the user during setup. Id.

4¶ 9. This passcode immediately becomes entangled with the iPhone’s Unique ID

5(“UID”), which is permanently assigned to that one device during the manufacturing

6

process. Id. ¶ 13. The iPhone’s UID is neither accessible to other parts of the7

operating system nor known to Apple. See generally Hanna Decl. Ex. K [Apple Inc.,

8

iOS Security: iOS 9.0 or later (September 2015)]. These protections are designed to9

prevent anyone without the passcode from accessing encrypted data on iPhones.

10

Neuenschwander Decl. ¶ 8 .
Cyber-attackers intent on gaining unauthorized access to a device could break a

11
12

user-created passcode, if given enough chances to guess and the ability to test

13

passwords rapidly by automated means. To prevent such “brute-force” attempts to

14

determine the passcode, iPhones running iOS 8 and higher include a variety of15

safeguards. Id. ¶ 10. For one, Apple uses a “large iteration count” to slow attempts to16

access an iPhone, ensuring that it would take years to try all combinations of a six-

17

character alphanumeric passcode. Id. ¶ 11. In addition, Apple imposes escalating time

18

delays after the entry of each invalid passcode. Id. ¶ 12. Finally, Apple also includes a19

setting that—if activated—automatically deletes encrypted data after ten consecutive

20

incorrect attempts to enter the passcode. Id. This combination of security features21

protects users from attackers or if, for example, the user loses the device.

22

B.

23
24
25
26
27
28

The Government Abandoned Efforts To Obtain Legal Authority For
Mandated Back Doors.
Some in the law enforcement community have disparaged the security

improvements by Apple and others, describing them as creating a “going dark”(Cont'd from previous page)(Feb. 17, 2016)]; cf. Hanna Decl. Ex. J [Damian Paletta, How the U.S. Fights
Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It, Wall St. J. (Feb. 22, 2016)] (describing
funding by U.S. government of stronger encryption technologies).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

6

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 18 of 47 Page ID #:98

1

problem in which law enforcement may possess the “legal authority to intercept and2access communications and information pursuant to court orders” but lack the3“technical ability to carry out those orders because of a fundamental shift in

4

communications services and technologies.”7 As a result, some officials have5

advanced the view that companies should be required to maintain access to user

6communications and data and provide that information to law enforcement upon7

satisfaction of applicable legal requirements.8 This would give the government, in

8

effect, a back door to otherwise encrypted communications—which would be precisely

9

the result of the government’s position in this case.9
Apple and other technology companies, supported by leading security experts,

10
11

have disagreed with law enforcement’s position, observing that any back door enabling

12

government officials to obtain encrypted data would also create a vulnerability that13

could be exploited by criminals and foreign agents, weakening critical security

14

protections and creating new and unforeseen access to private information. For these15

reasons, Apple and others have strongly opposed efforts to require companies to enable

16

the government to obtain encrypted information, arguing that this would compromise17

the security offered to its hundreds of millions of law-abiding customers in order to18

weaken security for the few who may pose a threat.10

19

As leading former national security officials have made clear, Apple’s

20“resistance to building in a back door” in whatever form it may take is well-justified,

21
22
23

7
8

24
25
26
27
28

9

10

Hanna Decl. Ex. F [FBI, Going Dark].
See, e.g., Hanna Decl. Ex. L [James Comey, Going Dark: Encryption, Technology,
and the Balances Between Public Safety and Encryption, Joint Statement with
Deputy Atty. Gen. Sally Quillian Yates Before the Sen. Judiciary Comm. (July 8,2015)]. The repeated concern about the broader “going dark” problem, and thefocus on universal back doors, stands in stark contrast to the comments bygovernment officials that this case is about just one iPhone.
See Hanna Decl. Ex. M [Susan Landau, The National-Security Needs for
Ubiquitous Encryption (Feb. 1, 2016)].
See Hanna Decl. Ex. N, ¶ 20 [Apple Inc. and Apple Distrib. Int’l, Written Evidence(IPB0093), (Dec. 21, 2015)].

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

7

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 19 of 47 Page ID #:99

1

because “the greater public good is a secure communications infrastructure protected2

by ubiquitous encryption at the device, server and enterprise level without building in3means for government monitoring.”11
In recent years, however, the government, led by the Department of Justice, has

4
5

considered legislative proposals that would have mandated such a back door. Those

6

proposals sought to significantly expand the reach of the Communications Assistance7for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”), 47 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., in which Congress

8

defined the circumstances under which private companies must assist law enforcement

9in executing authorized electronic surveillance and the nature of—and limits on—the10

assistance such companies must provide.12 In addressing the twin needs of law

11

enforcement and privacy, Congress, through CALEA, specified when a company has

12

an obligation to assist the government with decryption of communications, and made13

clear that a company has no obligation to do so where, as here, the company does not

14

retain a copy of the decryption key. 47 U.S.C. § 1002(b)(3). Congress, keenly aware

15

of and focusing on the specific area of dispute here, thus opted not to provide authority

16

to compel companies like Apple to assist law enforcement with respect to data stored17

on a smartphone they designed and manufactured.13

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Hanna Decl. Ex. O [Mike McConnell et al., Why The Fear Over Ubiquitous Data
Encryption Is Overblown, Wash. Post (July 28, 2015)].
12
Following a vigorous lobbying effort led by the FBI for enhanced surveillance andinformational-access powers in the digital age, Congress “balance[d] three key
policies: (1) to preserve a narrowly focused capability for law enforcement agencies
to carry out properly authorized intercepts; (2) to protect privacy in the face ofincreasingly powerful and personally revealing technologies; and (3) to avoid
impeding the development of new communications services and technologies.”
H.R. Rep. No. 103-827(I), at 13 (1994), as reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3489,
3493; see also id. at 17, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3497 (“[A]s the potential
intrusiveness of technology increases, it is necessary to ensure that government
surveillance authority is clearly defined and appropriately limited.”).
13
The government has acknowledged this. Dkt. 1 at 23. CALEA requires only
“telecommunications carriers” to ensure that their “equipment, facilities, orservices” enable the government to intercept communications pursuant to a court
order or other lawful authorization. 47 U.S.C. § 1002. CALEA defines“telecommunications carrier” to exclude persons or entities providing “information
services,” such as Apple. Id. § 1001(8).

11Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

8

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 20 of 47 Page ID #:100

1

The government’s proposed changes to CALEA would have dramatically2expanded the law’s scope by mandating that companies install back doors into their

3

products to ensure that authorities can access encrypted data when authorized to do4

so.14 In the face of this proposal—commonly referred to as “CALEA II”—leading

5

technology companies, including Apple, as well as public interest organizations like6

the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, urged President Obama to “reject any proposal

7

that U.S. companies deliberately weaken the security of their products . . . [and]8instead focus on developing policies that will promote rather than undermine the wide9

adoption of strong encryption technology.”15
The Executive Branch ultimately decided not to pursue CALEA II, and10
11Congress has left CALEA untouched, meaning that Congress never granted the12

authority the government now asserts. Moreover, members of Congress have recently

13

introduced three pieces of legislation that would affirmatively prohibit the government

14

from forcing private companies like Apple to compromise data security.16 On October15

8, 2015, FBI Director Comey confirmed that the Obama Administration would not

16

seek passage of CALEA II at that time.17 Instead, Director Comey expressed his view

17

14

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See Hanna Decl. Ex. P [Ellen Nakashima, Proposal Seeks to Fine Tech Companies
for Noncompliance with Wiretap Orders, Wash. Post (Apr. 28, 2013)].
15
Hanna Decl. Ex. Q [New America’s Open Technology Institute, Joint Letter to
President Barack Obama (May 19, 2015)].
16
See Secure Data Act of 2015, S.135, 114th Cong. (2015) (proposal to prohibit afederal agency from requiring hardware or software manufacturers to design or alter
the security functions in their products to allow surveillance, and exempting
products used pursuant to CALEA); Secure Data Act of 2015, H.R. 726, 114th
Cong. (2015) (same); End Warrantless Surveillance of Americans Act, H.R. 2233,
114th Cong. (2015) (same, adding additional amendments to the ForeignIntelligence Surveillance Act of 1978). In fact, just last week, four senior membersof the House Judiciary Committee issued a statement expressing concern that theorder in this case constitutes an “end-run around the legislative process.” Hanna
Decl. Ex. R [Senior House Judiciary Committee Democrats Express Concern Over
Government Attempts to Undermine Encryption, House Comm. on the Judiciary,
Democrats (Feb. 18, 2016)]. Recognizing that Congress has not yet determined toact on this issue, they stated that “there is little reason for the government to makethis demand on Apple—except to enact a policy proposal that has gained notraction in Congress and was rejected by the White House.” Id.
17
Hanna Decl. Ex. S [James Comey, Statement Before the Senate Comm. on
Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs (Oct. 8, 2015)] (noting that while the(Cont'd on next page)

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

9

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 21 of 47 Page ID #:101

1

that the “going dark” debate raises issues that “to a democracy should be very, very2

concerning” and therefore the issue is “worthy of a larger public conversation.”18

3

President Obama has also remarked that it is “useful to have civil libertarians and4others tapping us on the shoulder in the midst of this process and reminding us that5

there are values at stake as well,” noting further that he “welcome[s] that kind of

6

debate.”19 As the President has recognized, these issues are part of “a public

7

conversation that we should end up having.”20

8C.

Apple’s Substantial Assistance In The Government’s Investigation
Apple was shocked and saddened by the mindless savagery of the December 2,

9102015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino. In the days following the attack, the FBI

11

approached Apple for help in its investigation. Apple responded immediately, and12devoted substantial resources on a 24/7 basis to support the government’s investigation

13of this heinous crime. Declaration of Lisa Olle (“Olle Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9.
Apple promptly provided all data that it possessed relating to the attackers’

14
15

accounts and that the FBI formally requested via multiple forms of legal process, in

16

keeping with Apple’s commitment to comply with all legally valid subpoenas and17
18(Cont'd from previous page)

19
20
21

18

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

19

20

“United States government is actively engaged with private companies to ensure
they understand the public safety and national security risks that result frommalicious actors’ use of their encrypted products and services . . . the administration
is not seeking legislation at this time.”).
See Hanna Decl. Ex. T [James Comey, Director Discusses Encryption, Patriot Act
Provisions, (May 20, 2015)]. Even Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.,
who is eager to see the government prevail here, has acknowledged that these issues
should be resolved by Congress. Hanna Decl. Ex. Z [Cyrus R. Vance Jr., No
Smartphone Lies Beyond the Reach of a Judicial Search Warrant, N.Y. Times (Feb.
18, 2016)]; Hanna Decl. Ex. U [NPR, Weekend Edition, It’s Not Just the iPhone
Law Enforcement Wants to Unlock (Feb. 21, 2016)] (“. . . I think that the UnitedStates Congress is going to have to step in here . . . We need to look at this withindependent eyes. And I believe Congress ultimately is going to have to make thejudgment call of where we draw that line [between privacy and public safety]”.).
Hanna Decl. Ex. V [Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron of
the United Kingdom in Joint Press Conference (Jan. 16, 2015)].
Hanna Decl. Ex. W [Kara Swisher, White House. Red Chair. Obama Meets
Swisher, Re/Code.com (Feb. 15, 2015)].

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

10

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 22 of 47 Page ID #:102

1

search warrants that the company receives. Id. Additionally, Apple has furnished2

valuable informal assistance to the government’s investigation—participating in3

teleconferences, providing technical assistance, answering questions from the FBI, and4suggesting potential alternatives for the government to attempt to obtain data from the5

iPhone at issue. Id. ¶ 6.
Unfortunately, the FBI, without consulting Apple or reviewing its public

6
7

guidance regarding iOS, changed the iCloud password associated with one of the8

attacker’s accounts, foreclosing the possibility of the phone initiating an automatic

9

iCloud back-up of its data to a known Wi-Fi network, see Hanna Decl. Ex. X [Apple

10

Inc., iCloud: Back up your iOS device to iCloud], which could have obviated the need11

to unlock the phone and thus for the extraordinary order the government now seeks.21

12

Had the FBI consulted Apple first, this litigation may not have been necessary.

13

D.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Government’s Ex Parte Application Under The All Writs Act, And
This Court’s Order
On February 16, 2016, the government filed an ex parte application andproposed order asking the Court to compel Apple to assist in the government’s
investigation under the authority of the All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651.22
In its motion to compel, filed February 19 with this Court, the government sought
to shift the blame to the “owner” (San Bernardino County) in describing whochanged the password and why it allegedly has no other viable alternatives besides
the creation of a new operating system. Dkt. 1 at 18 n.7. The FBI later issued apress release acknowledging that it “worked with” the County to reset the
password. See Hanna Decl. Ex. Y [Statement to Address Misleading Reports that
the County of San Bernardino Reset Terror Suspect’s iPhone Without Consent of
the FBI, issued by the FBI to Ars Technica (Feb. 21, 2016)].
22
The government obtained the Order without notice to Apple and without allowing
Apple an opportunity to be heard. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co.,
339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (recognizing that one of the “‘fundamental requisite[s] ofdue process of law is the opportunity to be heard’”) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean,
234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914)). But this was not a case where the government needed
to proceed in secret to safeguard its investigation; indeed, Apple understands thatthe government alerted reporters before filing its ex parte application, and then,
immediately after it was signed and confirmed to be on the docket, distributed theapplication and Order to the public at about the same time it notified Apple.
Moreover, this is the only case in counsel’s memory in which an FBI Director has
blogged in real-time about pending litigation, suggesting that the government does
not believe the data on the phone will yield critical evidence about other suspects.
21(Cont'd on next page)

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

11

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 23 of 47 Page ID #:103

1

With no opposition or other perspectives to consider, the Court granted the2government’s request and signed the government’s proposed order, thereby compelling

3Apple to create new software that would allow the government to hack into an iPhone4

5c used by one of the attackers. Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in

5

Search, In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of

6

a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, Cal. License Plate 35KGD203, No. ED 15-70451M (Feb. 16, 2016), Dkt. at 19 (the “Order”).

8

The Order directs Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance to assist law

9

enforcement agents in obtaining access to the data” on the device. Id. ¶ 1. The Order10further defines this “reasonable technical assistance” to include creating custom

11

software that can be loaded on the iPhone to accomplish three goals: (1) bypass or

12disable the iPhone’s “auto-erase” function, designed to protect against efforts to obtain

13

unauthorized access to the device’s encrypted contents by deleting encrypted data after14

ten unsuccessful attempts to enter the iPhone’s passcode, (2) enable the FBI to

15electronically submit passcodes to the device for testing, bypassing the requirement

16

that passcodes be manually entered, and (3) remove any time delays between entering

17

incorrect passcodes. Id. ¶ 2. Because the government proceeded ex parte, Apple had

18

no opportunity to weigh in on whether such assistance was “reasonable,” and thus the19

government’s request was assumed to be.

20

The software envisioned by the government simply does not exist today. Thus,21

at bottom, the Order would compel Apple to create a new version of the iPhone

22

operating system designed to defeat the critical security features noted previously for23

the specific purpose of accessing the device’s contents in unencrypted form—in other24

words, to write new software to create a back door to the device’s encrypted data.

25
26
27
28

(Cont'd from previous page)See Hanna Decl. Ex. G [Comey, Going Dark]; Hanna Decl. Ex. H [Comey, Follow
This Lead].

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

12

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 24 of 47 Page ID #:104

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

E.

The Resources And Effort Required To Develop The Software Demanded
By The Government
The compromised operating system that the government demands would requiresignificant resources and effort to develop. Although it is difficult to estimate, because
it has never been done before, the design, creation, validation, and deployment of thesoftware likely would necessitate six to ten Apple engineers and employees dedicatinga very substantial portion of their time for a minimum of two weeks, and likely as
many as four weeks. Neuenschwander Decl. ¶ 22. Members of the team would
include engineers from Apple’s core operating system group, a quality assurance
engineer, a project manager, and either a document writer or a tool writer. Id.
No operating system currently exists that can accomplish what the government
wants, and any effort to create one will require that Apple write new code, not justdisable existing code functionality. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. Rather, Apple will need to design
and implement untested functionality in order to allow the capability to enterpasscodes into the device electronically in the manner that the government describes.
Id. ¶ 24. In addition, Apple would need to either develop and prepare detailed
documentation for the above protocol to enable the FBI to build a brute-force tool thatis able to interface with the device to input passcode attempts, or design, develop andprepare documentation for such a tool itself. Id. ¶ 25. Further, if the tool is utilized
remotely (rather than at a secure Apple facility), Apple will also have to develop
procedures to encrypt, validate, and input into the device communications from theFBI. Id. This entire development process would need to be logged and recorded incase Apple’s methodology is ever questioned, for example in court by a defense
lawyer for anyone charged in relation to the crime. Id. ¶ 28.
Once created, the operating system would need to go through Apple’s quality
assurance and security testing process. Id. ¶ 29. Apple’s software ecosystem isincredibly complicated, and changing one feature of an operating system often has
ancillary or unanticipated consequences. Id. ¶ 30. Thus, quality assurance andsecurity testing would require that the new operating system be tested on multiple

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

13

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 25 of 47 Page ID #:105

1

devices and validated before being deployed. Id. Apple would have to undertake2

additional testing efforts to confirm and validate that running this newly developed

3

operating system to bypass the device’s security features will not inadvertently destroy

4or alter any user data. Id. ¶ 31. To the extent problems are identified (which is almost

5

always the case), solutions would need to be developed and re-coded, and testing

6

would begin anew. Id. ¶ 32. As with the development process, the entire quality

7

assurance and security testing process would need to be logged, recorded, and8

preserved. Id. ¶ 33. Once the new custom operating system is created and validated, it

9would need to be deployed on to the subject device, which would need to be done at an

10

Apple facility. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. And if the new operating system has to be destroyed and11recreated each time a new order is issued, the burden will multiply. Id. ¶¶ 44-45.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

III.
A.

ARGUMENT

The All Writs Act Does Not Provide A Basis To Conscript Apple To Create
Software Enabling The Government To Hack Into iPhones.
The All Writs Act (or the “Act”) does not provide the judiciary with theboundless and unbridled power the government asks this Court to exercise. The Act is
intended to enable the federal courts to fill in gaps in the law so they can exercise theauthority they already possess by virtue of the express powers granted to them by theConstitution and Congress; it does not grant the courts free-wheeling authority tochange the substantive law, resolve policy disputes, or exercise new powers that
Congress has not afforded them. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has squarely rejected
the notion that “the district court has such wide-ranging inherent powers that it can
impose a duty on a private party when Congress has failed to impose one. To so rulewould be to usurp the legislative function and to improperly extend the limited federal
court jurisdiction.” Plum Creek, 608 F.2d at 1290 (emphasis added).
Congress has never authorized judges to compel innocent third parties toprovide decryption services to the FBI. Indeed, Congress has expressly withheld that
authority in other contexts, and this issue is currently the subject of a raging national

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

14

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 26 of 47 Page ID #:106

1

policy debate among members of Congress, the President, the FBI Director, and state2and local prosecutors. Moreover, federal courts themselves have never recognized an

3

inherent authority to order non-parties to become de facto government agents in4

ongoing criminal investigations. Because the Order is not grounded in any duly

5

enacted rule or statute, and goes well beyond the very limited powers afforded by

6

Article III of the Constitution and the All Writs Act, it must be vacated.

7
8
9

1.

The All Writs Act Does Not Grant Authority To Compel Assistance
Where Congress Has Considered But Chosen Not To Confer Such
Authority.

The authority the government seeks here cannot be justified under the All Writs

10

Act because law enforcement assistance by technology providers is covered by

11

existing laws that specifically omit providers like Apple from their scope. The All

12

Writs Act authorizes courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their13

respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” 28 U.S.C.

14§ 1651(a), but as the Supreme Court has held, it “does not authorize [courts] to issue

15

ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or

16

less appropriate,” Pa. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 38, 43

17(1985) (holding that the Act did not confer power on the district court to compel non-18

custodians to bear the expense of producing the prisoner-witnesses); see also In the19

Matter of an Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Authorizing Disclosure of20

Location Info. of a Specified Wireless Tel., 849 F. Supp. 2d 526, 578 (D. Md. 2011)

21(holding that the Act does not authorize an “end run around constitutional and statutory

22law”). The Ninth Circuit likewise has emphasized that the “All Writs Act is not a

23

grant of plenary power to federal courts. Rather, it is designed to aid the courts in the24

exercise of their jurisdiction.” Plum Creek, 608 F.2d at 1289 (holding that the Act

25“does not give the district court a roving commission to order a party subject to an

26

investigation to accept additional risks at the bidding” of the government); see also Ex

27

parte Bollman, 8. U.S. 75 (1807) (“[C]ourts which are created by written law, and28

whose jurisdiction is defined by written law, cannot transcend that jurisdiction.”).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

15

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 27 of 47 Page ID #:107

1

Thus, in another pending case in which the government seeks to compel Apple to assist

2

in obtaining information from a drug dealer’s iPhone, Magistrate Judge Orenstein

3

issued an order stating that while the Act may be appropriately invoked “to fill in a4

statutory gap that Congress has failed to consider,” it cannot be used to grant the5

government authority “Congress chose not to confer.” In re Order Requiring Apple,

6

Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by this Court (“In re

7

Order”), No. 15-MC-1902, 2015 WL 5920207, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015).

8

Congress knows how to impose a duty on third parties to facilitate the9government’s decryption of devices. Similarly, it knows exactly how to place limits

10

on what the government can require of telecommunications carriers and also on

11

manufacturers of telephone equipment and handsets. And in CALEA, Congress

12

decided not to require electronic communication service providers, like Apple, to do

13

what the government seeks here. Contrary to the government’s contention that

14

CALEA is inapplicable to this dispute, Congress declared via CALEA that the15

government cannot dictate to providers of electronic communications services or16

manufacturers of telecommunications equipment any specific equipment design or

17

software configuration.

18

In the section of CALEA entitled “Design of features and systems

19

configurations,” 47 U.S.C. § 1002(b)(1), the statute says that it “does not authorize any

20

law enforcement agency or officer—

21

(1)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(2)

to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services,features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider ofa wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer oftelecommunications equipment, or any provider oftelecommunications support services.
to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, orfeature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication
service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any
provider of telecommunications support services.

Apple unquestionably serves as a provider of “electronic communications services”
through the various messaging services it provides to its customers through iPhones.

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

16

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 28 of 47 Page ID #:108

1

See Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., 529 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir. 2008).

2

Apple also makes mobile phones. As such, CALEA does not allow a law enforcement3

agency to require Apple to implement any specific design of its equipment, facilities,

4

services or system configuration. Yet, that is precisely what the government seeks

5

here. Thus, CALEA’s restrictions are directly on point.
Moreover, CALEA also intentionally excludes information services providers,

67like Apple, from the scope of its mandatory assistance provisions.23 This exclusion

8

precludes the government from using the All Writs Act to require Apple to do that

9which Congress eschewed. But even if Apple were covered by CALEA, the law does10

not require covered telecommunication carriers (which Apple is not) to be responsible

11

for “decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication

12

encrypted by a subscriber or customer unless the encryption was provided by the13carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the14

communication.” 47 U.S.C. § 1002(b)(3) (emphasis added).
Thus, here again, CALEA makes a specific choice to allow strong encryption (or1516any other security feature or configuration) with keys chosen by end users to be

17

deployed, and prevents the government from mandating that such encryption schemes

18

contain a “back door.” See also H.R. Rep. 103-827(I), at 24, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3489,

193504 (emphasizing that CALEA does not “prohibit a carrier from deploying an

20

encryption service for which it does not retain the ability to decrypt communications

21

for law enforcement access”; “[n]or does the Committee intend this bill to be in any

22

way a precursor to any kind of ban or limitation on encryption technology. To the23

contrary, [§ 1002] protects the right to use encryption.”).

24

Similarly, outside of CALEA, Congress also knows how to require third parties

25

to provide “technical assistance,” see Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4) (providing that

26

23

27
28

Information service providers are defined to include services that permit a customer
to retrieve stored information from, or file information for storage in, information
storage facilities; electronic publishing; and electronic messaging services. See 47
U.S.C. § 1001.

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

17

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 29 of 47 Page ID #:109

1

upon the lawful execution of a wiretap, the government can seek an order compelling a2

third party to furnish “all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to3accomplish the interception”); Pen/Trap Statute, id. § 3123(b)(2) (similar), but

4

Congress has intentionally opted not to compel third parties’ assistance in retrieving

5

stored information on devices. That Congress, confronted over the years with the6contentious debate about where to draw the lines among competing security and7

privacy interests, made this decision, “indicates a deliberate congressional choice with8

which the courts should not interfere.” Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate

9

Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 184 (1994). The Executive Branch, having

10

considered and then declined to urge Congress to amend CALEA to enable it to11compel the type of assistance demanded here, cannot seek that same authority via an ex

12parte application for a court order under the Act.

13

For the courts to use the All Writs Act to expand sub rosa the obligations

14

imposed by CALEA as proposed by the government here would not just exceed the15

scope of the statute, but it would also violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. Just

16

as the “Congress may not exercise the judicial power to revise final judgments,”

17

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 699 (1997) (citing Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514

18

U.S. 211 (1995)), courts may not exercise the legislative power by repurposing statutes

19

to meet the evolving needs of society, see Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 391 (2005)

20(court should “avoid inventing a statute rather than interpreting one”) (citation,

21

quotation marks, and alterations omitted); see also Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. Inc. v. Elan

22

Corp., 2013 WL 8744216, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013) (Congress alone has

23

authority “to update” a “technologically antiquated” statute “to address the new and24

rapidly evolving era of computer and cloud-stored, processed and produced

25

data”). Nor does Congress lose “its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws

26

necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution” in times of27

crisis (whether real or imagined). Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.

28

579, 588–89 (1952). Because a “decision to rearrange or rewrite [a] statute falls within

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

18

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 30 of 47 Page ID #:110

1

the legislative, not the judicial prerogative[,]” the All Writs Act cannot possibly be2deemed to grant to the courts the extraordinary power the government seeks. Xi v.

3

INS, 298 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2002).

4

If anything, whether companies like Apple should be compelled to create a back5

door to their own operating systems to assist law enforcement is a political question,

6

not a legal one. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962) (holding that a case is a7

nonjusticiable political question if it is impossible to decide “without an initial policy

8

determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion”); see also Vieth v. Jubelirer,

9541 U.S. 267, 277–290 (2004) (plurality opinion) (dismissing claims of political

10

gerrymandering under the political question doctrine because there was no “judicially11

discoverable and manageable standard for resolving” them); Diamond v. Chakrabarty,

12447 U.S. 303, 317 (1980) (“The choice [the court is] urged to make is a matter of high13

policy for resolution within the legislative process after the kind of investigation,

14

examination, and study that legislative bodies can provide and courts cannot.”);15

Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 774 F.3d 544, 552 (9th Cir. 2014) (per16

curiam) (affirming district court’s holding that the claims were “inextricably bound to17

an inherently political question” and thus were “beyond the jurisdiction of our courts”).

18

In short, a decision to “short-circuit public debate on this controversy seems

19

fundamentally inconsistent with the proposition that such important policy issues

20

should be determined in the first instance by the legislative branch after public

21

debate—as opposed to having them decided by the judiciary in sealed, ex parte22

proceedings.” In re Order, 2015 WL 5920207, at *3 n.1. Such an important decision

23

with such widespread global repercussions goes well beyond the purview of the All

24

Writs Act, which merely provides courts with a limited grant of ancillary authority to

25

issue orders “in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

19

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 31 of 47 Page ID #:111

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2.

New York Telephone Co. And Its Progeny Confirm That The All
Writs Act Does Not Authorize Courts To Compel The Unprecedented
And Unreasonably Burdensome Conscription Of Apple That The
Government Seeks.

The government relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States
v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977), to assert that the All Writs Act
permits the Court to compel private third parties like Apple to assist the government in
effectuating a search warrant by writing new software code that would undermine thesecurity of its own product. The government misapplies this case.
In New York Telephone Co., the district court compelled the company to install asimple pen register device (designed to record dialed numbers) on two telephones
where there was “probable cause to believe that the [c]ompany’s facilities were being
employed to facilitate a criminal enterprise on a continuing basis.” 434 U.S. at 174.
The Supreme Court held that the order was a proper writ under the Act, because it wasconsistent with Congress’s intent to compel third parties to assist the government in theuse of surveillance devices, and it satisfied a three-part test imposed by the Court.
First, the Court found that the company was not “so far removed from theunderlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled.” Id.
Second, the assistance sought was “meager,” and as a public utility, the company did
not “ha[ve] a substantial interest in not providing assistance.” Id. Third, “after an
exhaustive search,” the FBI was unable to find a suitable location to install its own pen
registers without tipping off the targets, and thus there was “no conceivable way inwhich the surveillance authorized by the District Court could have been successfully
accomplished” without the company’s meager assistance. Id. at 175. Applying thesefactors to this case confirms that the All Writs Act does not permit the Court to compel
the unprecedented and unreasonably burdensome assistance that the government seeks.
a.

Apple’s Connection To The Underlying Case Is “Far Removed”
And Too Attenuated To Compel Its Assistance27

Nothing connects Apple to this case such that it can be drafted into government

28

service to write software that permits the government to defeat the security features on

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

20

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 32 of 47 Page ID #:112

1

Apple’s standard operating system. Apple is a private company that does not own or2possess the phone at issue, has no connection to the data that may or may not exist on

3

the phone, and is not related in any way to the events giving rise to the investigation.

4

This case is nothing like New York Telephone Co., where there was probable cause to5

believe that the phone company’s own facilities were “being employed to facilitate a6criminal enterprise on a continuing basis.” Id. at 174.

7

The government relies on United States v. Hall, 583 F. Supp. 717 (E.D. Va.

81984), and In re Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Directing X to Provide Access9

to Videotapes (“Videotapes”), 2003 WL 22053105 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2003), but these10cases involved mere requests to produce existing business records, not the compelled11creation of intellectual property. In Hall, the court found that the All Writs Act

12permitted an order compelling a credit card company to produce the credit card records

13

of a federal fugitive’s former girlfriend, because the government had reason to believe

14

that she was harboring and supporting the fugitive, and thus potentially using her credit

15

card to perpetrate an ongoing crime. 583 F. Supp. at 720 (reasoning that a credit card

16

issuer “has an interest” in a transaction “when a credit card is used for an illegal

17

purpose even though the act itself be not illegal”). Similarly, in Videotapes, the court

18

compelled an apartment complex to provide access to videotape surveillance footage

19

of a hallway in the apartment to assist with executing an arrest warrant on a fugitive.

20

2003 WL 22053105, at *3. This case is nothing like Hall and Videotapes, where the21

government sought assistance effectuating an arrest warrant to halt ongoing criminal

22

activity, since any criminal activity linked to the phone at issue here ended more than23

two months ago when the terrorists were killed.

24

Further, unlike a telecommunications monopoly, Apple is not a “highly25

regulated public utility with a duty to serve the public.” New York Telephone Co., 434

26

U.S. at 174; see also Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Authorizing an In-

27

Progress Trace of Wire Commc’ns over Tel. Facilities (“Mountain Bell”), 616 F.2d

281122, 1132 (9th Cir. 1980) (discussing New York Telephone Co. and noting that its

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

21

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 33 of 47 Page ID #:113

1

ruling compelling assistance under the All Writs Act relied “[t]o a great extent . . .

2upon the highly regulated, public nature” of the phone company); In re Order, 2015

3

WL 5920207, at *4–5. Whereas public utilities have no “substantial interest in not

4

providing assistance” to the government, 434 U.S. at 174, and “enjoy a monopoly in an

5essential area of communications,” Mountain Bell, 616 F.2d at 1131, Apple is a private

6

company that believes that encryption is crucial to protect the security and privacy

7

interests of citizens who use and store their most personal data on their iPhones, “from8

our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and9contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and

10where we are going.” Hanna Decl. Ex. D at 1 [Apple Inc., A Message to Our

11

Customers (Feb. 16, 2016)].

12

That Apple “designed, manufactured and sold the SUBJECT DEVICE, and13

wrote and owns the software that runs the phone,” Memorandum of Points and14

Authorities in Support of Government’s Ex Parte Application for Order Compelling

15

Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone

16

Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, Cal.

17

License Plate 35KGD203, No. ED 15-0451M (Feb. 16, 2016), Dkt. 18 at 11 (the “Ex

18

Parte App.”), is insufficient to establish the connection mandated by New York

19

Telephone Co. The All Writs Act does not allow the government to compel a20

manufacturer’s assistance merely because it has placed a good into the stream of21

commerce. Apple is no more connected to this phone than General Motors is to a22

company car used by a fraudster on his daily commute. Moreover, that Apple’s

23

software is “licensed, not sold,” Ex Parte App. at 5, is “a total red herring,” as Judge

24

Orenstein already concluded, Hanna Decl. Ex. DD at 42:4–10 [In re Order Requiring

25

Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by the Court,

26

E.D.N.Y No. 15 MC 1902, Dkt. 19 (“October 26, 2015 Transcript”)]. A licensing

27

agreement no more connects Apple to the underlying events than a sale. The license

28

does not permit Apple to invade or control the private data of its customers. It merely

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

22

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 34 of 47 Page ID #:114

1

limits customers’ use and redistribution of Apple’s software. Indeed, the government’s

2

position has no limits and, if accepted, would eviscerate the “remoteness” factor

3

entirely, as any company that offers products or services to consumers could be

4

conscripted to assist with an investigation, no matter how attenuated their connection

5

to the criminal activity. This is not, and never has been, the law.

6
7

b.

The Order Requested By The Government Would Impose An
Unprecedented And Oppressive Burden On Apple And Citizens
Who Use The iPhone.

8

An order pursuant to the All Writs Act “must not [1] adversely affect the basic

9interests of the third party or [2] impose an undue burden.” Hall, 583 F. Supp. at 719.

10

The Order violates both requirements by conscripting Apple to develop software that

11

does not exist and that Apple has a compelling interest in not creating. The

12government’s request violates the first requirement—that the Act “must not adversely

13

affect the basic interests of the third party”—because Apple has a strong interest in

14

safeguarding its data protection systems that ensure the security of hundreds of15

millions of customers who depend on and store their most confidential data on their16

iPhones. An order compelling Apple to create software that defeats those safeguards

17

undeniably threatens those systems and adversely affects Apple’s interests and those of18

iPhone users around the globe. See id.

19

The government’s request violates the second requirement—that the Act “must20

not . . . impose an undue burden”—because the government’s unprecedented demand

21

forces Apple to develop new software that destroys the security features that Apple has

22spent years building. As discussed supra in section II.E, no operating system currently

23

exists that can accomplish what the government wants, and any effort to create one

24

would require that Apple write new code, not just disable existing functionality.

25

Neuenschwander Decl. ¶¶ 23-25. Experienced Apple engineers would have to design,

26

create, test, and validate the compromised operating system, using a hyper-secure27

isolation room within which to do it, and then deploy and supervise its operation by the28

FBI to brute force crack the phone’s passcode. Id. ¶¶ 21-43; Olle Decl. ¶ 14. The

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

23

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 35 of 47 Page ID #:115

1

system itself would have to be tested on multiple devices to ensure that the operating2

system works and does not alter any data on the device. Neuenschwander Decl. ¶¶ 30-

3

31. All aspects of the development and testing processes would need to be logged and4recorded in case Apple’s methodology is ever questioned. Id. ¶¶ 28, 33.
Moreover, the government’s flawed suggestion to delete the program and erase

56every trace of the activity would not lessen the burden, it would actually increase it

7

since there are hundreds of demands to create and utilize the software waiting in the

8wings. Id. ¶¶ 38-45. If Apple creates new software to open a back door, other federal

9

and state prosecutors—and other governments and agencies—will repeatedly seek

10orders compelling Apple to use the software to open the back door for tens of

11

thousands of iPhones. Indeed, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., has made12

clear that the federal and state governments want access to every phone in a criminal

13

investigation.24 See Hanna Decl., Ex. Z [(Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., No Smartphone Lies

14

Beyond the Reach of a Judicial Search Warrant, N.Y. Times (Feb. 18, 2016)]; Hanna

15

Decl. ¶ 5 at 18:28 [Charlie Rose, Television Interview of Cyrus Vance (Feb. 18, 2016)]

16(Vance stating “absolutely” that he “want[s] access to all those phones that [he thinks]

17

are crucial in a criminal proceeding”). This enormously intrusive burden—building

18

everything up and tearing it down for each demand by law enforcement—lacks any

19

support in the cases relied on by the government, nor do such cases exist.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

24

Use of the software in criminal prosecutions only exacerbates the risk of disclosure,given that criminal defendants will likely challenge its reliability. See Fed. R. Evid.
702 (listing requirements of expert testimony, including that “testimony [be] theproduct of reliable principles and methods” and “the expert has reliably applied theprinciples and methods to the facts of the case,” all of which a defendant is entitled
to challenge); see also United States v. Budziak, 697 F.3d 1105, 1111–13 (9th Cir.
2012) (vacating order denying discovery of FBI software); State v. Underdahl, 767
N.W.2d 677, 684–86 (Minn. 2009) (upholding order compelling discovery ofbreathalyzer source code). The government’s suggestion that Apple can destroy thesoftware has clearly not been thought through, given that it would jeopardize
criminal cases. See United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928, 931–32 (9th Cir. 1993)(government’s bad-faith failure to preserve laboratory equipment seized fromdefendants violated due process, and appropriate remedy was dismissal ofindictment, rather than suppression of evidence).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

24

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 36 of 47 Page ID #:116

1

The alternative—keeping and maintaining the compromised operating system

2and everything related to it—imposes a different but no less significant burden, i.e.,3

forcing Apple to take on the task of unfailingly securing against disclosure or4

misappropriation the development and testing environments, equipment, codebase,5

documentation, and any other materials relating to the compromised operating system.

6

Id. ¶ 47. Given the millions of iPhones in use and the value of the data on them,7

criminals, terrorists, and hackers will no doubt view the code as a major prize and can

8

be expected to go to considerable lengths to steal it, risking the security, safety, and9privacy of customers whose lives are chronicled on their phones. Indeed, as the10

Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he term ‘cell phone’ is itself misleading shorthand;

11. . . these devices are in fact minicomputers” that “could just as easily be called

12

cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums,

13

televisions, maps, or newspapers.” Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2488–89

14(2014) (observing that equating the “data stored on a cell phone” to “physical items”

15“is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the16moon”). By forcing Apple to write code to compromise its encryption defenses, the17Order would impose substantial burdens not just on Apple, but on the public at large.

18

And in the meantime, nimble and technologically savvy criminals will continue to use

19

other encryption technologies, while the law-abiding public endures these threats to20

their security and personal liberties—an especially perverse form of unilateral

21

disarmament in the war on terror and crime. See n.4 supra (describing ISIS’s shift to22

more secure communication methods).

23

In addition, compelling Apple to create software in this case will set a dangerous

24

precedent for conscripting Apple and other technology companies to develop

25

technology to do the government’s bidding in untold future criminal investigations. If

26

the government can invoke the All Writs Act to compel Apple to create a special

27

operating system that undermines important security measures on the iPhone, it could

28

argue in future cases that the courts should compel Apple to create a version to track

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

25

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 37 of 47 Page ID #:117

1

the location of suspects, or secretly use the iPhone’s microphone and camera to record

2

sound and video. And if it succeeds here against Apple, there is no reason why the3government could not deploy its new authority to compel other innocent and unrelated

4

third-parties to do its bidding in the name of law enforcement. For example, under the5same legal theories advocated by the government here, the government could argue

6

that it should be permitted to force citizens to do all manner of things “necessary” to7assist it in enforcing the laws, like compelling a pharmaceutical company against its

8will to produce drugs needed to carry out a lethal injection in furtherance of a lawfully

9

issued death warrant,25 or requiring a journalist to plant a false story in order to help

10

lure out a fugitive, or forcing a software company to insert malicious code in its auto-

11

update process that makes it easier for the government to conduct court-ordered

12

surveillance. Indeed, under the government’s formulation, any party whose assistance13

is deemed “necessary” by the government falls within the ambit of the All Writs Act

14

and can be compelled to do anything the government needs to effectuate a lawful court

15

order. While these sweeping powers might be nice to have from the government’s

16

perspective, they simply are not authorized by law and would violate the Constitution.

17

Moreover, responding to these demands would effectively require Apple to18

create full-time positions in a new “hacking” department to service government

19

requests and to develop new versions of the back door software every time iOS

20changes, and it would require Apple engineers to testify about this back door as21

government witnesses at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621, 643–22

44 (1st Cir. 2012) (holding that reports generated by an Internet provider were23

testimonial, and thus could not be admitted without “giving [defendant] the24

opportunity to cross-examine the [provider’s] employees who prepared the []25[r]eports”). Nothing in federal law allows the courts, at the request of prosecutors, to

26
27
28

25

Magistrate Judge Orenstein posed this same hypothetical to the government, andthe government had no answer. Hanna Decl. Ex. DD at 43–47 [October 26, 2015
Transcript].

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

26

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 38 of 47 Page ID #:118

1

coercively deputize Apple and other companies to serve as a permanent arm of the2government’s forensics lab. Indeed, the government fails to cite any case—because

3

none exists—to support its incorrect contention that courts have invoked the All Writs

4

Act to conscript a company like Apple to “to write some amount of code in order to5gather information in response to subpoenas or other process.” Ex Parte App. at 15.

6

The burden imposed on Apple is thus in sharp contrast to New York Telephone

7

Co., where the public utility was compelled to provide “meager assistance” in setting

8

up a pen register—a step which “required minimal effort on the part of the [c]ompany

9and no disruption to its operations.” 434 U.S. at 174–75 (noting that the company

10routinely employed pen registers without court order for purposes of checking billing

11

operations and detecting fraud); see also Mountain Bell, 616 F.2d at 1132 (order

12compelling the phone company to use a tracing technique akin to a pen register did not

13

impose a substantial burden because it “was extremely narrow in scope,” and14“prohibit[ed] any tracing technique which required active monitoring by company

15

personnel”). The very limited orders in those cases thus “should not be read to16

authorize the wholesale imposition upon private, third parties of duties pursuant to

17

search warrants.” Id.

18

The other cases the government relies on involve similarly inconsequential

19

burdens where third parties were asked to turn over records that were already in their20

possession or readily accessible, Videotapes, 2003 WL 22053105, at *3 (directing

21

apartment complex owner to share surveillance footage “maintained in the ordinary

22

course of business”); Hall, 583 F. Supp. at 722 (directing bank to produce credit card

23

records), or where the third party provided minimal assistance to effect a lawful

24

wiretap, In re Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Directing a Provider of25

Commc’n Servs. to Provide Tech. Assistance to Agents of the U.S. Drug Enf’t Admin.,26

2015 WL 5233551, at *5 (D.P.R. Aug. 27, 2015). But unlike those cases, where the27

government directed a third party to provide something that already existed or sought

28

assistance with a minimal and routine service, here the government wants to compel

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

27

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 39 of 47 Page ID #:119

1

Apple to deploy a team of engineers to write and test software code and create a new

2

operating system that undermines the security measures it has worked so hard to3

establish—and then to potentially do that over and over again as other federal, state,

4

local and foreign prosecutors make demands for the same thing.

5

The government’s reliance on two phone “unlocking” cases is similarly

6

misplaced. Ex Parte App. at 9 (citing United States v. Navarro, No. 13-CR-5525

7(W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2013), ECF No. 39; In re Order Requiring [XXX], Inc. to Assist

8in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by This Court by Unlocking a Cellphone,92014 WL 5510865, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2014) (“Order Requiring [XXX]”). As an

10

initial matter, the Navarro order is a minute order that does not contain any analysis of

11

the All Writs Act, and it is unclear whether its limitations were ever raised or

12considered. The Navarro order is also distinguishable because it involved the13

government’s request to unlock an iPhone on an older operating system that did not

14

require the creation of any new software. Order Requiring [XXX], which was also

15

issued without the benefit of adversarial briefing, is equally unavailing. 2014 WL

165510865, at *3 (granting ex parte application to compel a third party to bypass a lock17

screen on a phone to effectuate a search warrant). Although the court purported to18

apply New York Telephone Co., it did not analyze all of the factors set forth in that19case, such as whether the All Writs Act could be used to compel third parties to hack20

into phones, whether the cellphone company was “too far removed” from the matter,21

or whether hacking into the phone adversely affected the company’s interests. Rather,22

the court simply concluded the technical service sought was not “burdensome,” akin to23“punching a few buttons” or installing a pen register. 2014 WL 5510865, at *2

24(internal quotation marks omitted). As Apple has explained, the technical assistance25

sought here requires vastly more than simply pressing a “few buttons.”

26

The government has every right to reasonably involve the public in the law

27

enforcement process. Indeed, each year Apple complies with thousands of lawful28

requests for data and information by law enforcement, and on many occasions has

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

28

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 40 of 47 Page ID #:120

1

extracted data from prior versions of its operating system for the FBI’s use. See Olle2

Decl. ¶¶ 15-16. But compelling minimal assistance to surveil or apprehend a criminal3(as in most of the cases the government cites), or demanding testimony or production

4of things that already exist (akin to exercising subpoena power), is vastly different, and5

significantly less intrusive, than conscripting a private company to create something

6

entirely new and dangerous. There is simply no parallel or precedent for it.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

c.

The Government Has Not Demonstrated Apple’s AssistanceWas Necessary To Effectuating The Warrant.

A third party cannot be compelled to assist the government unless thegovernment is authorized to act and the third party’s participation is imperative. The
order in New York Telephone Co. satisfied that requirement because the court had
authorized surveillance, and “there [was] no conceivable way” to accomplish thatsurveillance without the company’s assistance. 434 U.S. at 175 (noting that FBI had
conducted “an exhaustive search” for a way to install a pen register in an undetectablelocation). The order compelling the phone company’s assistance was therefore
necessary “to prevent nullification of the court’s warrant” and “to put an end to thisventure.” Id. at 174, 175 & n.23; see also Mountain Bell, 616 F.2d at 1129 (holdingthat an order compelling a third party to assist with tracing was necessary to carry out awiretap and halt ongoing criminal activity); Mich. Bell Telephone Co. v. United States,
565 F.2d 385, 389 (6th Cir. 1977) (concluding that telephone company was “the only
entity that c[ould] effectuate the order of the district court to prevent company-owned
facilities from being used in violation of both state and federal laws”).
Here, by contrast, the government has failed to demonstrate that the requested
order was absolutely necessary to effectuate the search warrant, including that it
exhausted all other avenues for recovering information. Indeed, the FBI foreclosed
one such avenue when, without consulting Apple or reviewing its public guidance
regarding iOS, the government changed the iCloud password associated with anattacker’s account, thereby preventing the phone from initiating an automatic iCloud

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

29

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 41 of 47 Page ID #:121

1back-up. See supra II.C. Moreover, the government has not made any showing that it2

sought or received technical assistance from other federal agencies with expertise in3

digital forensics, which assistance might obviate the need to conscript Apple to create4

the back door it now seeks. See Hanna Decl. Ex. DD at 34–36 [October 26, 2015

5

Transcript] (Judge Orenstein asking the government “to make a representation for

6

purposes of the All Writs Act” as to whether the “entire Government,” including the7“intelligence community,” did or did not have the capability to decrypt an iPhone, and8

the government responding that “federal prosecutors don’t have an obligation to

9

consult the intelligence community in order to investigate crime”). As such, the10government has not demonstrated that “there is no conceivable way” to extract data

11

from the phone. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. at 174.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3.

Other Cases The Government Cites Do Not Support The Type Of
Compelled Action Sought Here.

The government does not cite a single case remotely approximating the demand
it makes here; indeed, its cases only confirm the wild overreach of the Order.
The government relies, for example, on cases compelling a criminal defendant
to take certain actions—specifically, United States v. Fricosu, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1232
(D. Colo. 2012) and United States v. Catoggio, 698 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2012) (percuriam)—but those cases say nothing about the propriety of compelling an innocent
third party to do so. In Fricosu the government moved to require the defendant toproduce the “unencrypted contents” of her laptop computer. 841 F. Supp. 2d at 1235.
This order placed no undue burden on the defendant because she could access theencrypted contents on her computer, and the court preserved her Fifth Amendment
rights by not compelling the password itself, which was testimonial in nature. See id.
at 1236–38. By contrast, the government’s request here creates an unprecedented
burden on Apple and violates Apple’s First Amendment rights against compelledspeech, as discussed below. And unlike the compelled creation of a compromised
operating system for iOS devices, the order in Fricosu merely required the defendantGibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

30

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 42 of 47 Page ID #:122

1

to hand over her own personal files, and thus posed no risk to third parties’ privacy or2security interests.

3

The government’s reliance on Catoggio, which involved the seizure of

4

defendant’s property, is also inapt. Though the district court had not invoked the All

5

Writs Act, the appellate court cited the Act in affirming the district court’s order6

retaining a convicted defendant’s property in anticipation of a restitution order. 698

7

F.3d at 68–69. But whereas courts have uniformly held that the Act enables a court to8

restrain a convicted defendant’s property pending a restitution order, id. at 67, no court

9

has ever held that the All Writs Act permits the government to conscript a private

10company to build software for it.

11

Finally, the government relies on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Plum Creek—

12

but that case only serves to illustrate the government’s vast overreach under the All

13

Writs Act. There, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order declining

14

OSHA’s request to compel an employer to rescind a company policy forbidding

15

employees from wearing OSHA air-quality and noise-level testing devices, so that

16

OSHA could more efficiently investigate the company’s premises. 608 F.2d at 1289–

17

90. The court reasoned that a government agency’s interest in conducting an efficient18

investigation is not grounds for issuing a writ requiring a company to comply with the19government’s demands. Id. at 1290. This was particularly true where OSHA “c[ould]

20

not guarantee that these devices would [not] cause” industry accidents, and the21

company bore the costs of those accidents. Id. at 1289 & n.4 (internal quotation marks

22

omitted). Even though the investigation would take five times as long to complete

23

without the use of the equipment OSHA sought to compel, the court could not compel

24

their use absent a law requiring it. Id. at 1289 & n.6. The court held that the All Writs

25

Act “does not give the district court a roving commission to order a party subject to an

26

investigation to accept additional risks at the bidding of OSHA inspectors.” Id. at

27

1289. Plum Creek thus provides no support for the government’s attempt to compel

28

Apple to create new software “when Congress has failed to impose” such a duty on

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

31

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 43 of 47 Page ID #:123

1

Apple. Id. at 1290. Forcing Apple to write software that would create a back door to2

millions of iOS devices would not only “usurp the legislative function,” id., but also

3

unconstitutionally compel speech and expose Apple iPhone users to exceptional

4

security and privacy risks.

5

B.

6
7

The Order Would Violate The First Amendment And The Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
1.

The First Amendment Prohibits The Government From Compelling
Apple To Create Code.

8

The government asks this Court to command Apple to write software that will

9

neutralize safety features that Apple has built into the iPhone in response to consumer

10

privacy concerns. Order ¶ 2. The code must contain a unique identifier “so that [it]11

would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE,” and it must be “‘signed’

12

cryptographically by Apple using its own proprietary encryption methods.” Ex Parte

13

App. at 5, 7. This amounts to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in

14

violation of the First Amendment.

15

Under well-settled law, computer code is treated as speech within the meaning

16of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d

17429, 449 (2d Cir. 2001); Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481, 485 (6th Cir. 2000); 321

18

Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1099–1100

19(N.D. Cal. 2004); United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (N.D. Cal.

202002); Bernstein v. Dep’t of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426, 1436 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

21

The Supreme Court has made clear that where, as here, the government seeks to22compel speech, such action triggers First Amendment protections. As the Court

23

observed in Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781,796 (1988),24

while “[t]here is certainly some difference between compelled speech and compelled25

silence, . . . in the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional26

significance.” Compelled speech is a content-based restriction subject to exacting

27

scrutiny, id. at 795, 797–98, and so may only be upheld if it is narrowly tailored to28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

32

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 44 of 47 Page ID #:124

1

obtain a compelling state interest, see Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622,2662 (1994).
The government cannot meet this standard here. Apple does not question the34

government’s legitimate and worthy interest in investigating and prosecuting terrorists,

5

but here the government has produced nothing more than speculation that this iPhone

6

might contain potentially relevant information.26 Hanna Decl. Ex. H [Comey, Follow

7This Lead] (“Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it

8doesn’t.”). It is well known that terrorists and other criminals use highly sophisticated9encryption techniques and readily available software applications, making it likely that10

any information on the phone lies behind several other layers of non-Apple encryption.

11

See Hanna Decl. Ex. E [Coker, Tech Savvy] (noting that the Islamic State has issued to12

its members a ranking of the 33 most secure communications applications, and “has13

urged its followers to make use of [one app’s] capability to host encrypted group14

chats”).

15

Even more problematically, the Court’s Order discriminates on the basis of

16

Apple’s viewpoint. When Apple designed iOS 8, it wrote code that announced the17value it placed on data security and the privacy of citizens by omitting a back door that18

bad actors might exploit. See, e.g., Hanna Decl. Ex. AA [Apple Inc., Privacy,

19

Government Information Requests]. The government disagrees with this position and20

asks this Court to compel Apple to write new software that advances its contrary

21

views. This is, in every sense of the term, viewpoint discrimination that violates the

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

26

If the government did have any leads on additional suspects, it is inconceivable that
it would have filed pleadings on the public record, blogged, and issued press
releases discussing the details of the situation, thereby thwarting its own efforts toapprehend the criminals. See Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S.
211, 218-19 (1979) (“We consistently have recognized that the proper functioningof our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. . . .
[I]f preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses
would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whomthey testify would be aware of that testimony. . . . There also would be the risk thatthose about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grandjurors to vote against indictment.”).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

33

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 45 of 47 Page ID #:125

1

First Amendment. See Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S.

2789, 804 (1984).
Finally, the FBI itself foreclosed what would have likely been a promising and3
4vastly narrower alternative to this unprecedented order: backing up the iPhone to5

iCloud. Apple has extensively cooperated and assisted law enforcement officials in the6

San Bernardino investigation, but the FBI inadvertently foreclosed a ready avenue by

7changing the passcode, which precluded the iCloud back-up option.27
To avoid the serious First Amendment concerns that the government’s request to8
9compel speech presents, this Court should vacate the Order.

10

2.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause Prohibits The
Government From Compelling Apple To Create The Request Code.

In addition to violating the First Amendment, the government’s requested order,
by conscripting a private party with an extraordinarily attenuated connection to thecrime to do the government’s bidding in a way that is statutorily unauthorized, highlyburdensome, and contrary to the party’s core principles, violates Apple’s substantive
due process right to be free from “‘arbitrary deprivation of [its] liberty by
government.’” Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9thCir. 2010) (citation omitted); see also, e.g., Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S.
833, 845-46 (1998) (“We have emphasized time and again that ‘[t]he touchstone ofdue process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government,’ . . .
[including] the exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service ofa legitimate governmental objective.” (citations omitted)); cf. id. at 850 (“Rules of due
process are not . . . subject to mechanical application in unfamiliar territory.”).

24
25
26
27
28

27

Hanna Decl. Ex. BB [John Paczkowski and Chris Geidner, FBI Admits It Urged
Change Of Apple ID Password For Terrorist’s iPhone, BuzzFeed News (updated
Feb. 21, 2016 2:01 AM)]; Hanna Decl. Ex. CC [Ellen Nakashima and MarkBerman, FBI Asked San Bernardino to Reset the Password for Shooter’s Phone
Backup, Wash. Post (Feb. 20, 2016)].

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

34

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 46 of 47 Page ID #:126

IV.

1

CONCLUSIONApple has great respect for the professionals at the Department of Justice and23FBI, and it believes their intentions are good. Moreover, Apple has profound4

sympathy for the innocent victims of the attack and their families. However, while the5government’s desire to maximize security is laudable, the decision of how to do so

6

while also protecting other vital interests, such as personal safety and privacy, is for7

American citizens to make through the democratic process. Indeed, examples abound8of society opting not to pay the price for increased and more efficient enforcement of9

criminal laws. For example, society does not tolerate violations of the Fifth

10

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, even though more criminals would be

11

convicted if the government could compel their confessions. Nor does society tolerate

12violations of the Fourth Amendment, even though the government could more easily

13

obtain critical evidence if given free rein to conduct warrantless searches and seizures.

14

At every level of our legal system—from the Constitution,28 to our statutes,29 common

15

law,30 rules,31 and even the Department of Justice’s own policies32—society has acted

16

to preserve certain rights at the expense of burdening law enforcement’s interest in

17

investigating crimes and bringing criminals to justice. Society is still debating the18

important privacy and security issues posed by this case. The government’s desire to19

leave no stone unturned, however well intentioned, does not authorize it to cut off

20

debate and impose its views on society.

21

28

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See, e.g., U.S. Const. amend. IV (limitations on searches and seizures), amend. V(limitations on charging; prohibition on compelling testimony of accused).
29
See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3282 (prohibition on prosecuting crimes more than five years’old), CALEA (limitations on ability to intercept communications).
30
E.g., attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, and reporter’s privilege, and priestpenitent privilege, all of which limit the government’s ability to obtain evidence.
31
See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404 (limitations on use of character evidence), 802(limitations on use of hearsay).
32
See, e.g., U.S. Attorneys’ Manual §§ 9-13-200 (limitations on communicating withwitnesses represented by counsel), 9-13.400 (limitations on subpoenaing news
media), 9-13-410 (limitations on subpoenaing attorneys), 9-13-420 (limitations on
searches of attorneys’ offices).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

35

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 47 of 47 Page ID #:127

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Dated: February 25, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By: /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
Nicola T. Hanna
Eric D. Vandevelde
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Theodore B. Olson
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
Facsimile: 202.467.0539
Marc J. Zwillinger *Jeffrey G. Landis *ZwillGen PLLC
1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.706.5202
Facsimile: 202.706.5298*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

36

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:128

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
tboutrous lbsondunn.com
NNA,SBN 130694
I~TICOLA T.
nhanna gibsondunn.com
ERIC D. ANDEVELDE,SBN 240699
evandevelde~gibsondunn.com
GIBSON,DLT~~TN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
THEODORE B. OLSON,SBN 38137
tolson glbsondunn.com
GIBSO ,DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington,DC 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
Facsimile: 202.467.0539
MARC J. ZWILLINGER*
marc~a,zwillgen.com
JEFFFI~EY G. LANDIS*
J_e~_ffP
ZWILLGEN@zwillgeLLC
1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.706.5202
Facsimile: 202.706.5298*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending

16
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT18
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
EASTERN DIVISION
20
21
22
23
24

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH
OF AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZEDDURING THE EXECUTION OF A
SEARCH WARRANT ON A BLACK
LEXUS IS300, CALIFORNIA
LICENSE PLATE 35KGD203

ED No. CM 16-10(SP)ADECLARATION OF NICOLA T.
HANNA IN SUPPORT OF APPLE
INC'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDERCOMPELLING APPLE INC. TO
ASSIST AGENTSIN SEARCH,ANDOPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL ASSISTANCE

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &CrutcherLLP~HearinatD e:
Time:
Place:
Judge:March 22, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Courtroom 3 or 4
Hon. Sheri Pym

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:129

DECLARATION OF NICOLA T. HANNA

1
2

I, Nicola T. Hanna, declare as follows:3

1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law before this Court. I am a partner4

in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and am one ofthe attorneys

5

responsible for representing Apple Inc. in the above-captioned matter. I submit this6 ('declaration in support of Apple Inc.'s Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Apple Inc.
7

to Assist Agents in Search, and Opposition to Government's Motion to Compel

8

Assistance. The following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and, if

9called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently to them.

102.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy ofthe Washington

11

Post article, Hacks ofOPMDatabases Compromised 22.1 Million People, Federal

12

Authorities Say, by Ellen Nakashima, originally published on July 9, 2015, available at13

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-

14

clearance-system-affected-21-5-million-people-federal-authorities-say/. The article

15

was printed on February 23, 2016.

16

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy ofthe letter to the17

court filed by Apple Inc. on February 17, 2016 in In re Oder Requiring Apple, Inc. to18

Assist in the Execution ofa Search Warrant Issued by this Court, E.D.N.Y No. 15-

19

MC-1902, Dkt. 27.

20

4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy ofthe Newsweek

21

article, The Murder Victim Whose Phone Couldn't Be Cracked and Other'Apple

22

Encryption Stories, by Seung Lee, originally published on February 19, 2016, available

23

at http://www.newsweek.com/apple-encryption-crime-428565. The article was printed

24

on February 23, 2016.

25
26
27

28

5.

The Charlie Rose television interview of Cyrus Vance aired on February

18, 2016, and is available at http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60689812.
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy ofthe Apple Inc.

document, A Message to Our Customers, originally published on February 16, 20.16,
1

Gibson, Dunn &CrutcherLLP

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:130

1

available at htt~://www.a~ple.com/customer-letter/. The document was printed on

2

February 23, 2016.

3

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy ofthe Wall Street

4

Journal article, The Attacks in Paris: Islamic State Teaches Tech Savvy, by Margaret

5

Coker et al., originally published on November 17, 2015, available at6

http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-teaches-tech-saws-1447720824. The

7

article was printed on February 20, 2016.

8

8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy ofthe Federal

9Bureau ofInvestigation document, Going Dark Issue, available at10hops://www.fbi.~ov/about-us/otd/going-dark-issue. The document was printed on

11

February 23,2016.

12

9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy ofthe Lawfare

13

blog post, Encryption, Public Safety, and "Going Dark,"by James Comey, originally14

posted on July 6, 2015 at 10:38 AM,available at hops://www.lawfareblog com/

15

encrXption-public-safetygoing dark. The blog post was printed on February 23,

16

2016.

17

10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy ofthe Lawfare

18

blog post, We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow This

19

Lead, by James Comet', originally posted on February 21,.2016 at 9:03 PM,available

20

at hops://www.lawfareblo~.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-21

follow-lead. The blog post was printed on February 23, 2016.

22

11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy ofthe Wall Street

23

Journal article, Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Update on the Cyber~war, an interview

24with John Bussey, originally published on February 9, 2016, available at25

http://www.wsj.com/articles/~,en-michael-harden-.gives-an-update-on-the-cyberwar-

26

1455076153. The article was printed on February 23, 2016.

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy ofthe Wall Street

Journal article, How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It, byCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:131

1

Damian Paletta, originally published on February 22, 2016, available at2

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fi~hts-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-

31456109096. The article was printed on February 23, 2016.

413.

Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy ofthe Apple Inc.

5

document, iOS Security: iOS 9.0 or later, originally published in September 2015,

6available at https://www.a~ple.com/business/docs/iOS_Securitv_Guide.pdf. The

7document was printed on February 23, 2016.

8

14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy ofthe Joint

9

Statement with Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates Before the Senate

10

Judiciary Committee, Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balances Between

11

Public Safety and Encryption, by James Comey, originally published on July 8, 2015,12available at https://www.fbi.~ov/news/testimony/~oin~-dark-encryption-technolo~y-13

and-the-balances-between-public-safety-and-privacy. The document was printed on

14

February 23, 2016.

15

15.

Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy ofthe article The

16

National-Security Needsfor Ubiquitous Encryption, by Susan Landau, Appendix A to17

the Berkman Center for Internet &Society at Harvard University article Don't Panic:

18

Making Progress on the `Going Dark'Debate, originally published on February 1,

19

2016, available at https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/Dont Panic_

20

Makin~Pro r~ess on Goin~Dark Debate.pdf. The article was printed on February

21

24, 2016.

22

16.

Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy ofthe written

23

evidence (IPB0093)submitted by Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International to24

the Parliament ofthe United Kingdom on December 21, 2015, available at25

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/d

26

raft-investi atory-powers-bill-committee/draft-investigatory-powers-

27

bill/written/26341.pdf. The document was printed on February 23,2016.

28
Gibson, Dunn &CrutcherLLP

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:132

17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy ofthe

2

Washington Post article, Why The Fear Of Ubiquitous Data Encryption Is Overblown,3

by Mike McConnell et al., originally published on July 28, 2015, available at4

https://www.washin~tonpost.com/ opinions/the-need-for-ubiquitous-data-5

encryption/2015/07/28/3d145952-324e-11e5-8353-1215475949f4 story.html. The

6article was printed on February 23, 2016.

7

18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy ofthe Washington

8

Post article, Proposal Seeks To Fine Tech Companies For Noncompliance with

9

Wiretap Orders, by Ellen Nakashima, originally published on Apri128, 2013, available

10

at htt~s://www.washin t~onpost.com/woridlnational-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-11

tech-companies-for-noncompliance-with-wiretap-orders/2013/04/28/29e7d9d8-a83c-

12

1let-b029-8fb7e977ef71 stoi-~ html. The article was printed on February 23, 2016.

13

19.

Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy ofthe New

14

America's Open Technology Institute document,Joint Letter to President Barack

15

Obama, originally published on May 19, 2015, available at https:/{static.newamerica.

16

org/attachments/3138--113/Encryption Letter to Obama final 051915.pdf. The

17

document was printed on February 23, 2016.

18

20.

Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy ofthe House

19

Committee on the Judiciary press release, Senior House Judiciary Committee

20

Democrats Express Concern Over Government Attempts to Undermine Encryption, by

21

The House Committee on the Judiciary, Democrats, originally published on February

22

18, 2016, available at http://democrats.'ud~

23

judiciary-committee-democrats-express-concern-over-government-attempts. The press

24

release was printed on February 23, 2016.

25

21.

iciary.house.gov/press-release/senior-house-

Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy ofthe Statement26

Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, by

27

James Comey, originally published on October 8, 2015, available at28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:1331

https://www.fbi.~ov/news/testimony/threats-to-the-homeland. The document was

2

printed on February 23, 2016.

3

22.

Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy ofthe document4

Director Discusses Encryption, Patriot Act Provisions, by James Comey, originally5published on May 20, 2015, available at https://www.fbi.~ov/news/news blot/

6

director-discusses-encryption-patriot-act-provisions. The document was printed on

7

February 23, 2016.

8

23.

Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy ofthe transcript of9

the radio Interview with Cyrus Vance,It's Not Just the iPhone Law Enforcement

10

Wants to Unlock, by NPR Weekend Edition, originally aired on February 21, 2016,11

available at http://www.npr.org/2016/02/21/467547180/it-s-notjust-the-iphone-law-

12

enforcement-wants-to-unlock. The transcript was printed on February 23, 2016.
24.

13

Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy ofthe document,

14

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron ofthe United Kingdom in

15

Joint Press Conference, published by the White House, Office ofthe Press Secretary,

16

on January 16, 2015, available at https://www.whitehouse.~ov/the-press-

17

office/2015/01/16/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-Cameron-united-18

kin dg om_joint-. The document was printed on February 23, 2016.

19

25.

Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy ofthe ReCode.

20

com article, White House. Red Chair. Obama Meets Swisher, by Kara Swisher,21

originally published on February 15, 2015, available at http://recode.net/2015/02/15/

22white-house-red-chair-obama-meets-swisher/. The article was printed on February 23,

23

2016.

24

26.

Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy ofthe Apple Inc.

25

document, iCloud: Back up your iOS device to iCloud, last modified.February 11,26

2016, available at https://su~port.apple.com/kb/PH12520. The document was printed

27

on February 23, 2016.

28
5
Gibson; Dunn &Crutcher LLP

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:134

27.

Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy ofthe Statement2

to Address Misleading Reports that the County ofSan Bernardino Reset Terror

3

Suspect's iPhone Without Consent ofthe FBI, issued by the Federal Bureau of

4

Investigation to Ars Technhiea on February 21, 2016, available at5

https://assets.documentcloud.or~/documents/2716811/Statement-from-the-FBI-Feb-

6

20-2016.pdf. The statement was printed on February 23, 2016.

728.

Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy ofthe New.York

8

Times article, No Smartphone Lies Beyond the Reach ofa Judicial SeaNCh Warrant, by

9

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., originally published on February 18, 2016, available at10

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/02/18/crimes-iphones-and-11

encrXption/no-smartphone-lies-beyond-the-reach-of-ajudicial-search-warrant. The

12

article was printed on February 23, 2016.

13

29.

Attached hereto as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy ofthe Apple

14

Inc. document,Privacy, Government Information Requests, available at15

http://www.a~ple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/. The document was

16

printed on February 23, 2016.

17

30.

Attached hereto as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy ofthe BuzzFeed

18

News article, FBIAdmits It Urged Change OfApple ID Password For Terrorist's

19

iPhone, by John Paczkowski and Chris Geidner, last updated on February 20, 201620

available at http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-terrorists-appleid-

21

passcode-chan end-in-government-Gust#.pwX6NKVvW. The article was printed on

22

February 23, 2016.

23

31.

Attached hereto as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy ofthe

24

Washington.Post article, FBIAsked San Bernardino to Reset the Passwordfor

25

Shooter's Phone Backup, by Ellen Nakashima and Mark Berman, originally published

26

on February 20, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ national-

27

security/fbi-asked-san-Bernardino-to-reset-the-password-for-shooters-phone-28
Gibson, Dunn &CrutcherLLP

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-1 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:135

1

backup/2016/02/ 20/21fe9684-d800-11e5-be55-2cc3c1 e4b76b storv.html. The article2

was printed on February 23, 2016.

3
4

32.

Attached hereto as Exhibit DD is a true and correct copy ofthe transcript

ofthe hearing held before the Honorable James Orenstein on October 26,2015 in In re
Order Requiring Apple, Inc. to Assist in the Execution ofa Search Warrant Issued by

6
7
8

this Court, E.D.N.Y No. 15-MC-1902, Dkt. 19.
I declare under penalty of perjury ofthe laws ofthe United States that theforegoing is true and correct. Executed at Irvine, California on February 25, 2016.

9
10'
11'

f~~,~-e:~t~v ~~~,~1,~:eJ12 '~Nicola T. Hanna

13

L!
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

►f~:~l7
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP~~~V

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-2 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:136

Exhibit A

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say - The ... Page 1 of 6
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-2 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:137

Federal Insider

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million
people, federal authorities say
By Ellen Nakashima July 9, 2015

Two major breaches last year of U.S. government databases holding personnel records and securityclearance files exposed sensitive information about at least 22.1 million people, including not only federal
employees and contractors but their families and friends, U.S. officials said Thursday.
The total vastly exceeds all previous estimates, and marks the most detailed accounting by the Office of
Personnel Management of how many people were affected by cyber intrusions that U.S. officials haveprivately said were traced to the Chinese government.
[What you need to know about the hack of government background investigations]Campaign 2016

Email Updates

Get the best analysis of the presidential race.

Sign up

But even beyond the rising number of apparent victims, U.S. officials said the breaches rank among themost potentially damaging cyber heists in U.S. government history because of the abundant detail in thefiles. Officials said hackers accessed not only personnel records of current and former employees but also
extensive information about friends, relatives and others listed as references in applications for security
clearances for some of the most sensitive jobs in government.
[Chinese hack of personnel files includes security clearance database]“It is a very big deal from a national security perspective and from a counterintelligence perspective,” FBI
Director James B. Comey said at a meeting with reporters Thursday at the FBI headquarters. “It’s atreasure trove of information about everybody who has worked for, tried to work for, or works for theUnited States government.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-cleara... 2/23/2016

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say - The ... Page 2 of 6
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-2 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:138
Other U.S. officials said that a foreign intelligence service could use the information to identify U.S.
intelligence operatives, and that China is suspected of stealing large amounts of data on Americans aspart of a “strategic plan” to increase its intelligence collection.
The OPM release came after a months-long effort by the agency to take inventory of the damage, an
endeavor that required surveying enormous and often outdated computer systems.
The vast majority of those affected — 21.5 million people — were included in an OPM repository of
security clearance files, officials said. At least 4.2 million people were affected by the breach of a separate
database containing personnel records including Social Security numbers, job assignments andperformance evaluations.
[Graphic: How the federal government processes security clearance applications]
About 3.6 million of those affected were in both systems, an overlap that accounts for the 22.1 million
total, officials said.
The hackers’ access was so extensive that U.S. officials said they think it is “highly likely” that every fileassociated with an OPM-managed security clearance application since 2000 was exposed. Backgroundchecks before that time were less likely to be affected, officials said.
The CIA, largely appears to have been shielded from damage, especially for employees who have neverworked at any other agency, officials said.
[Officials: Hackers had access to security data for a year]
Even so, some U.S. officials have said that a foreign spy service might be able to identify U.S. intelligence
operatives by scrutinizing the OPM files. Names that appear on rosters of U.S. embassies but are missing
from the OPM records might, through a process of elimination, reveal the identities of CIA operatives
serving under diplomatic cover.
“That’s not conclusive that the person might be undercover CIA,” said one U.S. official, who spoke on thecondition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic. “But it’s certainly worth taking a look at.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-cleara... 2/23/2016

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say - The ... Page 3 of 6
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-2 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:139
Of those whose data was in the OPM background-check system, 19.7 million had applied for a security
clearance. An additional 1.8 million were spouses, family members and other non-applicants, officials
said.
Also exposed were 1.1 million sets of fingerprints, detailed financial and health records, and computerusernames and passwords that applicants used to fill out their security-clearance forms online.
OPM Director Katherine Archuleta indicated during a conference call with reporters that there is noevidence that the breach has been exploited for criminal purposes, saying, “There is no information at
this time to suggest any misuse.”[Watchdog: Shutdown of security clearance system “reactive" not “proactive"]
The U.S. government has said it will offer the affected employees at least three years of credit monitoringand other identity-protection services. But OPM faces rising anger among members of federal employee
unions who say they have received scant information about the breaches.
Two class-action lawsuits have been filed against the agency and Archuleta.
“Today’s new number is staggering,” said William R. Dougan, president of the National Federation ofFederal Employees. He added that “it is not yet clear how OPM can handle this massive increase, when
they were already struggling with the initial 4.2 million. Now, not only do federal employees have toworry about their own personal information being exposed – but they must also worry about their spouseand children having their information compromised.”
The White House is said to be weighing how to respond to what is being considered an aggressive act of
espionage. U.S. officials said options include covert cyber-measures as well as punitive economic
sanctions, although the nation’s ability to claim outrage has been undermined by the exposure of its own
global spying programs by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
Those responsible for the hack appear to have had access to OPM records for months. U.S. officials said
the theft of security-clearance data took place over a six-month stretch that ended in January. The
personnel records were stolen from October to April.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-cleara... 2/23/2016

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say - The ... Page 4 of 6
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-2 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:140
The breach of personnel records was discovered in April as a result of new cybersecurity tools OPM had
installed, said Andy Ozment, the Department of Homeland Security’s assistant secretary forcybersecurity.
Officials said the thieves broke in by using stolen contractor logins and passwords. Although U.S. officials
have said the intrusions were traced to the Chinese government, the Obama administration has notformally accused Beijing.
Comey said he thinks the hackers have obtained his “SF 86,” referring to Standard Form 86, which allapplicants for security clearances must fill out.
“If you have my SF 86, you know every place I’ve lived since I was 18, contact people at those addresses,
neighbors at those addresses, all of my family, every place I’ve traveled outside the United States,” Comey
said. “Just imagine if you were a foreign intelligence service and you had that data.”
One of the major U.S. concerns is that an adversary could use the data to identify U.S. government
employees who might be susceptible to pressure or inducements to engage in espionage.
Thursday’s disclosures prompted renewed calls among some on Capitol Hill for the resignation Archuleta
and her chief information officer, Donna Seymour.
“Director Archuleta’s slow and uneven response has not inspired confidence that she is the right person
to manage OPM through this crisis,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), a member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. “It is time for her to step down, and I strongly urge the administration to choose
new management with proven abilities to address a crisis of this magnitude with an appropriate sense ofurgency and accountability.”
Archuleta said that she will not step down, and that she remains “committed to the work that I am doingat OPM.”
Agency officials say that it was only because of a strategic plan put in place by Archuleta shortly after she
became director in November 2014 that the breaches were discovered.
“There are certainly some people I would like to see given the boot for not paying attention to
cybersecurity, but Katherine Archuleta is not one of them,” said one administration official, requestinganonymity to discuss personnel issues. “Maybe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-cleara... 2/23/2016

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say - The ... Page 5 of 6
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-2 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:141
they didn’t move as fast as they should have but they were at least moving in the right direction and wereprioritizing it in an agency that didn’t think of itself as having a security mission.”
It has taken weeks for the agency to come up with the number, in large part because of the difficulty,
officials say, of reviewing data contained in numerous computers that make up the background checksystem. Many of the computers are antiquated. There were many instances of names being duplicated —sometimes because someone was listed as a reference in several background checks as well as having
their own clearance.
“The forensics for that …investigation were extremely complicated,” Ozment said.
In weighing how to respond, some U.S. officials caution against taking actions against foreign states when
the cyber theft is conducted for traditional
spying motives. The United States has not officially named China or the motive, but privately officials say
it appears China was conducting a form of traditional espionage.
“I think we have to be careful about the importance of continuing to draw a line between theft foreconomic advantage and traditional foreign intelligence activities, which may look untraditional now thatthey’re in the cyber realm,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence
Committee. “We want to draw a bright line” that hacking for economic benefit “is a violation ofinternational norms.”
If the United States blurs the line between economic spying and foreign intelligence spying, “we risk
undermining the fight against economic theft.”
He said rather than “simply place blame on the hackers, we need to acknowledge our own culpability in
failing to adequately protect so obvious a target. Plainly, we need to do so much more to safeguard our
networks.”
The government has already begun taking steps to mitigate the damage in the intelligence andcounterintelligence arena, Schiff said. “We’re going to be doing that for years, in terms of the whole rangeof steps that we’ll have to take to protect our people and our sources and methods.”
He added: “The consequences will be very far-reaching.”
Lisa Rein contributed to this story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-cleara... 2/23/2016

Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say - The ... Page 6 of 6
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-2 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:142

Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for The Washington Post. She
focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.

Campaign 2016✕
State of the 2016 race∠

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-cleara... 2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-3 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:143

Exhibit B

Case
Case5:16-cm-00010-SP
1:15-mc-01902-JO Document
Document16-3
27 Filed
Filed 02/17/16
02/25/16 Page
Page 12 ofof 34 PageID
Page ID#: #:144
570

1900 M Street, NW, Ste. 250, Washington, D.C. 20036
marc@zwillgen.com

Marc J. Zwillinger(202) 706-5202 (phone)(202) 706-5298 (fax)
February 17, 2016
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING – UNDER SEALThe Honorable James Orenstein
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re:

In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant
Issued by the Court, No. 15-MC-1902

Dear Judge Orenstein:
I write in response to this Court’s February 16, 2016 order (the “Order”) requesting that Apple
provide certain additional details regarding other requests it has received during the pendency of thismatter that are of a similar nature to the one at issue in the instant case.
As recently as yesterday, Apple was served with an order by the United States Attorney’s
Office for the Central District of California. (See Exhibit A.) The government obtained that order on
the basis of an ex parte application pursuant to the All Writs Act (see Exhibit B), regarding which
Apple had no prior opportunity to be heard (despite having specifically requested from thegovernment in advance the opportunity to do so). The attached order directs Apple to perform evenmore burdensome and involved engineering than that sought in the case currently before this Court—
i.e., to create and load Apple-signed software onto the subject iPhone device to circumvent the
security and anti-tampering features of the device in order to enable the government to hack thepasscode to obtain access to the protected data contained therein. (See Exhibit A.) As invited by the
California court’s order, Apple intends to promptly seek relief. But, as this recent case makes
apparent, the issue remains quite pressing.
In addition to the aforementioned order, Apple has received other All Writs Act orders during
the pendency of this case, certain details of which are set forth in the table below. In particular, foreach such request Apple provides the following categories of information requested in the Order:Case
Case5:16-cm-00010-SP
1:15-mc-01902-JO Document
Document16-3
27 Filed
Filed 02/17/16
02/25/16 Page
Page 23 ofof 34 PageID
Page ID#: #:145
571(1) the jurisdiction in which the request was made, (2) the type of device at issue in the request, (3) theversion of iOS being used on that device, and (4) Apple’s response to the request and/or its current
status, as applicable.
Date
Received

Jurisdiction

Device TypeiOS Version

Status

10/8/2015

Southern Districtof New York

iPhone 4S

7.0.4

Apple objected (12/9/2015)10/30/2015 Southern Districtof New York

iPhone 5S

7.1

Apple objected (12/9/2015)

11/16/2015 Eastern District of
New York

iPhone 6 Plus

8.1.2

Apple objected (12/9/2015)

iPhone 6

8.1.2

11/18/2015 Northern Districtof Illinois

iPhone 5S

7.1.1

12/4/2015

iPhone 6

8.0 (or higher) Apple objected (12/9/2015)

iPhone 3

4.2.1

iPhone 3

6.1.6

Northern Districtof California

Apple objected (12/9/2015)

12/9/2015

Northern Districtof Illinois

iPhone 5S

7.0.5

Apple requested copy ofunderlying Motion but has
not received it yet(2/1/2016)

1/13/2016

Southern Districtof California

N/A(device ID not
yet provided)

N/A(device ID not
yet provided,
but therequesting
agent advised
device is preiOS 8)Apple was advised by therequesting agent that she isseeking a new warrant.
Apple has not yet received
this warrant.

2/2/2016

Northern Districtof Illinois

iPad 2 Wifi

7.0.6

Apple objected (2/5/2016)

2/9/2016

District ofMassachusetts

iPhone 6 Plus

9.1

Apple objected (2/11/2016)

2

Case
Case5:16-cm-00010-SP
1:15-mc-01902-JO Document
Document16-3
27 Filed
Filed 02/17/16
02/25/16 Page
Page 34 ofof 34 PageID
Page ID#: #:146
572

With respect to the other categories of information sought in the Order (specifically, categories
4-6), Apple responds that following its objection or other response to each request there has not been
any final disposition thereof to Apple’s knowledge, and Apple has not agreed to perform any serviceson the devices to which those requests are directed.1
Sincerely,/s/ Marc J. Zwillinger
Marc J. Zwillinger
cc:

All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

1

Apple further notes that shortly preceding the pendency of the instant case, it received additional
All Writs Act orders—specifically, two from the Southern District of Ohio (both on September 24,2015) and Northern District of Illinois (on October 6, 2015). Apple objected to each of theseorders, and to Apple’s knowledge there have been no further developments since such objections
were lodged.
3Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-4 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:147

Exhibit C

The Murder Victim Whose Phone Couldn't Be Cracked and Other Apple Encryption Stories Page 1 of 12
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-4 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:148

Subscribe

ADVERTISEMENT

Sign In
Zip Code

Get a Quot

TECH & SCIENCE

THE MURDER VICTIM WHOSE PHONE
COULDN'T BE CRACKED AND OTHER APPLEENCRYPTION STORIESBY SEUNG LEE ON 2/19/16 AT 11:58 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/apple-encryption-crime-428565

2/23/2016

The Murder Victim Whose Phone Couldn't Be Cracked and Other Apple Encryption Stories Page 2 of 12
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-4 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:149

After Apple’s refusal to comply with a court order to help the FBI access encrypted content on an
iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters, tech companies and presidential
candidates have spoken out on the controversy over digital encryption.
MICHAELA REHLE/REUTERS

Subscribe

TECH & SCIENCEMANHATTANAPPLE
IPHONE

Sign In

U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENTSACRAMENTOENCRYPTION

A few months ago, a man was murdered in Sacramento, California, and the police
retrieved his iPhone on the spot. In a last-ditch effort to open his locked phone to checkany last calls or messages from possible suspects, a police investigator rushed over tothe coroner’s office with the victim’s iPhone, hoping to unlock it using his thumbprint.
But the body was too cold for the iPhone to recognize the thumbprint, and the phone
has remained locked since.
Another time, also in Sacramento, a murder suspect was arrested with his iPhone after
being caught on a surveillance camera at a liquor store. When asked to open his phone
to cooperate with the police, the suspect told the police he would “rather go to jail” thangive up his pass code. That phone too has remained locked since.
These are two stories Rod Norgaard, assistant chief deputy in the Sacramento County
district attorney’s office, shared with Newsweek as he expressed his frustration
over Apple’s opposing a court order to unlock San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan
Farook’s iPhone 5C. Apple has steadfastly refused to grant the FBI backdoor access to its
encrypted iPhones, saying once there is software to unlock Farook’s iPhone it creates“the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

http://www.newsweek.com/apple-encryption-crime-428565

2/23/2016

The Murder Victim Whose Phone Couldn't Be Cracked and Other Apple Encryption Stories Page 3 of 12
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-4 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:150

Norgaard says there are “well over 100” iPhones in Sacramento County stowed away inpolice departments, and they cannot be opened for police investigations. The two
anecdotes above involve unsolved homicides. “Things like these happen routinely withencrypted smartphones,” Norgaard says.
Subscribe

Sign In

Norgaard did not mince words about Apple CEO Tim Cook and the company’s
supporters in their resistance to the FBI and the court. He called Cook “Chicken Little”
for calling the order a “threat to data security” and compared his supporters to theoccupiers of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
“I see those people in San Francisco as no better than those who occupied federal landin Oregon,” Norgaard says. “If you lived in a fortified home and police came with awarrant reviewed by the judge and you still won’t open the door, we will call this astandoff.”
He also called Apple hypocritical in its new stance on encryption, recalling the pre-iOS
8 days when Apple would hesitantly cooperate with law enforcement in decrypting
iPhones. In 2013, CNET reported that Apple had a “waiting list” of police demands fordecrypting iPhones.
A couple of years ago, Sacramento investigators drive an hour and a half west to the Bay
Area, hand-deliver the seized iPhones to an expert who decrypted the iPhones (he could
not remember the expert’s identity) and wait six to eight months to receive a broken-in
iPhone, according to Norgaard. He says this process has not happened since 2014.
On the opposite side of the country, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.
expressed the same frustration because his office can’t get past Apple’s encryption
technology, which was strengthened after iOS 8 in 2014. “We now have about 155 to 160
devices that are running on iOS 8 that are blocked and we can't get in them,” Vance
told NPR on Thursday. Apple says it does not have the technology to crack its own
iPhone.

http://www.newsweek.com/apple-encryption-crime-428565

2/23/2016

The Murder Victim Whose Phone Couldn't Be Cracked and Other Apple Encryption Stories Page 4 of 12
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-4 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:151

From September 2014 to October 2015, 111 search warrants were left incomplete due
to law enforcement’s inability to decrypt the phone, according to a report from Vance’s
office. The report also cites a recorded conversation from 2015 between an inmate and afriend talking about how having iOS 8 running on their phones was “another gift fromGod.”

Subscribe

Sign In

Newsweek reached out to 10 district attorney offices across the United States on theirexperiences dealing with strong encryption technology. Two declined to speak, and six
did not respond.
Only Manhattan and Sacramento answered, most likely because both offices have long
been critical of the encryption. In the past two months, two state bills, in California and
New York, were introduced to ban encrypted smartphones. Both were coordinated with
the Manhattan and Sacramento district attorney’s offices.
While calling the California assemblyman who introduced the bill “a good friend” forover 20 years, Norgaard concedes that encryption should be dealt with on the federal
level. He then expressed outrage that Apple was treating the federal government lightly.
“That a company can overwrite federal law...it’s crazy. We don’t have a country anymore
without rules,” he says. “I’m telling ya, if there is a bomb threat in Silicon Valley, they
will be unlocking phones left and right.”
REQUEST REPRINT OR SUBMIT CORRECTION

http://www.newsweek.com/apple-encryption-crime-428565

2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-5 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:152

Exhibit D

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
Document 16-5 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page IDPage#:153
Customer
Letter - Apple
1 of 3February 16, 2016

A Message to Our Customers
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented stepwhich threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has
implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people aroundthe country to understand what is at stake.
Answers to your questions about privacy and security

The Need for Encryption
Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible
amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, ourcalendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we aregoing.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it
without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do
everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed tosafeguarding their data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is
why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the
only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe
the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case
We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn theloss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days
following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible
crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid
subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers
available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at theirdisposal.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to thispoint, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
Document 16-5 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page IDPage#:154
Customer
Letter - Apple
2 of 3
U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too
dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several
important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands,
this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s
physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS thatbypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue thatits use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores
both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it
is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code isrevealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Oncecreated, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, itwould be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants
and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that
protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers andcybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would,
ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk ofattack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption.
Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple toprotect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent
Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All
Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system,
allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,”
trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to makeit easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data.
The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software tointercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access yourphone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as
an overreach by the U.S. government.

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
Document 16-5 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page IDPage#:155
Customer
Letter - Apple
3 of 3We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of ourcountry. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build abackdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms andliberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook
Answers to your questions about privacy and security

Shop and Learn

Apple StoreFor Education

Account

About AppleMac

Find a StoreApple and Education

Manage Your Apple ID

Apple Info

iPad

Genius Bar

Shop for College

Apple Store Account

Job Opportunities

iPhoneWorkshops and Learning

iCloud.com

Press Info

Watch

Youth Programs

For BusinessTV

Apple Store App

iPhone in BusinessApple Values

EventsMusic

Refurbished

iPad in Business

Environment

Hot News

iTunesFinancing

Mac in BusinessSupplier Responsibility

Legal

iPod

Reuse and Recycling

Shop for Your Business

Accessibility

Contact Apple

Accessories

Order Status

Privacy

Gift Cards

Shopping Help

Inclusion and Diversity

Investors

Education
More ways to shop: Visit an Apple Store, call 1-800-MY-APPLE, or find a reseller.
Copyright © 2016 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Sales and Refunds

Site Map

United States

2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-6 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:156

Exhibit E

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-6 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:157

The Attacks in Paris: Islamic State Teaches Tech Savvy
The Wall Street Journal
November 17, 2015 Tuesday
Copyright 2015 Factiva ®, from Dow Jones
All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2015, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Section: Pg. A9Length: 758 words
Byline: By Margaret Coker, Sam Schechner and Alexis Flynn

Body
Terror groups have for years waged a technical battle with Western intelligence services that have sought toconstrain them through a web of electronic surveillance.
The Paris attacks, apparently planned under the noses of French and Belgian authorities, raise the possibility that
Islamic State adherents have found ways around the dragnet.
French authorities say two of the attackers knew each other in prison, but it isn't clear how the group
communicated in plotting and coordinating the Friday attacks.
Low-tech methods exist for communicating off law enforcement's radar including passing written notes or relaying
messages through friends or relatives.
But law-enforcement agencies also have long warned that encrypted platforms built for gaming or othercommercial purposes to safeguard privacy are being used by would-be terrorists to communicate.
Islamic State, for its part, has built a tech-savvy division of commanders who issue tutorials to sympathizers about
the most secure and least expensive ways of communicating.
The bloodshed in Paris will likely exacerbate a tense debate between governments that want inside access to
those encrypted tools and tech companies that say are trying to protect customer data and are wary of government
overreach.
Mike Morell, the former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said terrorists' ability to use encrypted
communication is a huge problem.
"I think this is going to open an entire new debate about security versus privacy," he told CBS television on Sunday.
For more than a year, governments in Europe have pushed for companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitterto build "back doors" that allow law enforcement access into their encrypted tools.
Tech companies and security experts have resisted that push, which gained steam in Europe following the January
attacks in Paris against the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Matthew Miller

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-6 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:158
Page 2 of 3
The Attacks in Paris: Islamic State Teaches Tech Savvy
Security experts say inserting back doors would weaken the encryption and undermine trust in the Internet.
Islamic State is among the most technologically sophisticated extremist groups. Its advice to followers includes aneight-minute video released last year in Arabic that discusses the surveillance capabilities of hostile governments
and how phones can be tracked. Bulletins also include advice about brands of electronic equipment that appear
vulnerable.
In January, a follower known online as al-Khabir al-Taqni, who identifies himself as a "technical expert," provided
would-be fighters with a list of what he determined were the safest encrypted communications systems available.
"Through this, we can break one of the strongest weapons of the Crusader governments in spying on and tracking
the mujahedeen and targeting them with aircraft," the author said, referring to the U.S.-led coalition fighting IslamicState.
The missive, authenticated by the SITE Intelligence Group which monitors and tracks radical groups online,
ranked 33 applications as unsafe, moderately safe, safe, and safest.
Soon after the list was published, Islamic State started moving official communications from Twitter to Telegram
Messenger, which received the second-highest safety rating from the Islamic State tech team.
That included the group's claim of responsibility for the Paris attacks as well as the Oct. 31 Russian airline crashin Egypt.
Islamic State also has urged its followers to make use of the app's capability to host encrypted group chats.
A spokesman for Telegram didn't respond to requests to comment. Pavel Durov, the app's founder who also
created the Russian social network VKontakte, criticized recent calls by the Russian government to ban Telegram.
"I propose we ban words," Mr. Durov wrote in a sarcastic VKontake post. "There is information that terrorists use
them to communicate."
U.K. prosecutors convicted a British teen this year in part because police had access to his Telegram chats.
The boy, inspired by Islamic State, admitted to communicating with an Australian teenager and encouraging him
to attack ceremonies commemorating military veterans.
He was convicted on one terrorism charge. Police and prosecutors have declined to comment about how they
accessed those communications.
European law-enforcement officials have also expressed concern about gaming consoles, which also allow
players to communicate with each other via the Internet.
In May, an Austrian court convicted a 14-year-old boy of downloading bomb-making instructions onto his
PlayStation console, according to local media reports.
License this article from Dow Jones Reprint Service

Notes
PUBLISHER: Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Classification
Language: ENGLISH
Publication-Type: Newspaper
Matthew Miller

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-6 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:159
Page 3 of 3
The Attacks in Paris: Islamic State Teaches Tech Savvy
Journal Code: J
Subject: LAW ENFORCEMENT (90%); TERRORISM (90%); MUSLIMS & ISLAM (89%); RELIGION (89%);
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS (79%); INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (78%); ESPIONAGE (78%); PRIVACYRIGHTS (78%); WRITERS (75%); CRYPTOLOGY (74%); ghome Law Enforcement; gsci Sciences/Humanities;
gspy Espionage; gterr Terrorism; gvio Military Action; gcat Political/General News; gcns National Security; gcrim
Crime/Courts; gdef Armed Forces; grisk Risk News; ncat Content Types; nfact Factiva Filters; nfcpex C&E
Executive News Filter; PROVIDER TERMS: WSJ CRM DJWI GEN LEN SCN TER
Company: GOOGLE INC (54%); FACEBOOK INC (54%); aqdirq Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Organization: CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (55%)
Ticker: GOOG (NASDAQ) (54%); FB (NASDAQ) (54%)
Industry: SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY (89%); INTERNET SOCIAL NETWORKING (89%); SOCIAL MEDIA(78%); INTERNET & WWW (78%); WRITERS (75%); CRYPTOLOGY (74%); INFORMATION SECURITY &PRIVACY (69%)
Geographic: PARIS, FRANCE (88%); FRANCE (93%); EUROPE (87%); belg Belgium; eurz Europe; fra France;
paris Paris; benluxz Benelux Countries; eecz European Union Countries; ilefra Ile-de-France; medz Mediterranean;weurz Western Europe; PROVIDER TERMS: BEL EC EU EZN FR WEU
IP Codes: IGV NND
Load-Date: November 17, 2015

Matthew Miller

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-7 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:160

Exhibit F

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-7 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:161

Home • About Us • Operational Technology • Going Dark Issue

Going Dark Issue
Law enforcement at all levels has the legal authority to intercept and access communications andinformation pursuant to court orders, but it often lacks the technical ability to carry out thoseorders because of a fundamental shift in communications services and technologies. This scenario isoften called the “Going Dark” problem.
Law enforcement faces two distinct Going Dark challenges. The first concerns real­time court­orderedinterception of data in motion, such as phone calls, e­mail, text messages, and chat sessions. The
second challenge concerns “data at rest”—court­ordered access to data stored on devices, like e­mail,text messages, photos, and videos. Both real­time communications and stored data are increasingly
difficult for law enforcement to obtain with a court order or warrant. This is eroding law enforcement’s
ability to quickly obtain valuable information that may be used to identity and save victims,
reveal evidence to convict perpetrators, or exonerate the innocent.

Operational Technology Links
Operational Technology Home
Inside OTD­ Overview­ Capabilities­ News and Stories
Student Opportunities­ Internships
Other Resources­ RCFL News

Make no mistake, the FBI supports strong encryption, and we know firsthand the damage that can becaused by vulnerable and insecure systems. As such, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and otherlaw enforcement agencies are on the front lines of the fight against cyber crime. The government uses
strong encryption to secure its own electronic information, and it encourages the private sector andmembers of the public to do the same.
However, the challenges faced by law enforcement to lawfully and quickly obtain valuable information
are getting worse. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was enacted in
1994 and applies only to traditional telecommunications carriers, providers of interconnected Voiceover Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, and providers of broadband access services.
Currently thousands of companies provide some form of communication service, and most are notrequired by CALEA to develop lawful intercept capabilities for law enforcement. As a result, many of
today’s communication services are developed and deployed without consideration of law
enforcement’s lawful intercept and evidence collection needs.
Of the Going Dark problem, Director James Comey has said, “Armed with lawful authority, we
increasingly find ourselves simply unable to do that which the courts have authorized us to do, andthat is to collect information being transmitted by terrorists, by criminals, by pedophiles, by bad peopleof all sorts.” And as for a perceived conflict between keeping people safe and protecting their privacy,“it isn’t a question of conflict,” according to Comey. “We must care deeply about protecting liberty
through due process of law, while also safeguarding the citizens we serve—in every investigation.”
To help address the challenges posed by advancing communications services and technologies,
the Department of Justice’s National Domestic Communications Assistance Center (NDCAC)
leverages and shares the law enforcement community’s collective technical knowledge, solutions, andresources. NDCAC also works on behalf of federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies tostrengthen law enforcement’s relationships with the communications industry.
Additional resources:­ Congressional testimony of Director James Comey­ Congressional testimony of Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates­ Acting Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates’ speech at the Association of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies’ Spring Conference­ Congressional testimony of Executive Assistant Director Amy Hess
­ Director James Comey’s speech at the Brookings Institution­ National Domestic Communications Assistance Center
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice

CloseCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-7 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:162

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:163

Exhibit GEncryption, Public Safety, and "Going Dark" - Lawfare
Page 1 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:164

MENU
ENCRYPTION

Encryption, Public Safety, and "Going Dark"
By James Comey

Monday, July 6, 2015, 10:38 AM

I am worried we are talking past each other with respect to"Going Dark," so let me try to frame it in a way that I hopeis fair-minded and provides a basis for healthy discussion:
These are things I believe to be true:
1. The logic of encryption will bring us, in the not-todistant future, to a place where devices and data in motion
David Bruce
are protected by universal strong encryption. That is, ourconversations and our "papers and effects" will be lockedin such a way that permits access only by participants to a conversation or the owner ofthe device holding the data.
2. There are many benefits to this. Universal strong encryption will protect all of us—ourinnovation, our private thoughts, and so many other things of value—from thieves of all
kinds. We will all have lock-boxes in our lives that only we can open and in which we canstore all that is valuable to us. There are lots of good things about this.
3. There are many costs to this. Public safety in the United States has relied for a couple
centuries on the ability of the government, with predication, to obtain permission from a
court to access the "papers and effects" and communications of Americans. The Fourth
Amendment reflects a trade-off inherent in ordered liberty: To protect the public, thegovernment sometimes needs to be able to see an individual's stuff, but only underappropriate circumstances and with appropriate oversight.
4. These two things are in tension in many contexts. When the government's ability—with
appropriate predication and court oversight—to see an individual's stuff goes away, it willaffect public safety. That tension is vividly illustrated by the current ISIL threat, which
involves ISIL operators in Syria recruiting and tasking dozens of troubled Americans tokill people, a process that increasingly takes part through mobile messaging apps that areend-to-end encrypted, communications that may not be intercepted, despite judicial
orders under the Fourth Amendment. But the tension could as well be illustrated in

https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-public-safety-and-going-dark

2/23/2016

Encryption, Public Safety, and "Going Dark" - Lawfare
Page 2 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:165
criminal investigations all over the country. There is simply no doubt that bad people cancommunicate with impunity in a world of universal strong encryption.
5. Democracies resolve such tensions through robust debate. I really am not a maniac (orat least my family says so). But my job is to try to keep people safe. In universal strong
encryption, I see something that is with us already and growing every day that will
inexorably affect my ability to do that job. It may be that, as a people, we decide thebenefits here outweigh the costs and that there is no sensible, technically feasible way to
optimize privacy and safety in this particular context, or that public safety folks will beable to do their job well enough in the world of universal strong encryption. Those aredecisions Americans should make, but I think part of my job is make sure the debate is
informed by a reasonable understanding of the costs.
Topics: SurveillanceTags: Encryption

James Comey is director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

MORE ARTICLES ∠RELATED ARTICLES

Trust, Apple, and the First Amendment
Andrew Keane Woods Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:44 PM

Apple's Challenge to Magistrate's Order for Assisting the FBI
Herb Lin Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 7:52 PM

Not a Slippery Slope, but a Jump off the Cliff
Nicholas Weaver Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:51 PM

https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-public-safety-and-going-dark

2/23/2016

Encryption, Public Safety, and "Going Dark" - Lawfare
Page 3 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-8 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:166

NSA IG Report Reveals New Information on Section 702 Collection
Cody M. Poplin Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 4:11 PM

PCLOB Releases Recommendations Assessment Report
Cody M. Poplin Mon, Feb 8, 2016, 4:49 PM

SUPPORT LAWFARE

https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-public-safety-and-going-dark

2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-9 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:167

Exhibit H

We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow this Lead - Lawfare
Page 1 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-9 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:168

MENU
ENCRYPTIONWe Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not
Follow this Lead
By James Comey

Sunday, February 21, 2016, 9:03 PM

The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kindof message. It is about the victims and justice. Fourteen people were slaughtered andmany more had their lives and bodies ruined. We owe them a thorough andprofessional investigation under law. That's what this is. The American people
should expect nothing less from the FBI.
The particular legal issue is actually quite narrow. The relief we seek is limited andits value increasingly obsolete because the technology continues to evolve. We
simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's
passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking adecade to guess correctly. That's it. We don't want to break anyone's encryption or
set a master key loose on the land. I hope thoughtful people will take the time tounderstand that. Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it
doesn’t. But we can't look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we
don't follow this lead.
Reflecting the context of this heart-breaking case, I hope folks will take a deep
breath and stop saying the world is ending, but instead use that breath to talk toeach other. Although this case is about the innocents attacked in San Bernardino, it
does highlight that we have awesome new technology that creates a serious tension
between two values we all treasure: privacy and safety. That tension should not be
resolved by corporations that sell stuff for a living. It also should not be resolved by
the FBI, which investigates for a living. It should be resolved by the American people
deciding how we want to govern ourselves in a world we have never seen before. We
shouldn't drift to a place—or be pushed to a place by the loudest voices—because
finding the right place, the right balance, will matter to every American for a very
long time.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead

2/23/2016

We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow this Lead - Lawfare
Page 2 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-9 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:169

So I hope folks will remember what terrorists did to innocent Americans at a San
Bernardino office gathering and why the FBI simply must do all we can under the law
to investigate that. And in that sober spirit, I also hope all Americans will participate
in the long conversation we must have about how to both embrace the technology
we love and get the safety we need.
Topics: Encryption, Going Dark
Tags: Apple, San Bernadino

James Comey is director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

MORE ARTICLES ∠RELATED ARTICLES

Trust, Apple, and the First Amendment
Andrew Keane Woods Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:44 PM

We Enter the Lion's Den: Join Us as We Get Flayed in a Reddit AMA on
Apple and the FBI
Susan Hennessey, Benjamin Wittes Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 3:28 PM

Apple’s Letters to the Public are Slightly Disingenuous but Opposing the
FBI Request is the Right Outcome For Now
Herb Lin Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 11:31 AM

Apple in China, Part I: What Does Beijing Actually Ask of Technology
Companies?
Samm Sacks Mon, Feb 22, 2016, 7:30 AMhttps://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead

2/23/2016

We Could Not Look the Survivors in the Eye if We Did Not Follow this Lead - Lawfare
Page 3 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-9 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:170

The Government Strikes Back: DOJ takes off its gloves with Apple
Robert Loeb Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 7:12 PM

SUPPORT LAWFARE

https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead

2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-10 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:171

Exhibit I

Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Update on the Cyberwar - WSJ
Page 1 of 4
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-10 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:172

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit
http://www.djreprints.com.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gen-michael-hayden-gives-an-update-on-the-cyberwar-1455076153

BUSINESS | JOURNAL REPORTS: LEADERSHIP

Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Updateon the Cyberwar
Former head of the CIA and NSA says government moves to protect
cyberspace are too little, too lateFeb. 9, 2016 10:49 p.m. ET
We’re in a global cyberwar in which our corporate secrets are our chief prize. Are weup for the fight?
To get a clearer answer, The Wall Street Journal’s John Bussey spoke with Gen.
Michael Hayden, principal of Chertoff Group and former director of the Central
Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. Here are edited excerpts of the
discussion.

It’s up to you
MR. BUSSEY: We got some news last month. There’s some legislation meant to increasecooperation between the government and business. Tell us about the bill and whether or
not it helps CIOs protect corporate secrets.
GEN. HAYDEN: We’re talking about CISA, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act.
Good news, a step in the right direction. But it’s too long in coming, it’s too small a step.
And it reveals that within any realistic planning horizon, you are largely responsible foryour own defense in the cyber domain.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gen-michael-hayden-gives-an-update-on-the-cyberwar-14550... 2/23/2016

Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Update on the Cyberwar - WSJ
Page 2 of 4
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-10 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:173

JOURNAL REPORT• Read more at WSJ.com/LeadershipReport (http://www.wsj.com/public/page/journal-report-leadership.html)

MORE IN CIO NETWORK• Hilary Mason, Andreas Weigend on the Mistakes Companies Make With Big Data
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mistakes-companies-make-with-big-data-1455075886)• Dawn Lepore DIscusses the Path from CIO to CEO (http://www.wsj.com/articles/dawn-lepore-discussesthe-path-from-cio-to-ceo-1455076044)• Andy Ozment on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (http://www.wsj.com/articles/andy-ozment-oninformation-sharing-and-cybersecurity-1455082611)• Jeremy Bailenson Peers Into the Future of Virtual Reality (http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeremy-bailensonpeers-into-the-future-of-virtual-reality-1455082679)• Andy Bryant Says CIOs Need Better Communications Skills (http://www.wsj.com/articles/andy-bryantsays-cios-need-better-communications-skills-1455083007)

The government, our government will be permanently late for your cybersecurity. Look,
your armed forces view cyber as a domain. Land, sea, air, space, cyber. It’s a new domain.
You and I have decided that this domain is so wonderful, empowering, we’re going totake things we used to keep down here in a safe, in a drawer, in a wallet, and put it up
here where it’s largely undefended. This is the largest ungoverned space in recorded
human history. There is no rule of law up here.
As taxpayers, you and I are going to want our government to defend us up here the way
we have become accustomed to relying on the government for defending us down here.
But there’s the general sclerosis of government, and the technology is going to move
much faster than any government can move. Then we have not yet decided what it is wewant or what it is we will allow the government to keep us safe. You’re going to have to be
responsible for your safety [in the cyber domain] in a way in which you have not beenrequired to be responsible for your safety [in the physical domain] since the closing of theAmerican frontier in 1890.

Who follows whom?
MR. BUSSEY: It does seem that before the war on cybersecurity can be fought as anation, we have to resolve the civil war internally over privacy.
GEN. HAYDEN: Yeah. And that’s a multigenerational thing. We haven’t arrived at anational consensus. In the American system, when the government doesn’t show up, we
generally pick up the burden ourselves. So, the good news is there’s a lot of private-sector
activity designed to keep us safe.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gen-michael-hayden-gives-an-update-on-the-cyberwar-14550... 2/23/2016

Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Update on the Cyberwar - WSJ
Page 3 of 4
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-10 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:174
Let me explain this another way. When I think about a national-security problem,
generally my instincts are the government is the prime mover. If you’re into Civil War
history, Gen. Grant or Gen. Lee says, “You, sir, your corps is the main body. And you,gentlemen, you will conform your movements to the movements of the main body.” Ingovernment, I assumed that in cyberdefense, the main body was the government, andyou shall conform your movements with the movements of the main body. In the cyberdomain, you are the main body. What our government has to teach itself is that the
government needs, in all but a few exceptional cases, to conform its movements to the
movements of the main body, you.
MR. BUSSEY: One of the things that the private sector is doing is to look again at
encryption.
GEN. HAYDEN: The issue here is end-to-end unbreakable encryption, should American
firms be allowed to create such a thing. You’ve got Jim Comey, the director of the FBI,saying, “I am really going to suffer if I can’t read Tony Soprano’s email or if I’ve got to ask
Tony for the PIN number before I get to read Tony’s emails.” I get it. There is an
unarguable downside to unbreakable encryption. On the other side is the question: On
balance, is America more or less secure with unbreakable end-to-end encryption,
regardless of whether Jim can read Tony’s emails?
I think Jim Comey’s wrong. Jim’s logic is based on the belief that he remains the main
body and you should accommodate your movements to the movements of him, which is
the main body. And I’m telling you, with regard to the cyber domain, he’s not. You are.
MR. BUSSEY: Tell us how the landscape of threat is evolving or changing.
GEN. HAYDEN: The stealing-your-data stuff is there, and it’s getting worse. Beyond
that, [people are trying] not just to steal data, but to create effects. So you’ve got
Stuxnet, which is the destruction of a thousand centrifuges at Natanz in Iran. I view it as
an unalloyed good, but it was done using a weapon comprised of ones and zeros to create
physical destruction.
Leon Panetta spent a lot of time in his last year or two in government talking about cyber
Pearl Harbor, digital 9/11, catastrophic attack. I don’t think that’s what we have to worry
about. I’m not frightened about the Chinese turning out all the lights east of theMississippi. I’m not worried about that superpower, catastrophic attack.
I’m worried about the isolated, nothing to lose, “Ah, what the hell? Let’s go see what
happens,” nation state who goes after a North American enterprise to create physicaldestruction to show that they can. The Sony attack is the poster child for that.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gen-michael-hayden-gives-an-update-on-the-cyberwar-14550... 2/23/2016

Gen. Michael Hayden Gives an Update on the Cyberwar - WSJ
Page 4 of 4
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-10 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:175

Copyright 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For
non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gen-michael-hayden-gives-an-update-on-the-cyberwar-14550... 2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:176

Exhibit J

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It - WSJ
Page 1 of 7
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:177

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit
http://www.djreprints.com.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456109096

U.S.

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and
Also Helps Develop It
Agencies are developing encryption tools for secure communications,even as the FBI battles for access to an encrypted iPhone

Nathan Freitas works on ChatSecure at his home office in Boston, Mass. PHOTO: SHIHO FUKADA FOR THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL

By DAMIAN PALETTA
Updated Feb. 22, 2016 12:31 a.m. ET
Researchers in London last year discovered an online jihadi handbook with instructions
on sending encrypted instant messages that would be indecipherable to law enforcement.
The tools it recommended—ChatSecure and Cryptocat—are popular throughout the
Middle East, making them easily available to extremists from that part of the world.
They were also developed largely with money from the U.S. government.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456... 2/23/2016

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It - WSJ
Page 2 of 7
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:178
The U.S. federal government can work at odds with itself, but not often so directly on a
topic with such clear national-security implications. Some federal agencies have funded
the development of nearly unbreakable encryption software, while others, especially inintelligence and law enforcement, fume over their inability to read protected messages
when they have a court order.
The U.S. Justice Department has sought a court order to force Apple Inc. to help the
FBI break into the encrypted iPhone of one of the perpetrators of the San
Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack. Apple says it will fight the order. Meanwhile, atleast five federal agencies are developing similar encryption tools, with the aim of helping
military officers or pro-democracy activists avoid detection overseas.
The encryption battle has often been framed as a fight pitting technology companies
pushing encryption to protect customers’ privacy against government officials hoping tocrack hidden messages in pursuit of wrongdoers. As the examples of ChatSecure,
Cryptocat and other tools show, the division is hardly so neat.

RELATED• Apple Fight Gets Technical (http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-fbi-phone-fight-gets-technical-1456101154)

Within the government “there are clearly tensions, and those reflect institutional
perspectives, the same as personal perspectives,” said Ryan Henry, a former Pentagon
official. “Whether you prioritize security or you prioritize freedom—institutionally, thegovernment is split along those lines.” Mr. Henry also served as information-systems
architect at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, which
has conducted encryption research.

Instant messaging
Though the U.S. government has worked in the field of encryption technology for
decades, its push into instant-messaging software—useful to anyone from human-rights
activists to terrorist plotters—took off just a few years ago.
The process received a boost from Libby Liu, president of the U.S.-funded Radio Free
Asia. She was frustrated that reporters and contacts for her news organization were beingarrested, harassed and beaten up by some governments’ security forces when theirmessages were intercepted. She felt nothing was secure and worried that spies had
penetrated her global newsroom.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456... 2/23/2016

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It - WSJ
Page 3 of 7
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:179
Colleagues view Ms. Liu, a former San Francisco prosecutor whose parents immigrated
from China, as deeply focused on security and constantly looking for ways to challenge
foreign governments that suppress journalists and free speech. She wanted a new way toprotect her staff and contacts from spies and hackers, but felt she lacked the tools.
“We want people to be able to talk freely and share ideas that authoritarian governments
won’t tolerate,” Ms. Liu said in an interview.
Congress came to her rescue. Radio Free Asia, founded in 1996, is funded by the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, a little-known federal agency that supports
international broadcasting with a pro-democracy mission. In 2011, Congress directed $10
million to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which advanced $7 million to RadioFree Asia and Ms. Liu.
Ms. Liu assembled a small team and in 2012 launched the Open Technology Fund, whichlooked for projects to finance.
It didn’t take long for the team to back Nathan Freitas, a technologist and coder. In
2008, he worked on communication security for a group of “Free Tibet” activists
traveling to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, but a number of people in the group werearrested and interrogated by the Chinese Public Security Bureau.
After the Olympics, Mr. Freitas convened a group of like-minded coders to work on an
encryption tool, which they called Gibberbot, allowing two people to communicate
securely through encrypted text messages. They called themselves the Guardian Project.
The Open Technology Fund provided $388,500 to help Mr. Freitas and his colleagues,
with roughly $100,000 of that going to the encrypted texting program. Gibberbot
combined with ChatSecure, an encryption tool in development for Apple iPhones,
creating a unified encryption app. Mr. Freitas’s team worked to educate people in the
Middle East and elsewhere to explain how to use it.
It caught on quickly, in part because ChatSecure is free, simple to use and can be
downloaded to smartphones. Users only need to install it and connect with a contact.
Their messages are instantly encrypted.
Users don’t need to understand the technology, but it works like this: Two people
who agree to communicate with each other connect through the application,exchanging (even if they don’t realize it) two electronic keys, which are long, uniquecodes.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456... 2/23/2016

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It - WSJ
Page 4 of 7
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:180
If used correctly, the messages can be decoded only by the devices that originated theconversation and contain separate, undiscoverable keys. The key that locks a message iscalled the “public” key—essentially a digital fingerprint that can be known and shared.
The key that unlocks the messages is called the “private” one, and it is implanted securely
in each smartphone. No one else has access to that key, not even the device’s
manufacturer.
Many new smartphones have built-in encryption tools, which is why the JusticeDepartment is pressing Apple to comply in the San Bernardino case. But users often
prefer to use tools that aren’t designed by large companies, fearful the firms could becompelled to cooperate in decrypting a message.
ChatSecure spread quickly. Democracy activists began using it in Iran, Egypt, Libya,
Tibet and elsewhere, to the delight of its creators. Mr. Freitas and his colleagues
published blueprints for ChatSecure online so hackers and others could try to find faults
with it. Each time a weakness was discovered, they strengthened the program.

Jihadists take it up
It didn’t take long for militants to discover ChatSecure. In addition to the jihadi
handbook found by the London researchers for Demos, which is a British think tank,another jihadist guide was discovered by SITE Intelligence Group, an Americanorganization that tracks the activity of extremist groups.
This guide listed as the “safest” encryption tools ChatSecure, RedPhone, Signal and twoother tools. RedPhone and Signal have since unified. Like ChatSecure, they were
financed in part by the Open Technology Fund with money from the U.S. government.
Developers of both ChatSecure and Cryptocat said they have been approached by federal
agencies and asked for help in deciphering messages from specific people, reflecting
concerns about how the tools were being used. The experience was jarring to coders anddevelopers who had toiled over mathematical formulas and software codes with a visionof helping people thousands of miles away spread democracy.
In an interview, Mr. Freitas initially dismissed the notion of terrorists seizing on his
creation. “The content is out there, and for people to copy and paste ‘ISIS training
manual’ on it takes two seconds,” he said recently in Brooklyn, N.Y., standing in the
Guardian Project’s sparse and chilly office beneath the Manhattan Bridge.
He acknowledged he occasionally second-guesses the motives of some ChatSecure users,
who send him questions with Twitter photographs that could resemble jihadists.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456... 2/23/2016

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It - WSJ
Page 5 of 7
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:181“We don’t want bad people to use this,” said Mr. Freitas. “It makes me sick. I’m a father. I
don’t want criminals who are hurting children, who are blowing things up or breaking
laws to use the tools.”
Beyond his work with the Guardian Project, Mr. Freitas is a fellow at Harvard
University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and he was recently asked to join thetechnology advisory board at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors, which funds several of these initiatives, isadopting a new policy in hopes of inhibiting criminals and terrorists from using them,
officials said. A new director for this effort could be in place within weeks.
Other people who have worked on federally funded encryption technology agonized overits potential misuse, though they ultimately defended it. Many described the tools as anatural evolution, like the telephone or automobile, that can be used for good or bad
purposes.

Mr. Freitas owns variety of cellphones to conduct quality testing of his product. PHOTO: SHIHO FUKADA FOR THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Paul Syverson, a mathematician at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory’s Center for High
Assurance Computer Systems, was part of a small team that developed Tor, a groundbreaking method of secure communications that enables people to access the Internet
anonymously.
Tor was designed in part to help military personnel and U.S. officials communicate
overseas, but it now is used for everything from shopping to email. It is credited withhelping people avoid surveillance and ensure privacy.
Prosecutors have said drug dealers and child-pornography suspects have used Tor,
leading the FBI to hunt for criminals on the routing system.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456... 2/23/2016

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It - WSJ
Page 6 of 7
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:182
Mr. Syverson said he worries about that. “I don’t care what you are doing—you’re drivinga taxi, you’re cleaning toilets, you’re catching cicadas on the end of a sticky
pole—whatever you are doing, I think it behooves you to examine the potential
implications … and to try to do the right thing,” he said.
The clash between beneficial uses of encryption and problems flowing from it isfrustrating to many policy makers. “Encryption is a good thing for all kinds of reasons,for security and privacy and all that,” U.S. Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee at a Feb. 9 Senate hearing. “But at thesame time, it is enabling nefarious activity of all sorts—whether it’s law enforcement or in
the national security arena—to go on, and we’re losing information because of it.”
The State Department, National Security Agency and DARPA are among the agencies
that have devoted resources to developing encryption tools. A spokesman for the State
Department said its “Internet freedom” effort has a budget of about $25 million, with anunspecified portion going toward developing secure communication tools.
DARPA spent several years constructing the Safer Warfighter Communications system tohelp U.S. troops communicate overseas in ways that couldn’t be intercepted. An NSA
team works on “information assurance” to protect U.S. secrets from spies or adversaries.
These programs are highly secretive and aren’t available for public use.
The Open Technology Fund set up by Ms. Liu of Radio Free Asia is the only governmentfunded effort that provides details of its projects.
Despite its relatively small budget, a combined $21 million in the past two years, thegroup estimates that a billion people have used technologies it helped create, many ofthem for encrypted communications.
“While any technology can be misused by bad actors, we focus on protecting some of theworld’s most vulnerable and repressed,” Ms. Liu said. “The program is committed toCongress’s goal of making the Internet open, safe and accessible around the world.”

FBI push
While government agencies work to develop encryption, the FBI pushes equally hard fortechnology companies to retain ways to retrieve encrypted messages if presented with acourt order. The FBI this month asked Congress for $69 million to “counter the threat ofGoing Dark”—being unable to access data because of encryption and other techniques.
The bureau currently devotes 39 people and $31 million to this effort.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456... 2/23/2016

How the U.S. Fights Encryption—and Also Helps Develop It - WSJ
Page 7 of 7
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-11 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:183
Encryption “affects cops and prosecutors and sheriffs and detectives trying to makemurder cases, car-accident cases, kidnapping cases, drug cases,” the FBI’s James Comey
said at the hearing with Mr. Clapper. “It has an impact on our national-security work, but
overwhelmingly this is a problem that law enforcement sees.”
Perhaps no program financed by the Open Technology Fund exhibits the government’s
push-and-pull more than Cryptocat, which permits secure communications and filesharing between individuals and groups.
The program was created in 2011 by Nadim Kobeissi, a Lebanese activist and code-writer
who was living in Canada at the time. It became popular among Middle Eastern activists
during that year’s Arab Spring rebellions, according to Mr. Kobeissi, who said OpenTechnology Fund officials advanced him funding so they could help him strengthen it.
Mr. Kobeissi, now 25 years old, said he was virtually broke at the time, and the $93,000
the fund offered him in 2012 was enough to support his efforts for two years.
Federal agencies have approached Mr. Kobeissi three times, he said, asking for his help
in cracking messages. He said the exchanges have been polite, but he has always said no.
On Friday, Mr. Kobeissi announced he was taking Cryptocat offline until he could make anumber of changes to it. He also plans to discontinue its use on smartphones andprogram it so it can only be used on desktop computers. He said the current debate about
encryption had nothing to do with his decision. Rather, he cited his workload as a
graduate student and the fact that he likes programming for desktops more than formobile devices. Still, the change would terminate access to a smartphone tool that has
been used throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.
“The thing with bad people using encryption had absolutely nothing at all to do with mydecision,” he wrote to the Wall Street Journal. “This is purely a major engineering shift in
the project. There’s nothing political behind it at all. And the thing is, even if Cryptocat
ceased to exist, that wouldn’t do anything to stop anyone from using encryption. There’s
still a sea of encrypted services out there. It would’ve been a pretty pointless move on mybehalf.”Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com

Copyright 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For
non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-s-fights-encryptionand-also-helps-develop-it-1456... 2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:184

Exhibit K

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 61 Page ID #:185

iOS Security
iOS 9.0 or later
September 2015

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 61 Page ID #:186

Contents
Page 4Introduction

Page 5

System Security
Secure boot chain
System Software Authorization
Secure Enclave
Touch ID

Page 10

Encryption and Data Protection
Hardware security features
File Data Protection
Passcodes
Data Protection classes
Keychain Data Protection
Access to Safari saved passwords
Keybags
Security Certifications and programs

Page 18

App Security
App code signing
Runtime process security
Extensions
App Groups
Data Protection in apps
Accessories
HomeKitHealthKit
Apple Watch

Page 27

Network Security
TLS
VPN
Wi-Fi
BluetoothSingle Sign-on
AirDrop security

Page 31

Apple Pay
Apple Pay components
How Apple Pay uses the Secure Element
How Apple Pay uses the NFC controller
Credit and debit card provisioning
Payment authorization
Transaction-specific dynamic security code
Contactless payments with Apple Pay
Paying with Apple Pay within apps
Rewards cards
Suspending, removing, and erasing cards

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20152

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 61 Page ID #:187

Page 38

Internet Services
Apple ID
iMessage
FaceTime
iCloudiCloud Keychain
SiriContinuity
Spotlight Suggestions

Page 50

Device Controls
Passcode protection
iOS pairing model
Configuration enforcement
Mobile device management (MDM)
Device Enrollment ProgramApple Configurator
Device restrictions
Supervised-only restrictions
Remote wipe
Find My iPhone and Activation Lock

Page 56

Privacy Controls
Location Services
Access to personal data
Privacy policy

Page 57

Conclusion
A commitment to security

Page 58

Glossary

Page 60

Document Revision History

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20153

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 61 Page ID #:188

Introduction
Apple designed the iOS platform with security at its core. When we set out to create
the best possible mobile platform, we drew from decades of experience to build anentirely new architecture. We thought about the security hazards of the desktop
environment, and established a new approach to security in the design of iOS. We
developed and incorporated innovative features that tighten mobile security andprotect the entire system by default. As a result, iOS is a major leap forward in security
for mobile devices.

Data ProtectionClass

App Sandbox

SoftwareEvery iOS device combines software, hardware, and services designed to work
together for maximum security and a transparent user experience. iOS protects not
only the device and its data at rest, but the entire ecosystem, including everythingusers do locally, on networks, and with key Internet services.

User Partition(Encrypted)

iOS and iOS devices provide advanced security features, and yet they’re also easy
to use. Many of these features are enabled by default, so IT departments don’t needto perform extensive configurations. And key security features like device encryption
are not configurable, so users can’t disable them by mistake. Other features, such as
Touch ID, enhance the user experience by making it simpler and more intuitive tosecure the device.

OS Partition
File System

KernelSecureEnclave

SecureElement

Hardware andFirmware
Crypto Engine

This document provides details about how security technology and features are
implemented within the iOS platform. It will also help organizations combine iOS
platform security technology and features with their own policies and procedures
to meet their specific security needs.
This document is organized into the following topic areas:• System security: The integrated and secure software and hardware that are the platform
for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

Device Key
Group KeyApple Root Certiﬁcate

Security architecture diagram of iOS provides
a visual overview of the different technologies
discussed in this document.

• Encryption and data protection: The architecture and design that protects user data if
the device is lost or stolen, or if an unauthorized person attempts to use or modify it.
• App security: The systems that enable apps to run securely and without compromising
platform integrity.
• Network security: Industry-standard networking protocols that provide secureauthentication and encryption of data in transmission.
• Apple Pay: Apple’s implementation of secure payments.
• Internet services: Apple’s network-based infrastructure for messaging, syncing,and backup.
• Device controls: Methods that prevent unauthorized use of the device and enable
it to be remotely wiped if lost or stolen.
• Privacy controls: Capabilities of iOS that can be used to control access to Location
Services and user data.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20154

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 61 Page ID #:189

System Security
Entering Device Firmware Upgrade(DFU) mode
Restoring a device after it enters DFU
mode returns it to a known good statewith the certainty that only unmodified
Apple-signed code is present. DFU modecan be entered manually: First connect
the device to a computer using a USB
cable, then hold down both the Homeand Sleep/Wake buttons. After 8 seconds,
release the Sleep/Wake button while
continuing to hold down the Home
button. Note: Nothing will be displayedon the screen when the device is in
DFU mode. If the Apple logo appears,
the Sleep/Wake button was held down
too long.

System security is designed so that both software and hardware are secure acrossall core components of every iOS device. This includes the boot-up process, software
updates, and Secure Enclave. This architecture is central to security in iOS, and nevergets in the way of device usability.
The tight integration of hardware and software on iOS devices ensures that eachcomponent of the system is trusted, and validates the system as a whole. From initialboot-up to iOS software updates to third-party apps, each step is analyzed and vetted
to help ensure that the hardware and software are performing optimally together andusing resources properly.

Secure boot chain
Each step of the startup process contains components that are cryptographicallysigned by Apple to ensure integrity and that proceed only after verifying the chain oftrust. This includes the bootloaders, kernel, kernel extensions, and baseband firmware.
When an iOS device is turned on, its application processor immediately executes codefrom read-only memory known as the Boot ROM. This immutable code, known as the
hardware root of trust, is laid down during chip fabrication, and is implicitly trusted.
The Boot ROM code contains the Apple Root CA public key, which is used to verify that
the Low-Level Bootloader (LLB) is signed by Apple before allowing it to load. This is
the first step in the chain of trust where each step ensures that the next is signed byApple. When the LLB finishes its tasks, it verifies and runs the next-stage bootloader,iBoot, which in turn verifies and runs the iOS kernel.
This secure boot chain helps ensure that the lowest levels of software are not tamperedwith and allows iOS to run only on validated Apple devices.
For devices with cellular access, the baseband subsystem also utilizes its own similar
process of secure booting with signed software and keys verified by the baseband
processor.
For devices with an A7 or later A-series processor, the Secure Enclave coprocessor alsoutilizes a secure boot process that ensures its separate software is verified and signed
by Apple.
If one step of this boot process is unable to load or verify the next process, startup is
stopped and the device displays the “Connect to iTunes” screen. This is called recovery
mode. If the Boot ROM is not able to load or verify LLB, it enters DFU (Device Firmware
Upgrade) mode. In both cases, the device must be connected to iTunes via USB andrestored to factory default settings. For more information on manually entering
recovery mode, see https://support.apple.com/kb/HT1808.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20155

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 61 Page ID #:190

System Software Authorization
Apple regularly releases software updates to address emerging security concerns andalso provide new features; these updates are provided for all supported devices simultaneously. Users receive iOS update notifications on the device and through iTunes, andupdates are delivered wirelessly, encouraging rapid adoption of the latest security fixes.
The startup process described above helps ensure that only Apple-signed code can beinstalled on a device. To prevent devices from being downgraded to older versions thatlack the latest security updates, iOS uses a process called System Software Authorization.
If downgrades were possible, an attacker who gains possession of a device could install
an older version of iOS and exploit a vulnerability that’s been fixed in the newer version.
On a device with an A7 or later A-series processor, the Secure Enclave coprocessor
also utilizes System Software Authorization to ensure the integrity of its software andprevent downgrade installations. See “Secure Enclave,” below.
iOS software updates can be installed using iTunes or over the air (OTA) on the device.
With iTunes, a full copy of iOS is downloaded and installed. OTA software updates
download only the components required to complete an update, improving network
efficiency, rather than downloading the entire OS. Additionally, software updates can becached on a local network server running the caching service on OS X Server so thatiOS devices do not need to access Apple servers to obtain the necessary update data.
During an iOS upgrade, iTunes (or the device itself, in the case of OTA software
updates) connects to the Apple installation authorization server and sends it a list of
cryptographic measurements for each part of the installation bundle to be installed(for example, LLB, iBoot, the kernel, and OS image), a random anti-replay value (nonce),
and the device’s unique ID (ECID).
The authorization server checks the presented list of measurements against versions forwhich installation is permitted and, if it finds a match, adds the ECID to the measurement
and signs the result. The server passes a complete set of signed data to the device aspart of the upgrade process. Adding the ECID “personalizes” the authorization for therequesting device. By authorizing and signing only for known measurements, the server
ensures that the update takes place exactly as provided by Apple.
The boot-time chain-of-trust evaluation verifies that the signature comes from Appleand that the measurement of the item loaded from disk, combined with the device’s
ECID, matches what was covered by the signature.
These steps ensure that the authorization is for a specific device and that an old iOS
version from one device can’t be copied to another. The nonce prevents an attacker
from saving the server’s response and using it to tamper with a device or otherwise
alter the system software.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20156

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 61 Page ID #:191

Secure Enclave
The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor fabricated in the Apple A7 or later A-series
processor. It utilizes its own secure boot and personalized software update separate
from the application processor. It provides all cryptographic operations for Data
Protection key management and maintains the integrity of Data Protection even
if the kernel has been compromised.
The Secure Enclave uses encrypted memory and includes a hardware random
number generator. Its microkernel is based on the L4 family, with modifications byApple. Communication between the Secure Enclave and the application processor
is isolated to an interrupt-driven mailbox and shared memory data buffers.
Each Secure Enclave is provisioned during fabrication with its own UID (Unique ID)
that is not accessible to other parts of the system and is not known to Apple. Whenthe device starts up, an ephemeral key is created, entangled with its UID, and used
to encrypt the Secure Enclave’s portion of the device’s memory space.
Additionally, data that is saved to the file system by the Secure Enclave is encryptedwith a key entangled with the UID and an anti-replay counter.
The Secure Enclave is responsible for processing fingerprint data from the Touch
ID sensor, determining if there is a match against registered fingerprints, and thenenabling access or purchases on behalf of the user. Communication between theprocessor and the Touch ID sensor takes place over a serial peripheral interface
bus. The processor forwards the data to the Secure Enclave but cannot read it. It’s
encrypted and authenticated with a session key that is negotiated using the device’s
shared key that is provisioned for the Touch ID sensor and the Secure Enclave. The
session key exchange uses AES key wrapping with both sides providing a random
key that establishes the session key and uses AES-CCM transport encryption.

Touch ID
Touch ID is the fingerprint sensing system that makes secure access to the device
faster and easier. This technology reads fingerprint data from any angle and learns
more about a user’s fingerprint over time, with the sensor continuing to expand thefingerprint map as additional overlapping nodes are identified with each use.
Touch ID makes using a longer, more complex passcode far more practical because
users won’t have to enter it as frequently. Touch ID also overcomes the inconvenienceof a passcode-based lock, not by replacing it but by securely providing access to thedevice within thoughtful boundaries and time constraints.

Touch ID and passcodes

To use Touch ID, users must set up their device so that a passcode is required to unlock
it. When Touch ID scans and recognizes an enrolled fingerprint, the device unlocks
without asking for the device passcode. The passcode can always be used instead of
Touch ID, and it’s still required under the following circumstances:• The device has just been turned on or restarted.
• The device has not been unlocked for more than 48 hours.
• The device has received a remote lock command.
• After five unsuccessful attempts to match a fingerprint.
• When setting up or enrolling new fingers with Touch ID.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20157

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 61 Page ID #:192

When Touch ID is enabled, the device immediately locks when the Sleep/Wakebutton is pressed. With passcode-only security, many users set an unlocking grace
period to avoid having to enter a passcode each time the device is used. With Touch
ID, the device locks every time it goes to sleep, and requires a fingerprint—or
optionally the passcode—at every wake.
Touch ID can be trained to recognize up to five different fingers. With one finger
enrolled, the chance of a random match with someone else is 1 in 50,000. However,Touch ID allows only five unsuccessful fingerprint match attempts before the user
is required to enter a passcode to obtain access.

Other uses for Touch ID

Touch ID can also be configured to approve purchases from the iTunes Store, theApp Store, and the iBooks Store, so users don’t have to enter an Apple ID password.
When they choose to authorize a purchase, authentication tokens are exchanged
between the device and the store. The token and cryptographic nonce are held in the
Secure Enclave. The nonce is signed with a Secure Enclave key shared by all devices
and the iTunes Store.
Touch ID can also be used with Apple Pay, Apple’s implementation of secure payments.
For more information, see the Apple Pay section of this document.
Additionally, third-party apps can use system-provided APIs to ask the user toauthenticate using Touch ID or a passcode. The app is only notified as to whether
the authentication was successful; it cannot access Touch ID or the data associatedwith the enrolled fingerprint.
Keychain items can also be protected with Touch ID, to be released by the Secured
Enclave only by a fingerprint match or the device passcode. App developers also
have APIs to verify that a passcode has been set by the user and therefore able toauthenticate or unlock keychain items using Touch ID.
With iOS 9, developers can require that Touch ID API operations don’t fall back to
an application password or the device passcode. Along with the ability to retrieve a
representation of the state of enrolled fingers, this allows Touch ID to be used as asecond factor in security sensitive apps.

Touch ID security

The fingerprint sensor is active only when the capacitive steel ring that surrounds theHome button detects the touch of a finger, which triggers the advanced imaging arrayto scan the finger and send the scan to the Secure Enclave.
The raster scan is temporarily stored in encrypted memory within the Secure Enclave
while being vectorized for analysis, and then it’s discarded. The analysis utilizes subdermal ridge flow angle mapping, which is a lossy process that discards minutia datathat would be required to reconstruct the user’s actual fingerprint. The resulting mapof nodes is stored without any identity information in an encrypted format that can
only be read by the Secure Enclave, and is never sent to Apple or backed up to iCloudor iTunes.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20158

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 61 Page ID #:193

How Touch ID unlocks an iOS device

If Touch ID is turned off, when a device locks, the keys for Data Protection class
Complete, which are held in the Secure Enclave, are discarded. The files and keychain
items in that class are inaccessible until the user unlocks the device by entering his
or her passcode.
With Touch ID turned on, the keys are not discarded when the device locks; instead,they’re wrapped with a key that is given to the Touch ID subsystem inside the Secure
Enclave. When a user attempts to unlock the device, if Touch ID recognizes the user’s
fingerprint, it provides the key for unwrapping the Data Protection keys, and thedevice is unlocked. This process provides additional protection by requiring theData Protection and Touch ID subsystems to cooperate in order to unlock the device.
The keys needed for Touch ID to unlock the device are lost if the device reboots
and are discarded by the Secure Enclave after 48 hours or five failed Touch ID
recognition attempts.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 20159

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 61 Page ID #:194

Encryption and Data Protection
The secure boot chain, code signing, and runtime process security all help to ensurethat only trusted code and apps can run on a device. iOS has additional encryption
and data protection features to safeguard user data, even in cases where other partsof the security infrastructure have been compromised (for example, on a device withunauthorized modifications). This provides important benefits for both users andIT administrators, protecting personal and corporate information at all times andproviding methods for instant and complete remote wipe in the case of device
theft or loss.

Hardware security features
On mobile devices, speed and power efficiency are critical. Cryptographic operations
are complex and can introduce performance or battery life problems if not designed
and implemented with these priorities in mind.
Every iOS device has a dedicated AES 256 crypto engine built into the DMA path
between the flash storage and main system memory, making file encryption highly
efficient.
The device’s unique ID (UID) and a device group ID (GID) are AES 256-bit keys fused(UID) or compiled (GID) into the application processor and Secure Enclave during
manufacturing. No software or firmware can read them directly; they can see only the
results of encryption or decryption operations performed by dedicated AES engines
implemented in silicon using the UID or GID as a key. Additionally, the Secure Enclave’s
UID and GID can only be used by the AES engine dedicated to the Secure Enclave. The
UIDs are unique to each device and are not recorded by Apple or any of its suppliers.
The GIDs are common to all processors in a class of devices (for example, all devices
using the Apple A8 processor), and are used for non security-critical tasks such as when
delivering system software during installation and restore. Integrating these keys into
the silicon helps prevent them from being tampered with or bypassed, or accessed
outside the AES engine. The UIDs and GIDs are also not available via JTAG or otherdebugging interfaces.

Erase all content and settings
The “Erase all content and settings”
option in Settings obliterates all the keys
in Effaceable Storage, rendering all user
data on the device cryptographically inaccessible. Therefore, it’s an ideal way to be
sure all personal information is removed
from a device before giving it to somebody
else or returning it for service. Important:
Do not use the “Erase all content andsettings” option until the device has beenbacked up, as there is no way to recover
the erased data.

The UID allows data to be cryptographically tied to a particular device. For example,
the key hierarchy protecting the file system includes the UID, so if the memory chips
are physically moved from one device to another, the files are inaccessible. The UID is
not related to any other identifier on the device.
Apart from the UID and GID, all other cryptographic keys are created by the system’s
random number generator (RNG) using an algorithm based on CTR_DRBG. System
entropy is generated from timing variations during boot, and additionally frominterrupt timing once the device has booted. Keys generated inside the Secure Enclave
use its true hardware random number generator based on multiple ring oscillators postprocessed with CTR_DRBG.
Securely erasing saved keys is just as important as generating them. It’s especiallychallenging to do so on flash storage, where wear-leveling might mean multiple copiesof data need to be erased. To address this issue, iOS devices include a feature dedicatedto secure data erasure called Effaceable Storage. This feature accesses the underlying
storage technology (for example, NAND) to directly address and erase a small numberof blocks at a very low level.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201510

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 61 Page ID #:195

File Data Protection
In addition to the hardware encryption features built into iOS devices, Apple uses atechnology called Data Protection to further protect data stored in flash memory on
the device. Data Protection allows the device to respond to common events such as
incoming phone calls, but also enables a high level of encryption for user data. Key
system apps, such as Messages, Mail, Calendar, Contacts, Photos, and Health data values
use Data Protection by default, and third-party apps installed on iOS 7 or later receive
this protection automatically.
Data Protection is implemented by constructing and managing a hierarchy of keys,
and builds on the hardware encryption technologies built into each iOS device. Data
Protection is controlled on a per-file basis by assigning each file to a class; accessibility
is determined by whether the class keys have been unlocked.

Architecture overview

Every time a file on the data partition is created, Data Protection creates a new 256-bit
key (the “per-file” key) and gives it to the hardware AES engine, which uses the key toencrypt the file as it is written to flash memory using AES CBC mode. (On devices with
an A8 processor, AES-XTS is used.) The initialization vector (IV) is calculated with theblock offset into the file, encrypted with the SHA-1 hash of the per-file key.
The per-file key is wrapped with one of several class keys, depending on thecircumstances under which the file should be accessible. Like all other wrappings, thisis performed using NIST AES key wrapping, per RFC 3394. The wrapped per-file key isstored in the file’s metadata.
When a file is opened, its metadata is decrypted with the file system key, revealing
the wrapped per-file key and a notation on which class protects it. The per-file key
is unwrapped with the class key, then supplied to the hardware AES engine, which
decrypts the file as it is read from flash memory. All wrapped file key handling occurs
in the Secure Enclave; the file key is never directly exposed to the application processor.
At boot, the Secure Enclave negotiates an ephemeral key with the AES engine. When
the Secure Enclave unwraps a file’s keys, they are rewrapped with the ephemeral key
and sent back to the application processor.
The metadata of all files in the file system is encrypted with a random key, whichis created when iOS is first installed or when the device is wiped by a user. The filesystem key is stored in Effaceable Storage. Since it’s stored on the device, this key is
not used to maintain the confidentiality of data; instead, it’s designed to be quickly
erased on demand (by the user, with the “Erase all content and settings” option, orby a user or administrator issuing a remote wipe command from a mobile device
management (MDM) server, Exchange ActiveSync, or iCloud). Erasing the key in thismanner renders all files cryptographically inaccessible.
File System Key
Hardware KeyClass Key

File Metadata
File Key

File Contents

Passcode Key

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201511

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 61 Page ID #:196

The content of a file is encrypted with a per-file key, which is wrapped with a class key
and stored in a file’s metadata, which is in turn encrypted with the file system key. The
class key is protected with the hardware UID and, for some classes, the user’s passcode.
This hierarchy provides both flexibility and performance. For example, changing a file’s
class only requires rewrapping its per-file key, and a change of passcode just rewraps
the class key.

Passcode considerations
If a long password that contains only
numbers is entered, a numeric keypad
is displayed at the Lock screen insteadof the full keyboard. A longer numericpasscode may be easier to enter than ashorter alphanumeric passcode, whileproviding similar security.

Passcodes
By setting up a device passcode, the user automatically enables Data Protection.
iOS supports six-digit, four-digit, and arbitrary-length alphanumeric passcodes. In
addition to unlocking the device, a passcode provides entropy for certain encryption
keys. This means an attacker in possession of a device can’t get access to data in
specific protection classes without the passcode.
The passcode is entangled with the device’s UID, so brute-force attempts must be
performed on the device under attack. A large iteration count is used to make eachattempt slower. The iteration count is calibrated so that one attempt takes approximately
80 milliseconds. This means it would take more than 5½ years to try all combinationsof a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers.
The stronger the user passcode is, the stronger the encryption key becomes. Touch ID
can be used to enhance this equation by enabling the user to establish a much stronger
passcode than would otherwise be practical. This increases the effective amount ofentropy protecting the encryption keys used for Data Protection, without adversely
affecting the user experience of unlocking an iOS device multiple times throughout
the day.

Delays between passcode attempts
Attempts
Delay Enforced
1-4		
none
5		
1 minute
6		
5 minutes
7-8		
15 minutes
9		
1 hourTo further discourage brute-force passcode attacks, there are escalating time delays after
the entry of an invalid passcode at the Lock screen. If Settings > Touch ID & Passcode >Erase Data is turned on, the device will automatically wipe after 10 consecutive incorrect
attempts to enter the passcode. This setting is also available as an administrative policy
through mobile device management (MDM) and Exchange ActiveSync, and can be set
to a lower threshold.
On devices with an A7 or later A-series processor, the delays are enforced by the
Secure Enclave. If the device is restarted during a timed delay, the delay is still
enforced, with the timer starting over for the current period.

Data Protection classes
When a new file is created on an iOS device, it’s assigned a class by the app thatcreates it. Each class uses different policies to determine when the data is accessible.
The basic classes and policies are described in the following sections.

Complete Protection(NSFileProtectionComplete): The class key is protected with a key derived
from the user passcode and the device UID. Shortly after the user locks a device(10 seconds, if the Require Password setting is Immediately), the decrypted class key
is discarded, rendering all data in this class inaccessible until the user enters thepasscode again or unlocks the device using Touch ID.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201512

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 14 of 61 Page ID #:197

Protected Unless Open(NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen): Some files may need to be
written while the device is locked. A good example of this is a mail attachment downloading in the background. This behavior is achieved by using asymmetric elliptic curve
cryptography (ECDH over Curve25519). The usual per-file key is protected by a key
derived using One-Pass Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement as described in NIST SP 800-56A.
The ephemeral public key for the agreement is stored alongside the wrapped per-file
key. The KDF is Concatenation Key Derivation Function (Approved Alternative 1)
as described in 5.8.1 of NIST SP 800-56A. AlgorithmID is omitted. PartyUInfo andPartyVInfo are the ephemeral and static public keys, respectively. SHA-256 is used as
the hashing function. As soon as the file is closed, the per-file key is wiped frommemory. To open the file again, the shared secret is re-created using the Protected
Unless Open class’s private key and the file’s ephemeral public key; its hash is used
to unwrap the per-file key, which is then used to decrypt the file.

Protected Until First User Authentication(NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthentication): This
class behaves in the same way as Complete Protection, except that the decrypted class
key is not removed from memory when the device is locked. The protection in thisclass has similar properties to desktop full-volume encryption, and protects data fromattacks that involve a reboot. This is the default class for all third-party app data nototherwise assigned to a Data Protection class.

No Protection(NSFileProtectionNone): This class key is protected only with the UID, and is
kept in Effaceable Storage. Since all the keys needed to decrypt files in this class are
stored on the device, the encryption only affords the benefit of fast remote wipe. If a
file is not assigned a Data Protection class, it is still stored in encrypted form (as is alldata on an iOS device).

Keychain Data Protection
Many apps need to handle passwords and other short but sensitive bits of data, suchas keys and login tokens. The iOS keychain provides a secure way to store these items.
The keychain is implemented as a SQLite database stored on the file system. Thereis only one database; the securityd daemon determines which keychain items eachprocess or app can access. Keychain access APIs result in calls to the daemon, which
queries the app’s “keychain-access-groups,” “application-identifier,” and “applicationgroup” entitlements. Rather than limiting access to a single process, access groups
allow keychain items to be shared between apps.
Keychain items can only be shared between apps from the same developer. This is
managed by requiring third-party apps to use access groups with a prefix allocatedto them through the iOS Developer Program via application groups. The prefix
requirement and application group uniqueness are enforced through code signing,
Provisioning Profiles, and the iOS Developer Program.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201513

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 15 of 61 Page ID #:198

Components of a keychain item
Along with the access group, each keychain
item contains administrative metadata (suchas “created” and “last updated” timestamps).
It also contains SHA-1 hashes of the attributes
used to query for the item (such as theaccount and server name) to allow lookup
without decrypting each item. And finally,
it contains the encryption data, which
includes the following:• Version number• Access control list (ACL) data
• Value indicating which protection
class the item is in• Per-item key wrapped with theprotection class key• Dictionary of attributes describing
the item (as passed to SecItemAdd),
encoded as a binary plist and encryptedwith the per-item key
The encryption is AES 128 in GCM (Galois/
Counter Mode); the access group is includedin the attributes and protected by the GMAC
tag calculated during encryption.

Keychain data is protected using a class structure similar to the one used in file Data
Protection. These classes have behaviors equivalent to file Data Protection classes, but
use distinct keys and are part of APIs that are named differently.
Availability

File Data Protection

Keychain Data Protection

When unlocked

NSFileProtectionCompletekSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked

While locked

NSFileProtectionCompleteUnlessOpen

N/A

After first unlock

NSFileProtectionCompleteUntilFirstUserAuthenticationkSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock

Always

NSFileProtectionNone

kSecAttrAccessibleAlways

Passcode
enabledN/AkSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly

Apps that utilize background refresh services can use
kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock for keychain items that need to beaccessed during background updates.
The class kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly
behaves the same as kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked, however it is only available
when the device is configured with a passcode. This class exists only in the system keybag; they do not sync to iCloud Keychain, are not backed up, and are not included in
escrow keybags. If the passcode is removed or reset, the items are rendered uselessby discarding the class keys.
Other keychain classes have a “This device only” counterpart, which is always protectedwith the UID when being copied from the device during a backup, rendering it uselessif restored to a different device.
Apple has carefully balanced security and usability by choosing keychain classes that
depend on the type of information being secured and when it’s needed by iOS. For
example, a VPN certificate must always be available so the device keeps a continuous connection, but it’s classified as “non-migratory,” so it can’t be moved to anotherdevice.
For keychain items created by iOS, the following class protections are enforced:
Item

Accessible

Wi-Fi passwords

After first unlock

Mail accounts

After first unlock

Exchange accounts

After first unlock

VPN passwords

After first unlock

LDAP, CalDAV, CardDAV

After first unlock

Social network account tokens

After first unlock

Handoff advertisement encryption keys

After first unlock

iCloud token

After first unlock

Home sharing password

When unlocked

Find My iPhone token

Always

VoicemailAlwaysiTunes backup

When unlocked, non-migratory

Safari passwords

When unlocked

Safari bookmarks

When unlocked

VPN certificates

Always, non-migratory

Bluetooth® keys

Always, non-migratory

Apple Push Notification service token

Always, non-migratory

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201514

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 16 of 61 Page ID #:199

iCloud certificates and private key

Always, non-migratory

iMessage keys

Always, non-migratory

Certificates and private keys installed by Configuration Profile

Always, non-migratory

SIM PIN

Always, non-migratory

Keychain access control

Keychains can use access control lists (ACLs) to set policies for accessibility andauthentication requirements. Items can establish conditions that require user presenceby specifying that they can’t be accessed unless authenticated using Touch ID or byentering the device’s passcode. ACLs are evaluated inside the Secure Enclave and arereleased to the kernel only if their specified constraints are met.

Access to Safari saved passwords
iOS apps can interact with keychain items saved by Safari for password autofill using
the following two APIs:• SecRequestSharedWebCredential• SecAddSharedWebCredential
Access will be granted only if both the app developer and website administrator havegiven their approval, and the user has given consent. App developers express theirintent to access Safari saved passwords by including an entitlement in their app. The
entitlement lists the fully qualified domain names of associated websites. The websites
must place a file on their server listing the unique app identifiers of apps they’ve
approved. When an app with the com.apple.developer.associated-domains entitlement
is installed, iOS makes a TLS request to each listed website, requesting the file/appleapp-site-association. If the file lists the app identifier of the app being installed, theniOS marks the website and app as having a trusted relationship. Only with a trusted
relationship will calls to these two APIs result in a prompt to the user, who must agree
before any passwords are released to the app, or are updated or deleted.

Keybags
The keys for both file and keychain Data Protection classes are collected and managed
in keybags. iOS uses the following four keybags: system, backup, escrow, and iCloud
Backup.
System keybag is where the wrapped class keys used in normal operationof the device are stored. For example, when a passcode is entered, the
NSFileProtectionComplete key is loaded from the system keybag andunwrapped. It is a binary plist stored in the No Protection class, but whose contents
are encrypted with a key held in Effaceable Storage. In order to give forward security to
keybags, this key is wiped and regenerated each time a user changes their passcode.
The AppleKeyStore kernel extension manages the system keybag, and can be queried
regarding a device’s lock state. It reports that the device is unlocked only if all the classkeys in the system keybag are accessible, and have been unwrapped successfully.
Backup keybag is created when an encrypted backup is made by iTunes and stored on
the computer to which the device is backed up. A new keybag is created with a new setof keys, and the backed-up data is re-encrypted to these new keys. As explained earlier,non-migratory keychain items remain wrapped with the UID-derived key, allowing them
to be restored to the device they were originally backed up from, but rendering theminaccessible on a different device.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201515

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 17 of 61 Page ID #:200

The keybag is protected with the password set in iTunes, run through 10,000 iterationsof PBKDF2. Despite this large iteration count, there’s no tie to a specific device, andtherefore a brute-force attack parallelized across many computers could theoreticallybe attempted on the backup keybag. This threat can be mitigated with a sufficiently
strong password.
If a user chooses not to encrypt an iTunes backup, the backup files are not encrypted
regardless of their Data Protection class, but the keychain remains protected with a
UID-derived key. This is why keychain items migrate to a new device only if a backup
password is set.
Escrow keybag is used for iTunes syncing and MDM. This keybag allows iTunes to backup and sync without requiring the user to enter a passcode, and it allows an MDM
server to remotely clear a user’s passcode. It is stored on the computer that’s used tosync with iTunes, or on the MDM server that manages the device.
The escrow keybag improves the user experience during device synchronization,
which potentially requires access to all classes of data. When a passcode-locked device
is first connected to iTunes, the user is prompted to enter a passcode. The device
then creates an escrow keybag containing the same class keys used on the device,protected by a newly generated key. The escrow keybag and the key protecting it are
split between the device and the host or server, with the data stored on the device in
the Protected Until First User Authentication class. This is why the device passcodemust be entered before the user backs up with iTunes for the first time after a reboot.
In the case of an OTA software update, the user is prompted for his or her passcodewhen initiating the update. This is used to securely create a One-time Unlock Token,
which unlocks the system keybag after the update. This token cannot be generated
without entering the user’s passcode, and any previously generated token is invalidated
if the user’s passcode changed.
One-time Unlock Tokens are either for attended or unattended installation of a software
update. They are encrypted with a key derived from the current value of a monotonic
counter in the Secure Enclave, the UUID of the keybag, and the Secure Enclave’s UID.
Incrementing the One-time Unlock Token counter in the SEP invalidates any existing
token. The counter is incremented when a token is used, after the first unlock of arestarted device, when a software update is canceled (by the user or by the system),or when the policy timer for a token has expired.
The One-time Unlock Token for attended software updates expires after 20 minutes.
This token is exported from the Secure Enclave and is written to effaceable storage. A
policy timer increments the counter if the device has not rebooted within 20 minutes.
For unattended software updates, which is set when the user chooses “Install Later”
when notified of the update, the application processor can keep the One-time Unlock
Token alive in the Secure Enclave for up to 8 hours. After that time, a policy timer
increments the counter.
iCloud Backup keybag is similar to the backup keybag. All the class keys in this keybag
are asymmetric (using Curve25519, like the Protected Unless Open Data Protection class),
so iCloud backups can be performed in the background. For all Data Protection classes
except No Protection, the encrypted data is read from the device and sent to iCloud.
The corresponding class keys are protected by iCloud keys. The keychain class keys arewrapped with a UID-derived key in the same way as an unencrypted iTunes backup.
An asymmetric keybag is also used for the backup in the keychain recovery aspect ofiCloud Keychain.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201516

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 18 of 61 Page ID #:201

Security Certifications and programs
Cryptographic Validation (FIPS 140-2)

The cryptographic modules in iOS have been validated for compliance with U.S. Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 140-2 Level 1 following each releases since
iOS 6. The cryptographic modules in iOS 9 are identical to those in iOS 8, but as witheach release, Apple submits the modules for re-validation. This program validates theintegrity of cryptographic operations for Apple apps and third-party apps that properly
utilize iOS cryptographic services.

Common Criteria Certification (ISO 15408)

Apple has already begun pursuit of iOS certification under the Common Criteria
Certification (CCC) program. The first two certifications currently active are against the
Mobile Device Fundamental Protection Profile v2.0 (MDFPP2) and the VPN IPSecPP1.4
Client Protection Profile (VPNIPSecPP1.4). Apple has taken an active role within theInternational Technical Community (ITC) in developing currently unavailable Protection
Profiles (PPs) focused on evaluating key mobile security technology. Apple continues
to evaluate and pursue certifications against new and updated version of the PPs
available today.

Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC)

Where applicable, Apple has also submitted the iOS platform and various services forinclusion in the Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) Program Components List.
Specifically, iOS for Mobile Platform and the IKEv2 client for the IPSec VPN Client(IKEv2 Always-On VPN only). As Apple platforms and services undergo Common Criteria
Certifications, they will be submitted for inclusion under CSfC Program Component
List as well.

Security Configuration Guides

Apple has collaborated with governments worldwide to develop guides that give
instructions and recommendations for maintaining a more secure environment, also
known as “device hardening.” These guides provide defined and vetted information
about how to configure and utilize features in iOS for enhanced protection.
For information on iOS security certifications, validations, and guidance, see
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT202739.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201517

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 19 of 61 Page ID #:202

App Security
Apps are among the most critical elements of a modern mobile security architecture.
While apps provide amazing productivity benefits for users, they also have thepotential to negatively impact system security, stability, and user data if they’re nothandled properly.
Because of this, iOS provides layers of protection to ensure that apps are signed andverified, and are sandboxed to protect user data. These elements provide a stable, secure
platform for apps, enabling thousands of developers to deliver hundreds of thousandsof apps on iOS without impacting system integrity. And users can access these apps on
their iOS devices without undue fear of viruses, malware, or unauthorized attacks.

App code signing
Once the iOS kernel has started, it controls which user processes and apps can be run.
To ensure that all apps come from a known and approved source and have not been
tampered with, iOS requires that all executable code be signed using an Apple-issued
certificate. Apps provided with the device, like Mail and Safari, are signed by Apple.
Third-party apps must also be validated and signed using an Apple-issued certificate.
Mandatory code signing extends the concept of chain of trust from the OS to apps,
and prevents third-party apps from loading unsigned code resources or using
self-modifying code.
In order to develop and install apps on iOS devices, developers must register withApple and join the iOS Developer Program. The real-world identity of each developer,
whether an individual or a business, is verified by Apple before their certificate isissued. This certificate enables developers to sign apps and submit them to the App
Store for distribution. As a result, all apps in the App Store have been submitted by an
identifiable person or organization, serving as a deterrent to the creation of malicious
apps. They have also been reviewed by Apple to ensure they operate as describedand don’t contain obvious bugs or other problems. In addition to the technology
already discussed, this curation process gives customers confidence in the quality of
the apps they buy.
iOS allows developers to embed frameworks inside of their apps, which can be used by
the app itself or by extensions embedded within the app. To protect the system andother apps from loading third-party code inside of their address space, the system will
perform a code signature validation of all the dynamic libraries that a process links
against at launch time. This verification is accomplished through the team identifier(Team ID), which is extracted from an Apple-issued certificate. A team identifier is
a 10-character alphanumeric string; for example, 1A2B3C4D5F. A program may link
against any platform library that ships with the system or any library with the sameteam identifier in its code signature as the main executable. Since the executables
shipping as part of the system don’t have a team identifier, they can only link against
libraries that ship with the system itself.

iOS Security—White Paper | October 201418

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 20 of 61 Page ID #:203

Businesses also have the ability to write in-house apps for use within their organizationand distribute them to their employees. Businesses and organizations can apply to theApple Developer Enterprise Program (ADEP) with a D-U-N-S number. Apple approves
applicants after verifying their identity and eligibility. Once an organization becomes a
member of ADEP, it can register to obtain a Provisioning Profile that permits in-houseapps to run on devices it authorizes. Users must have the Provisioning Profile installed
in order to run the in-house apps. This ensures that only the organization’s intended
users are able to load the apps onto their iOS devices. Apps installed via MDM are
implicitly trusted because the relationship between the organization and the device
is already established. Otherwise, users have to approve the app’s Provisioning Profilein Settings. Organizations can restrict users from approving apps from unknown
developers. On first launch of any enterprise app, the device must receive positive
confirmation from Apple that the app is allowed to run.
Unlike other mobile platforms, iOS does not allow users to install potentially malicious
unsigned apps from websites, or run untrusted code. At runtime, code signature checksof all executable memory pages are made as they are loaded to ensure that an app
has not been modified since it was installed or last updated.

Runtime process security
Once an app is verified to be from an approved source, iOS enforces security measuresdesigned to prevent it from compromising other apps or the rest of the system.
All third-party apps are “sandboxed,” so they are restricted from accessing files stored byother apps or from making changes to the device. This prevents apps from gatheringor modifying information stored by other apps. Each app has a unique home directoryfor its files, which is randomly assigned when the app is installed. If a third-party app
needs to access information other than its own, it does so only by using services
explicitly provided by iOS.
System files and resources are also shielded from the user’s apps. The majority of
iOS runs as the non-privileged user “mobile,” as do all third-party apps. The entire
OS partition is mounted as read-only. Unnecessary tools, such as remote login services,aren’t included in the system software, and APIs do not allow apps to escalate theirown privileges to modify other apps or iOS itself.
Access by third-party apps to user information and features such as iCloud andextensibility is controlled using declared entitlements. Entitlements are key value
pairs that are signed in to an app and allow authentication beyond runtime factors
like unix user ID. Since entitlements are digitally signed, they cannot be changed.
Entitlements are used extensively by system apps and daemons to perform specificprivileged operations that would otherwise require the process to run as root. This
greatly reduces the potential for privilege escalation by a compromised systemapplication or daemon.
In addition, apps can only perform background processing through system-provided
APIs. This enables apps to continue to function without degrading performance ordramatically impacting battery life.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201519

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 21 of 61 Page ID #:204

Address space layout randomization (ASLR) protects against the exploitation ofmemory corruption bugs. Built-in apps use ASLR to ensure that all memory regions
are randomized upon launch. Randomly arranging the memory addresses ofexecutable code, system libraries, and related programming constructs reduces
the likelihood of many sophisticated exploits. For example, a return-to-libc attack
attempts to trick a device into executing malicious code by manipulating memory
addresses of the stack and system libraries. Randomizing the placement of thesemakes the attack far more difficult to execute, especially across multiple devices.
Xcode, the iOS development environment, automatically compiles third-party
programs with ASLR support turned on.
Further protection is provided by iOS using ARM’s Execute Never (XN) feature, whichmarks memory pages as non-executable. Memory pages marked as both writableand executable can be used only by apps under tightly controlled conditions: The
kernel checks for the presence of the Apple-only dynamic code-signing entitlement.
Even then, only a single mmap call can be made to request an executable and writablepage, which is given a randomized address. Safari uses this functionality for its
JavaScript JIT compiler.

Extensions
iOS allows apps to provide functionality to other apps by providing extensions.
Extensions are special-purpose signed executable binaries, packaged within an app.
The system automatically detects extensions at install time and makes them available
to other apps using a matching system.
A system area that supports extensions is called an extension point. Each extension
point provides APIs and enforces policies for that area. The system determines which
extensions are available based on extension point–specific matching rules. The system
automatically launches extension processes as needed and manages their lifetime.
Entitlements can be used to restrict extension availability to particular system applications. For example, a Today view widget appears only in Notification Center, and asharing extension is available only from the Sharing pane. The extension points are
Today widgets, Share, Custom actions, Photo Editing, Document Provider, and Custom
Keyboard.
Extensions run in their own address space. Communication between the extension
and the app from which it was activated uses interprocess communications mediatedby the system framework. They do not have access to each other’s files or memory
spaces. Extensions are designed to be isolated from each other, from their containing
apps, and from the apps that use them. They are sandboxed like any other third-party
app and have a container separate from the containing app’s container. However, theyshare the same access to privacy controls as the container app. So if a user grants
Contacts access to an app, this grant will be extended to the extensions that areembedded within the app, but not to the extensions activated by the app.
Custom keyboards are a special type of extensions since they are enabled by the user
for the entire system. Once enabled, the extension will be used for any text field except
the passcode input and any secure text view. For privacy reasons, custom keyboards
run by default in a very restrictive sandbox that blocks access to the network, toservices that perform network operations on behalf of a process, and to APIs thatwould allow the extension to exfiltrate typing data. Developers of custom keyboards
can request that their extension have Open Access, which will let the system run theextension in the default sandbox after getting consent from the user.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201520

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 22 of 61 Page ID #:205

For devices enrolled in mobile device management, document and keyboard
extensions obey Managed Open In rules. For example, the MDM server can prevent auser from exporting a document from a managed app to an unmanaged Document
Provider, or using an unmanaged keyboard with a managed app. Additionally, app
developers can prevent the use of third-party keyboard extensions within their app.

App Groups
Apps and extensions owned by a given developer account can share content
when configured to be part of an App Group. It is up to the developer to create
the appropriate groups on the Apple Developer Portal and include the desired set
of apps and extensions. Once configured to be part of an App Group, apps haveaccess to the following:• A shared on-disk container for storage, which will stay on the device as long as
at least one app from the group is installed• Shared preferences• Shared keychain items
The Apple Developer Portal guarantees that App Group IDs are unique across theapp ecosystem.

Data Protection in apps
The iOS Software Development Kit (SDK) offers a full suite of APIs that make it easy
for third-party and in-house developers to adopt Data Protection and help ensure
the highest level of protection in their apps. Data Protection is available for file anddatabase APIs, including NSFileManager, CoreData, NSData, and SQLite.
The Mail app (including attachments), managed books, Safari bookmarks, app launch
images, and location data are also stored encrypted with keys protected by the user’s
passcode on their device. Calendar (excluding attachments), Contacts, Reminders,Notes, Messages, and Photos implement Protected Until First User Authentication.
User-installed apps that do not opt-in to a specific Data Protection class receive
Protected Until First User Authentication by default.

Accessories
The Made for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad (MFi) licensing program provides vetted
accessory manufacturers access to the iPod Accessories Protocol (iAP) and thenecessary supporting hardware components.
When an MFi accessory communicates with an iOS device using a Lightning connector
or via Bluetooth, the device asks the accessory to prove it has been authorized byApple by responding with an Apple-provided certificate, which is verified by the device.
The device then sends a challenge, which the accessory must answer with a signed
response. This process is entirely handled by a custom integrated circuit that Apple
provides to approved accessory manufacturers and is transparent to the accessory itself.
Accessories can request access to different transport methods and functionality;
for example, access to digital audio streams over the Lightning cable, or location
information provided over Bluetooth. An authentication IC ensures that only
approved devices are granted full access to the device. If an accessory does notprovide authentication, its access is limited to analog audio and a small subset ofserial (UART) audio playback controls.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201521

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 23 of 61 Page ID #:206

AirPlay also utilizes the authentication IC to verify that receivers have been approved
by Apple. AirPlay audio and CarPlay video streams utilize the MFi-SAP (Secure
Association Protocol), which encrypts communication between the accessory anddevice using AES-128 in CTR mode. Ephemeral keys are exchanged using ECDH
key exchange (Curve25519) and signed using the authentication IC’s 1024-bit RSA
key as part of the Station-to-Station (STS) protocol.

HomeKit
HomeKit provides a home automation infrastructure that utilizes iCloud and iOS security
to protect and synchronize private data without exposing it to Apple.

HomeKit identity

HomeKit identity and security are based on Ed25519 public-private key pairs. An Ed25519
key pair is generated on the iOS device for each user for HomeKit, which becomes hisor her HomeKit identity. It is used to authenticate communication between iOS devices,and between iOS devices and accessories.
The keys are stored in Keychain and are included only in encrypted Keychain backups.
The keys are synchronized between devices using iCloud Keychain.

Communication with HomeKit accessories

HomeKit accessories generate their own Ed25519 key pair for use in communicatingwith iOS devices. If the accessory is restored to factory settings, a new key pairis generated.
To establish a relationship between an iOS device and a HomeKit accessory, keys areexchanged using Secure Remote Password (3072-bit) protocol, utilizing an 8-digit codeprovided by the accessory’s manufacturer and entered on the iOS device by the user,
and then encrypted using ChaCha20-Poly1305 AEAD with HKDF-SHA-512-derived keys.
The accessory’s MFi certification is also verified during setup.
When the iOS device and the HomeKit accessory communicate during use, eachauthenticates the other utilizing the keys exchanged in the above process. Eachsession is established using the Station-to-Station protocol and is encrypted with
HKDF-SHA-512 derived keys based on per-session Curve25519 keys. This applies toboth IP-based and Bluetooth Low Energy accessories.

Local data storage

HomeKit stores data about the homes, accessories, scenes, and users on a user’s iOS
device. This stored data is encrypted using keys derived from the user’s HomeKit
identity keys, plus a random nonce. Additionally, HomeKit data is stored using Data
Protection class Protected Until First User Authentication. HomeKit data is only backed
up in encrypted backups, so, for example, unencrypted iTunes backups do not contain
HomeKit data.

Data synchronization between devices and users

HomeKit data can be synchronized between a user’s iOS devices using iCloud andiCloud Keychain. The HomeKit data is encrypted during the synchronization using keys
derived from the user’s HomeKit identity and random nonce. This data is handled as
an opaque blob during synchronization. The most recent blob is stored in iCloud toenable synchronization, but it is not used for any other purposes. Because it is encryptedusing keys that are available only on the user’s iOS devices, its contents are inaccessible
during transmission and iCloud storage.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201522

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 24 of 61 Page ID #:207

HomeKit data is also synchronized between multiple users of the same home. This
process uses authentication and encryption that is the same as that used between an
iOS device and a HomeKit accessory. The authentication is based on Ed25519 publickeys that are exchanged between the devices when a user is added to a home. Aftera new user is added to a home, every further communication is authenticated andencrypted using Station-to-Station protocol and per-session keys.
Only the user who initially created the home in HomeKit can add new users. His or
her device configures the accessories with the public key of the new user so that theaccessory can authenticate and accept commands from the new user. The process forconfiguring Apple TV for use with HomeKit uses the same authentication and encryption
as when adding additional users, but is performed automatically if the user who createdthe home is signed in to iCloud on the Apple TV, and the Apple TV is in the home.
If a user does not have multiple devices, and does not grant additional users access to
his or her home, no HomeKit data is synchronized to iCloud.

Home data and apps

Access to home data by apps is controlled by the user’s Privacy settings. Users are
asked to grant access when apps request home data, similar to Contacts, Photos, andother iOS data sources. If the user approves, apps have access to the names of rooms,
names of accessories, and which room each accessory is in, and other information as
detailed in the HomeKit developer documentation.

Siri

Siri can be used to query and control accessories, and to activate scenes. Minimal
information about the configuration of the home is provided anonymously to Siri, as
described in the Siri section of this paper, to provide names of rooms, accessories, andscenes that are necessary for command recognition.

iCloud remote access for HomeKit accessories

HomeKit accessories can connect directly with iCloud to enable iOS devices to control
the accessory when Bluetooth or Wi-Fi communication isn’t available.
iCloud Remote access has been carefully designed so that accessories can be controlled
and send notifications without revealing to Apple what the accessories are, or whatcommands and notifications are being sent. HomeKit does not send information about
the home over iCloud Remote access.
When a user sends a command using iCloud remote access, the accessory and iOS
device are mutually authenticated and data is encrypted using the same proceduredescribed for local connections. The contents of the communications are encrypted
and not visible to Apple. The addressing through iCloud is based on the iCloud identifiers registered during the setup process.
Accessories that support iCloud remote access are provisioned during the accessory’s
setup process. The provisioning process begins with the user signing in to iCloud. Next,
the iOS device asks the accessory to sign a challenge using the Apple Authentication
Coprocessor that is built into all Built for HomeKit accessories. The accessory also
generates prime256v1 elliptic curve keys, and the public key is sent to the iOS device
along with the signed challenge and the X.509 certificate of the authentication
coprocessor. These are used to request a certificate for the accessory from the iCloud
provisioning server. The certificate is stored by the accessory, but it does not containany identifying information about the accessory, other than it has been granted accessto HomeKit iCloud remote access. The iOS device that is conducting the provisioning alsosends a bag to the accessory, which contains the URLs and other informationneeded to connect to the iCloud remote access server. This information is not specificto any user or accessory.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201523

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 25 of 61 Page ID #:208

Each accessory registers a list of allowed users with the iCloud remote access server.
These users have been granted the ability to control the accessory by the person who
added the accessory to the home. Users are granted an identifier by the iCloud serverand can be mapped to an iCloud account for the purpose of delivering notification
messages and responses from the accessories. Similarly, accessories have iCloud-issued
identifiers, but these identifiers are opaque and don’t reveal any information about theaccessory itself.
When an accessory connects to the HomeKit iCloud remote access server, it presents its
certificate and a pass. The pass is obtained from a different iCloud server and it is notunique for each accessory. When an accessory requests a pass, it includes its manufacturer,
model, and firmware version in its request. No user-identifying or home-identifying
information is sent in this request. The connection to the pass server is not authenticated,in order to help protect privacy.
Accessories connect to the iCloud remote access server using HTTP/2, secured using
TLS 1.2 with AES-128-GCM and SHA-256. The accessory keeps its connection to theiCloud remote access server open so that it can receive incoming messages and send
responses and outgoing notifications to iOS devices.

HealthKit
The HealthKit framework provides a common database that apps can use to store andaccess fitness and health data with permission of the user. HealthKit also works directlywith health and fitness devices, such as compatible Bluetooth LE heart rate monitors
and the motion coprocessor built into many iOS devices.

Health data

HealthKit uses a database to store the user’s health data, such as height, weight,
distance walked, blood pressure, and so on. This database is stored in Data Protection
class Complete Protection, which means it is accessible only after a user enters his or
her passcode or uses Touch ID to unlock the device.
Another database stores operational data, such as access tables for apps, names ofdevices connected to HealthKit, and scheduling information used to launch apps when
new data is available. This database is stored in Data Protection class Protected Until
First User Authentication.
Temporary journal files store health records that are generated when the device islocked, such as when the user is exercising. These are stored in Data Protection classProtected Unless Open. When the device is unlocked, they are imported into theprimary health databases, then deleted when the merge is completed.
Health data is not shared via iCloud or synced between devices. Health databases areincluded in encrypted device backups to iCloud or iTunes. Health data is not included
in unencrypted iTunes backups.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201524

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 26 of 61 Page ID #:209

Data Integrity

Data stored in the database includes metadata to track the provenance of each data
record. This metadata includes an application identifier that identifies which app stored
the record. Additionally, an optional metadata item can contain a digitally signed copyof the record. This is intended to provide data integrity for records generated by atrusted device. The format used for the digital signature is the Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS) specified in IETF RFC 5652.

Access by third-party apps

Access to the HealthKit API is controlled with entitlements, and apps must conformto restrictions about how the data is used. For example, apps are not allowed toutilize health data for advertising. Apps are also required to provide users with a
privacy policy that details its use of health data.
Access to health data by apps is controlled by the user’s Privacy settings. Users are
asked to grant access when apps request access to health data, similar to Contacts,
Photos, and other iOS data sources. However, with health data, apps are granted
separate access for reading and writing data, as well as separate access for each typeof health data. Users can view, and revoke, permissions they’ve granted for accessing
health data in the Sources tab of the Health app.
If granted permission to write data, apps can also read the data they write. If granted
the permission to read data, they can read data written by all sources. However, apps
can’t determine access granted to other apps. In addition, apps can’t conclusively tellif they have been granted read access to health data. When an app does not have readaccess, all queries return no data—the same response as an empty database would
return. This prevents apps from inferring the user’s health status by learning whichtypes of data the user is tracking.

Medical ID

The Health app gives users the option of filling out a Medical ID form with informationthat could be important during a medical emergency. The information is enteredor updated manually and is not synchronized with the information in the healthdatabases.
The Medical ID information is viewed by tapping the Emergency button on the
Lock screen. The information is stored on the device using Data Protection class
No Protection so that it is accessible without having to enter the device passcode.
Medical ID is an optional feature that enables users to decide how to balance both
safety and privacy concerns.

Apple Watch
Apple Watch uses the security features and technology built for iOS to help protect
data on the device, as well as communications with its paired iPhone and the Internet.
This includes technologies such as Data Protection and keychain access control. The
user’s passcode is also entangled with the device UID to create encryption keys.
Pairing Apple Watch with iPhone is secured using an out-of-band (OOB) process to
exchange public keys, followed by the BTLE link shared secret. Apple Watch displays
an animated pattern, which is captured by the camera on iPhone. The pattern contains
an encoded secret that is used for BTLE 4.1 out-of-band pairing. Standard BTLE Passkey
Entry is used as a fallback pairing method, if necessary.
Once the BTLE session is established, Apple Watch and iPhone exchange keys using aprocess adapted from IDS, as described in the iMessage section of this paper. Once keys
have been exchanged, the Bluetooth session key is discarded, and all communications

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201525

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 27 of 61 Page ID #:210

between Apple Watch and iPhone are encrypted using IDS, with the encrypted
BTLE and Wi-Fi links providing a secondary encryption layer. Key rolling is utilized at
15-minute intervals to limit the exposure window, should traffic be compromised.
To support apps that need streaming data, encryption is provided using methods
described in the FaceTime section of this paper, utilizing the IDS service provided by
the paired iPhone.
Apple Watch implements hardware-encrypted storage and class-based protectionof files and keychain items, as described in the Data Protection section of this paper.
Access-controlled keybags for keychain items are also used. Keys used for communication
between the watch and iPhone are also secured using class-based protection.
When Apple Watch is not within Bluetooth range, Wi-Fi can be used instead. Apple
Watch will not join Wi-Fi networks unless the credentials to do so are present on thepaired iPhone, which provides the list of known networks to the watch automatically.
Apple Watch can be manually locked by holding down the side button. Additionally,
motion heuristics are used to attempt to automatically lock the device shortly after
it’s removed from the wrist. When locked, Apple Pay can’t be used. If the automatic
locking provided by wrist detection is turned off in settings, Apple Pay is disabled.
Wrist detection is turned off using the Apple Watch app on iPhone. This setting canalso be enforced using mobile device management.
The paired iPhone can also unlock the watch, provided the watch is being worn. Thisis accomplished by establishing a connection authenticated by the keys establishedduring pairing. iPhone sends the key, which the watch uses to unlock its Data Protection
keys. The watch passcode is not known to iPhone nor is it transmitted. This feature canbe turned off using the Apple Watch app on iPhone.
Apple Watch can be paired with only one iPhone at a time. Pairing with a new iPhone
automatically erases all content and data from Apple Watch.
Enabling Find My Phone on the paired iPhone also enables Activation Lock on Apple
Watch. Activation Lock makes it harder for anyone to use or sell an Apple Watch thathas been lost or stolen. Activation Lock requires the user’s Apple ID and password to
unpair, erase, or reactivate an Apple Watch.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201526

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 28 of 61 Page ID #:211

Network Security
In addition to the built-in safeguards Apple uses to protect data stored on iOS
devices, there are many network security measures that organizations can take tokeep information secure as it travels to and from an iOS device.
Mobile users must be able to access corporate networks from anywhere in theworld, so it’s important to ensure that they are authorized and their data is protectedduring transmission. iOS uses—and provides developer access to—standard
networking protocols for authenticated, authorized, and encrypted communications.
To accomplish these security objectives, iOS integrates proven technologies and thelatest standardsfor both Wi-Fi and cellular data network connections.
On other platforms, firewall software is needed to protect open communication
ports against intrusion. Because iOS achieves a reduced attack surface by limiting
listening ports and removing unnecessary network utilities such as telnet, shells, ora web server, no additional firewall software is needed on iOS devices.

TLS
iOS supports Transport Layer Security (TLS v1.0, TLS v1.1, TLS v1.2) and DTLS. Safari,Calendar, Mail, and other Internet apps automatically use these mechanisms to enable
an encrypted communication channel between the device and network services.
High-level APIs (such as CFNetwork) make it easy for developers to adopt TLS in theirapps, while low-level APIs (SecureTransport) provide fine-grained control. By default,
CFNetwork disallows SSLv3, and apps that use WebKit (such as Safari) are prohibitedfrom making an SSLv3 connection.

App Transport Security

App Transport Security provides default connection requirements so that apps adhere
to best practices for secure connections when using NSURLConnection, CFURL, or
NSURLSession APIs.
Servers must support a minimum of TLS 1.2, forward secrecy, and certificates must be
valid and signed using SHA-256 or better with a minimum of a 2048-bit RSA key or
256-bit elliptic curve key.
Network connections that don’t meet these requirements will fail, unless the app
overrides App Transport Security. Invalid certificates always result in a hard failureand no connection. App Transport Security is automatically applied to apps that arecompiled for iOS 9.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201527

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 29 of 61 Page ID #:212

VPN
Secure network services like virtual private networking typically require minimal setup
and configuration to work with iOS devices. iOS devices work with VPN servers that
support the following protocols and authentication methods:• IKEv2/IPSec with authentication by shared secret, RSA Certificates, ECDSA Certificates,
EAP-MSCHAPv2, or EAP-TLS.
• Pulse Secure, Cisco, Aruba Networks, SonicWALL, Check Point, Palo Alto Networks,
Open VPN, AirWatch, MobileIron, NetMotion Wireless, and F5 Networks SSL-VPN using
the appropriate client app from the App Store.
• Cisco IPSec with user authentication by Password, RSA SecurID or CRYPTOCard, andmachine authentication by shared secret and certificates.
• L2TP/IPSec with user authentication by MS-CHAPV2 Password, RSA SecurID or
CRYPTOCard, and machine authentication by shared secret.
• PPTP with user authentication by MS-CHAPV2 Password and RSA SecurID or
CRYPTOCard is supported, but not recommended.
iOS supports VPN On Demand for networks that use certificate-based authentication.
IT policies specify which domains require a VPN connection by using a configuration
profile.
iOS also supports Per App VPN support, facilitating VPN connections on a much moregranular basis. Mobile device management (MDM) can specify a connection for eachmanaged app and/or specific domains in Safari. This helps ensure that secure data
always goes to and from the corporate network—and that a user’s personal data
does not.
iOS supports Always-on VPN, which can be configured for devices managed via MDM
and supervised using Apple Configurator or the Device Enrollment Program. Thiseliminates the need for users to turn on VPN to enable protection when connecting
to cellular and Wi-Fi networks. Always-on VPN gives an organization full control overdevice traffic by tunneling all IP traffic back to the organization. The default tunnelingprotocol, IKEv2, secures traffic transmission with data encryption. The organization can
now monitor and filter traffic to and from its devices, secure data within its network,and restrict device access to the Internet.

Wi-Fi
iOS supports industry-standard Wi-Fi protocols, including WPA2 Enterprise, to provide
authenticated access to wireless corporate networks. WPA2 Enterprise uses 128-bit AES
encryption, giving users the highest level of assurance that their data remains protected
when sending and receiving communications over a Wi-Fi network connection. With
support for 802.1X, iOS devices can be integrated into a broad range of RADIUS authentication environments. 802.1X wireless authentication methods supported on iPhone
and iPad include EAP-TLS, EAP-TTLS, EAP-FAST, EAP-SIM, PEAPv0, PEAPv1, and LEAP.
iOS uses a randomized Media Access Control (MAC) address when conducting Preferred
Network Offload (PNO) scans when a device is not associated with a Wi-Fi network
and its processor is asleep. A device’s processor goes to sleep shortly after the screen
is turned off. PNO scans are run to determine if a user can connect to a preferred Wi-Fi
network to conduct activity such as wirelessly syncing with iTunes.
iOS also uses a randomized MAC address when conducting enhanced Preferred
Network Offload (ePNO) scans when a device is not associated with a Wi-Fi networkor its processor is asleep. ePNO scans are run when a device uses Location Services forapps which use geofences, such as location-based reminders that determine whether
the device is near a specific location.
iOS Security—White Paper | September 201528

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 30 of 61 Page ID #:213

Because a device’s MAC address now changes when it’s not connected to a Wi-Fi
network, it can’t be used to persistently track a device by passive observers of Wi-Fi
traffic, even when the device is connected to a cellular network.
We’ve worked with Wi-Fi manufacturers to let them know that background scans use arandomized MAC address, and that neither Apple nor manufacturers can predict theserandomized MAC addresses.
Wi-Fi MAC address randomization is not supported on iPhone 4s.

BluetoothBluetooth support in iOS has been designed to provide useful functionality without
unnecessary increased access to private data. iOS devices support Encryption Mode 3,
Security Mode 4, and Service Level 1 connections. iOS supports the following
Bluetooth profiles:• Hands-Free Profile (HFP 1.5)
• Phone Book Access Profile (PBAP)• Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP)• Audio/Video Remote Control Profile (AVRCP)• Personal Area Network Profile (PAN)• Human Interface Device Profile (HID)
Support for these profiles varies by device. For more information, see
https://support.apple.com/kb/ht3647.

Single Sign-on
iOS supports authentication to enterprise networks through Single Sign-on (SSO).
SSO works with Kerberos-based networks to authenticate users to services they areauthorized to access. SSO can be used for a range of network activities, from secure
Safari sessions to third-party apps.
iOS SSO utilizes SPNEGO tokens and the HTTP Negotiate protocol to work with
Kerberos-based authentication gateways and Windows Integrated Authentication
systems that support Kerberos tickets. Certificated-based authentication is also
supported. SSO support is based on the open source Heimdal project.
The following encryption types are supported:• AES128-CTS-HMAC-SHA1-96• AES256-CTS-HMAC-SHA1-96• DES3-CBC-SHA1• ARCFOUR-HMAC-MD5
Safari supports SSO, and third-party apps that use standard iOS networking APIs canalso be configured to use it. To configure SSO, iOS supports a configuration profile
payload that allows MDM servers to push down the necessary settings. This includes
setting the user principal name (that is, the Active Directory user account) and
Kerberos realm settings, as well as configuring which apps and/or Safari web URLs
should be allowed to use SSO.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201529

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 31 of 61 Page ID #:214

AirDrop security
iOS devices that support AirDrop use Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) and Apple-createdpeer-to-peer Wi-Fi technology to send files and information to nearby devices,
including AirDrop-capable Mac computers running OS X Yosemite or later. The Wi-Fi
radio is used to communicate directly between devices without using any Internet
connection or Wi-Fi Access Point.
When a user enables AirDrop, a 2048-bit RSA identity is stored on the device.
Additionally, an AirDrop identity hash is created based on the email addresses andphone numbers associated with the user’s Apple ID.
When a user chooses AirDrop as the method for sharing an item, the device emits
an AirDrop signal over Bluetooth Low Energy. Other devices that are awake, in close
proximity, and have AirDrop turned on detect the signal and respond with a shortened
version of their owner’s identity hash.
AirDrop is set to share with Contacts Only by default. Users can also choose if theywant to be able to use AirDrop to share with Everyone or turn off the feature entirely.
In Contacts Only mode, the received identity hashes are compared with hashes ofpeople in the initiator’s Contacts app. If a match is found, the sending device creates apeer-to-peer Wi-Fi network and advertises an AirDrop connection using Bonjour. Using
this connection, the receiving devices send their full identity hashes to the initiator. If
the full hash still matches Contacts, the recipient’s first name and photo (if present inContacts) are displayed in the AirDrop sharing sheet.
When using AirDrop, the sending user selects who they want to share with. The
sending device initiates an encrypted (TLS) connection with the receiving device,
which exchanges their iCloud identity certificates. The identity in the certificates isverified against each user’s Contacts app. Then the receiving user is asked to accept
the incoming transfer from the identified person or device. If multiple recipients havebeen selected, this process is repeated for each destination.
In the Everyone mode, the same process is used but if a match in Contacts is notfound, the receiving devices are shown in the AirDrop sending sheet with a silhouette
and with the device’s name, as defined in Settings > General > About > Name.
Organizations can restrict the use of AirDrop for devices or apps being managed by amobile device management solution.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201530

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 32 of 61 Page ID #:215

Apple Pay
With Apple Pay, users can use supported iOS devices and Apple Watch to pay in aneasy, secure, and private way. It’s simple for users, and it’s built with integrated security
in both hardware and software.
Apple Pay is also designed to protect the user’s personal information. Apple Pay
doesn’t collect any transaction information that can be tied back to the user. Paymenttransactions are between the user, the merchant, and the card issuer.

Apple Pay components
Secure Element: The Secure Element is an industry-standard, certified chip running theJava Card platform, which is compliant with financial industry requirements for electronic payments.
NFC controller: The NFC controller handles Near Field Communication protocols androutes communication between the application processor and the Secure Element,
and between the Secure Element and the point-of-sale terminal.
Wallet: Wallet is used to add and manage credit, debit, rewards, and store cards and to
make payments with Apple Pay. Users can view their cards and additional information
about their card issuer, their card issuer’s privacy policy, recent transactions, and morein Wallet. Users can also add cards to Apple Pay in Setup Assistant and Settings.
Secure Enclave: On iPhone and iPad, the Secure Enclave manages the authentication
process and enables a payment transaction to proceed. It stores fingerprint data for
Touch ID.
On Apple Watch, the device must be unlocked, and the user must double-click the side
button. The double-click is detected and passed to the Secure Element directly without
going through the application processor.
Apple Pay Servers: The Apple Pay Servers manage the state of credit and debit cardsin Wallet and the Device Account Numbers stored in the Secure Element. They
communicate both with the device and with the payment network servers. The Apple
Pay Servers are also responsible for re-encrypting payment credentials for payments
within apps.

How Apple Pay uses the Secure Element
The Secure Element hosts a specially designed applet to manage Apple Pay. It also
includes payment applets certified by the payment networks. Credit or debit card data
is sent from the payment network or card issuer encrypted to these payment applets
using keys that are known only to the payment network and the payment applets’security domain. This data is stored within these payment applets and protected using
the Secure Element’s security features. During a transaction, the terminal communicatesdirectly with the Secure Element through the Near Field Communication (NFC) controller
over a dedicated hardware bus.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201531

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 33 of 61 Page ID #:216

How Apple Pay uses the NFC controller
As the gateway to the Secure Element, the NFC controller ensures that all contactless
payment transactions are conducted using a point-of-sale terminal that is in close
proximity with the device. Only payment requests arriving from an in-field terminal
are marked by the NFC controller as contactless transactions.
Once payment is authorized by the card holder using Touch ID or passcode, or on
an unlocked Apple Watch by double-clicking the side button, contactless responses
prepared by the payment applets within the Secure Element are exclusively routedby the controller to the NFC field. Consequently, payment authorization details forcontactless transactions are contained to the local NFC field and are never exposedto the application processor. In contrast, payment authorization details for payments
within apps are routed to the application processor, but only after encryption by the
Secure Element to the Apple Pay Server.

Credit and debit card provisioning
When a user adds a credit or debit card (including store cards) to Apple Pay, Apple
securely sends the card information, along with other information about user’s accountand device, to the card issuer. Using this information, the card issuer will determine
whether to approve adding the card to Apple Pay.
Apple Pay uses three server-side calls to send and receive communication with thecard issuer or network as part of the card provisioning process: Required Fields, Check
Card, and Link and Provision. The card issuer or network uses these calls to verify, approve,and add cards to Apple Pay. These client-server sessions are encrypted using SSL.
Full card numbers are not stored on the device or on Apple servers. Instead, a unique
Device Account Number is created, encrypted, and then stored in the Secure Element.
This unique Device Account Number is encrypted in such a way that Apple can’t accessit. The Device Account Number is unique and different from usual credit or debit card
numbers, the card issuer can prevent its use on a magnetic stripe card, over the phone,or on websites. The Device Account Number in the Secure Element is isolated from iOS
and WatchOS, is never stored on Apple Pay Servers, and is never backed up to iCloud.
Cards for use with Apple Watch are provisioned for Apple Pay using the Apple Watch
app on iPhone. Provisioning a card for Apple Watch requires that the watch be within
Bluetooth communications range. Cards are specifically enrolled for use with Apple
Watch and have their own Device Account Numbers, which are stored within the
Secure Element on the Apple Watch.
There are two ways to provision a credit or debit card into Apple Pay:
• Adding a credit or debit card manually to Apple Pay• Adding credit or debit cards on file from an iTunes Store account to Apple Pay

Adding a credit or debit card manually to Apple Pay

To add a card manually, including store cards, the name, credit card number, expiration
date, and CVV are used to facilitate the provisioning process. From within Settings,
the Wallet app, or the Apple Watch app, users can enter that information by typing,or using the iSight camera. When the camera captures the card information, Apple
attempts to populate the name, card number, and expiration date. The photo is neversaved to the device or stored in the photo library. Once all the fields are filled in, theCheck Card process verifies the fields other than the CVV. They are encrypted and sent
to the Apple Pay Server.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201532

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 34 of 61 Page ID #:217

If a terms and conditions ID is returned with the Check Card process, Apple downloads
and displays the terms and conditions of the card issuer to the user. If the user accepts
the terms and conditions, Apple sends the ID of the terms that were accepted, as wellas the CVV to the Link and Provision process. Additionally, as part of the Link andProvision process, Apple shares information from the device with the card issuer or
network, like information about your iTunes and App Store account activity (forexample, whether you have a long history of transactions within iTunes), information
about your device (for example, phone number, name, and model of your device plus
any companion iOS device necessary to set up Apple Pay), as well as your approximate
location at the time you add your card (if you have Location Services enabled). Using
this information, the card issuer will determine whether to approve adding the card toApple Pay.
As the result of the Link and Provision process, two things occur:• The device begins to download the Wallet pass file representing the credit or debit card.
• The device begins to bind the card to the Secure Element.
The pass file contains URLs to download card art, metadata about the card such as
contact information, the related issuer’s app, and supported features. It also contains
the pass state, which includes information such as whether the personalizing of the
Secure Element has completed, whether the card is currently suspended by the card
issuer, or whether additional verification is required before the card will be able to
make payments with Apple Pay.

Adding credit or debit cards from an iTunes Store account to Apple Pay

For a credit or debit card on file with iTunes, the user may be required to re-enter
their Apple ID password. The card number is retrieved from iTunes and the Check Card
process is initiated. If the card is eligible for Apple Pay, the device will download anddisplay terms and conditions, then send along the term’s ID and the card security code
to the Link and Provision process. Additional verification may occur for iTunes accountcards on file.

Adding credit or debit cards from a card issuer’s app

When the app is registered for use with Apple Pay, keys are established for the app andthe merchant’s server. These keys are used to encrypt the card information that’s sent
to the merchant, which prevents the information from being read by the iOS device.
The provisioning flow is similar to that used for manually added cards, described above,
except that one-time passwords are used in lieu of the CVV.

Additional verification

A card issuer can decide whether a credit or debit card requires additional verification.
Depending on what is offered by the card issuer, the user may be able to choose
between different options for additional verification, such as a text message, email,customer service call, or a method in an approved third-party app to complete theverification. For text messages or email, the user selects from contact information theissuer has on file. A code will be sent, which the user will need to enter into Wallet,
Settings, or the Apple Watch app. For customer service or verification using an app,the issuer performs their own communication process.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201533

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 35 of 61 Page ID #:218

Payment authorization
The Secure Element will only allow a payment to be made after it receives authorizationfrom the Secure Enclave, confirming the user has authenticated with Touch ID or thedevice passcode. Touch ID is the default method if available but the passcode can beused at any time instead of Touch ID. A passcode is automatically offered after three
unsuccessful attempts to match a fingerprint and after five unsuccessful attempts, thepasscode is required. A passcode is also required when Touch ID is not configured or
not enabled for Apple Pay.
Communication between the Secure Enclave and the Secure Element takes place overa serial interface, with the Secure Element connected to the NFC controller, which inturn is connected to the application processor. Even though not directly connected,
the Secure Enclave and Secure Element can communicate securely using a sharedpairing key that is provisioned during the manufacturing process. The encryption andauthentication of the communication is based on AES, with cryptographic nonces usedby both sides to protect against replay attacks. The pairing key is generated inside the
Secure Enclave from its UID key and the Secure Element’s unique identifier. The pairing
key is then securely transferred from the Secure Enclave to a hardware security module(HSM) in the factory, which has the key material required to then inject the pairing key
into the Secure Element.
When the user authorizes a transaction, the Secure Enclave sends signed data about
the type of authentication and details about the type of transaction (contactless orwithin apps) to the Secure Element, tied to an Authorization Random (AR) value. The
AR is generated in the Secure Enclave when a user first provisions a credit card and ispersisted while Apple Pay is enabled, protected by the Secure Enclave’s encryption andanti-rollback mechanism. It is securely delivered to the Secure Element via the pairing
key. On receipt of a new AR value, the Secure Element marks any previously addedcards as deleted.
Credit and debit cards added to the Secure Element can only be used if the Secure
Element is presented with authorization using the same pairing key and AR value fromwhen the card was added. This allows iOS to instruct the Secure Enclave to rendercards unusable by marking its copy of the AR as invalid under the following scenarios:
When the passcode is disabled.
• The user logs out of iCloud.
• The user selects Erase All Content and Settings.
• The device is restored from recovery mode.
With Apple Watch, cards are marked as invalid when:• The watch’s passcode is disabled.
• The watch is unpaired from iPhone.
• Wrist detection is turned off.
Using the pairing key and its copy of the current AR value, the Secure Element verifies
the authorization received from the Secure Enclave before enabling the payment
applet for a contactless payment. This process also applies when retrieving encrypted
payment data from a payment applet for transactions within apps.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201534

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 36 of 61 Page ID #:219

Transaction-specific dynamic security code
All payment transactions originating from the payment applets include a transactionspecific dynamic security code along with a Device Account Number. This one-timecode is computed using a counter that is incremented for each new transaction, anda key that’s provisioned in the payment applet during personalization and is known by
the payment network and/or the card issuer. Depending on the payment scheme, otherdata may also be used in the calculation of these codes, including the following:• A random number generated by the payment applet• Another random number generated by the terminal—in the case of an NFC transactionor• Another random number generated by the server—in the case of transactions
within apps
These security codes are provided to the payment network and the card issuer, whichallows them to verify each transaction. The length of these security codes may vary
based on the type of transaction being done.

Contactless payments with Apple Pay
If iPhone is on and detects an NFC field, it will present the user with the relevant credit
or debit card, or the default card, which is managed in Settings. The user can also go to
the Wallet app and choose a credit or debit card, or when the device is locked, doubleclick the Home button.
Next, the user must authenticate using Touch ID or their passcode before payment
information is transmitted. When Apple Watch is unlocked, double-clicking the side
button activates the default card for payment. No payment information is sent without
user authentication.
Once the user authenticates, the Device Account Number and a transaction-specificdynamic security code are used when processing the payment. Neither Apple nor auser’s device sends the full actual credit or debit card numbers to merchants. Apple
may receive anonymous transaction information such as the approximate time andlocation of the transaction, which helps improve Apple Pay and other Apple products
and services.

Paying with Apple Pay within apps
Apple Pay can also be used to make payments within iOS apps. When users pay in apps
using Apple Pay, Apple receives encrypted transaction information and re-encrypts
it with a merchant-specific key before it’s sent to the merchant. Apple Pay retains
anonymous transaction information such as approximate purchase amount. This
information can’t be tied back to the user and never includes what the user is buying.
When an app initiates an Apple Pay payment transaction, the Apple Pay Servers receive
the encrypted transaction from the device prior to the merchant receiving it. The
Apple Pay Servers then re-encrypt it with a merchant-specific key before relaying thetransaction to the merchant.
When an app requests a payment, it calls an API to determine if the device supports
Apple Pay and if the user has credit or debit cards that can make payments on a
payment network accepted by the merchant. The app requests any pieces of information
it needs to process and fulfill the transaction, such as the billing and shipping address,and contact information. The app then asks iOS to present the Apple Pay sheet, which
requests information for the app, as well as other necessary information, such as thecard to use.
iOS Security—White Paper | September 201535

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 37 of 61 Page ID #:220

At this time, the app is presented with city, state, and zip code information to calculate
the final shipping cost. The full set of requested information isn’t provided to the app
until the user authorizes the payment with Touch ID or the device passcode. Oncethe payment is authorized, the information presented in the Apple Pay sheet will betransferred to the merchant.
When the user authorizes the payment, a call is made to the Apple Pay Servers to
obtain a cryptographic nonce, which is similar to the value returned by the NFC
terminal used for in-store transactions. The nonce, along with other transaction data, ispassed to the Secure Element to generate a payment credential that will be encryptedwith an Apple key. When the encrypted payment credential comes out of the Secure
Element, it’s passed to the Apple Pay Servers, which decrypt the credential, verify thenonce in the credential against the nonce sent by the Secure Element, and re-encrypt
the payment credential with the merchant key associated with the Merchant ID. It’sthen returned to the device, which hands it back to the app via the API. The app thenpasses it along to the merchant system for processing. The merchant can then decrypt
the payment credential with its private key for processing. This, together with thesignature from Apple’s servers, allows the merchant to verify that the transaction was
intended for this particular merchant.
The APIs require an entitlement that specifies the supported merchant IDs. An app
can also include additional data to send to the Secure Element to be signed, such as
an order number or customer identity, ensuring the transaction can’t be diverted toa different customer. This is accomplished by the app developer. The app developer isable to specify applicationData on the PKPaymentRequest. A hash of this data is includedin the encrypted payment data. The merchant is then responsible for verifying that
their applicationData hash matches what’s included in the payment data.

Rewards cards
As of iOS 9, Apple Pay supports the Value Added Service (VAS) protocol for transmitting
merchant rewards cards to compatible NFC terminals. The VAS protocol can be
implemented on merchant terminals and uses NFC to communicate with supported
Apple devices. The VAS protocol works over a short distance and is used to provide
complementary services, such as transmission of rewards card information, as part ofan Apple Pay transaction.
The NFC terminal initiates receiving the card information by sending a request for acard. If the user has a card with the store’s identifier, the user is asked to authorize its
use. If the merchant supports encryption, the card information, a timestamp, and asingle-use random ECDH P-256 key is used with the merchant’s public key to derive
an encryption key for the card data, which is sent to the terminal. If the merchantdoes not support encryption, the user is asked to re-present the device to the terminal
before the rewards card information is sent.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201536

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 38 of 61 Page ID #:221

Suspending, removing, and erasing cards
Users can suspend Apple Pay on iPhone and iPad by placing their devices in Lost Modeusing Find My iPhone. Users also have the ability to remove and erase their cards fromApple Pay using Find My iPhone, iCloud Settings, or directly on their devices using
Wallet. On Apple Watch, cards can be removed using iCloud settings, the Apple Watch
app on iPhone, or directly on the watch. The ability to make payments using cards onthe device will be suspended or removed from Apple Pay by the card issuer or respective
payment network even if the device is offline and not connected to a cellular or Wi-Fi
network. Users can also call their card issuer to suspend or remove cards from Apple Pay.
Additionally, when a user erases the entire device using “Erase All Content and Settings,”
using Find My iPhone, or restoring their device using recovery mode, iOS will instruct
the Secure Element to mark all cards as deleted. This has the effect of immediatelychanging the cards to an unusable state until the Apple Pay Servers can be contacted
to fully erase the cards from the Secure Element. Independently, the Secure Enclave
marks the AR as invalid, so that further payment authorizations for previously enrolled
cards aren’t possible. When the device is online, it attempts to contact the Apple Pay
Servers to ensure all cards in the Secure Element are erased.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201537

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 39 of 61 Page ID #:222

Internet Services
Creating strong Apple ID passwords
Apple IDs are used to connect to a numberof services including iCloud, FaceTime,and iMessage. To help users create strong
passwords, all new accounts must containthe following password attributes:• At least eight characters• At least one letter• At least one uppercase letter• At least one number• No more than three consecutive
identical characters• Not the same as the account name

Apple has built a robust set of services to help users get even more utility andproductivity out of their devices, including iMessage, FaceTime, Siri, Spotlight
Suggestions, iCloud, iCloud Backup, and iCloud Keychain.
These Internet services have been built with the same security goals that iOS promotes
throughout the platform. These goals include secure handling of data, whether at reston the device or in transit over wireless networks; protection of users’ personal information; and threat protection against malicious or unauthorized access to information andservices. Each service uses its own powerful security architecture without compromising
the overall ease of use of iOS.

Apple ID
An Apple ID is the user name and password that is used to sign in to Apple services
such as iCloud, iMessage, FaceTime, the iTunes Store, the iBooks Store, the App Store, andmore. It is important for users to keep their Apple IDs secure to prevent unauthorizedaccess to their accounts. To help with this, Apple requires strong passwords that mustbe at least eight characters in length, contain both letters and numbers, must notcontain more than three consecutive identical characters, and cannot be a commonlyused password. Users are encouraged to exceed these guidelines by adding extra
characters and punctuation marks to make their passwords even stronger. Apple also
sends email and push notifications to users when important changes are made to theiraccount; for example, if a password or billing information has been changed, or theApple ID has been used to sign in on a new device. If anything does not look familiar,
users are instructed to change their Apple ID password immediately.
Apple also offers two-step verification for Apple ID, which provides a second layer of
security for the user’s account. With two-step verification enabled, the user’s identity
must be verified via a temporary code sent to one of the user’s trusted devices beforechanges are permitted to his or her Apple ID account information, before signing in
to iCloud, iMessage, FaceTime, and Game Center, and before making an iTunes Store,
iBooks Store, or App Store purchase from a new device. This can prevent anyone fromaccessing a user’s account, even if they know the password. Users are also provided
with a 14-character Recovery Key to be stored in a safe place in case they ever forget
their password or lose access to their trusted devices.
For more information on two-step verification for Apple ID, visit
https://support.apple.com/kb/ht5570.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201538

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 40 of 61 Page ID #:223

iMessageApple iMessage is a messaging service for iOS devices and Mac computers. iMessage
supports text and attachments such as photos, contacts, and locations. Messages
appear on all of a user’s registered devices so that a conversation can be continued
from any of the user’s devices. iMessage makes extensive use of the Apple Push
Notification service (APNs). Apple does not log messages or attachments, and theircontents are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender andreceiver can access them. Apple cannot decrypt the data.
When a user turns on iMessage on a device, the device generates two pairs of keys foruse with the service: an RSA 1280-bit key for encryption and an ECDSA 256-bit key on
the NIST P-256 curve for signing. The private keys for both key pairs are saved in thedevice’s keychain and the public keys are sent to Apple’s directory service (IDS), where
they are associated with the user’s phone number or email address, along with thedevice’s APNs address.
As users enable additional devices for use with iMessage, their encryption and signing
public keys, APNs addresses, and associated phone numbers are added to the directory
service. Users can also add more email addresses, which will be verified by sending a
confirmation link. Phone numbers are verified by the carrier network and SIM. Further,
all of the user’s registered devices display an alert message when a new device, phone
number, or email address is added.

How iMessage sends and receives messages

Users start a new iMessage conversation by entering an address or name. If they entera phone number or email address, the device contacts the IDS to retrieve the publickeys and APNs addresses for all of the devices associated with the addressee. If theuser enters a name, the device first utilizes the user’s Contacts app to gather the phone
numbers and email addresses associated with that name, then gets the public keys
and APNs addresses from the IDS.
The user’s outgoing message is individually encrypted for each of the receiver’s
devices. The public RSA encryption keys of the receiving devices are retrieved from
IDS. For each receiving device, the sending device generates a random 128-bit key
and encrypts the message with it using AES in CTR mode. This per-message AES key is
encrypted using RSA-OAEP to the public key of the receiving device. The combinationof the encrypted message text and the encrypted message key is then hashed with
SHA-1, and the hash is signed with ECDSA using the sending device’s private signing
key. The resulting messages, one for each receiving device, consist of the encrypted
message text, the encrypted message key, and the sender’s digital signature. They arethen dispatched to the APNs for delivery. Metadata, such as the timestamp and APNs
routing information, is not encrypted. Communication with APNs is encrypted using aforward-secret TLS channel.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201539

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 41 of 61 Page ID #:224

APNs can only relay messages up to 4 KB or 16 KB in size, depending on iOS version.
If the message text is too long, or if an attachment such as a photo is included, theattachment is encrypted using AES in CTR mode with a randomly generated 256-bit
key and uploaded to iCloud. The AES key for the attachment, its URI (Uniform Resource
Identifier), and a SHA-1 hash of its encrypted form are then sent to the recipient as thecontents of an iMessage, with their confidentiality and integrity protected throughnormal iMessage encryption, as shown below.
Attachment
encrypted withrandom key

iCloudAPNs
Signed and encrypted
message for user 2 with URI and
key for attachment

User 1

User 2Public key
and APNs token
for user 2

Public key
and APNs token
for user 1
IDS

For group conversations, this process is repeated for each recipient and their devices.

On the receiving side, each device receives its copy of the message from APNs, and,if necessary, retrieves the attachment from iCloud. The incoming phone number or
email address of the sender is matched to the receiver’s contacts so that a name canbe displayed, if possible.
As with all push notifications, the message is deleted from APNs when it is delivered.
Unlike other APNs notifications, however, iMessage messages are queued for delivery
to offline devices. Messages are currently stored for up to 30 days.

FaceTime
FaceTime is Apple’s video and audio calling service. Similar to iMessage, FaceTime calls
also use the Apple Push Notification service to establish an initial connection to theuser’s registered devices. The audio/video contents of FaceTime calls are protected by
end-to-end encryption, so no one but the sender and receiver can access them. Applecannot decrypt the data.
FaceTime uses Internet Connectivity Establishment (ICE) to establish a peer-to-peer
connection between devices. Using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) messages, thedevices verify their identity certificates and establish a shared secret for each session.
The cryptographic nonces supplied by each device are combined to salt keys for eachof the media channels, which are streamed via Secure Real Time Protocol (SRTP) using
AES-256 encryption.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201540

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 42 of 61 Page ID #:225

iCloudiCloud stores a user’s contacts, calendars, photos, documents, and more and keeps theinformation up to date across all of his or her devices, automatically. iCloud can also
be used by third-party apps to store and sync documents as well as key values forapp data as defined by the developer. Users set up iCloud by signing in with an AppleID and choosing which services they would like to use. iCloud features, including My
Photo Stream, iCloud Drive, and Backup, can be disabled by IT administrators via aconfiguration profile. The service is agnostic about what is being stored and handles
all file content the same way, as a collection of bytes.
Each file is broken into chunks and encrypted by iCloud using AES-128 and a key
derived from each chunk’s contents that utilizes SHA-256. The keys, and the file’s
metadata, are stored by Apple in the user’s iCloud account. The encrypted chunks ofthe file are stored, without any user-identifying information, using third-party storage
services, such as Amazon S3 and Windows Azure.

iCloud Drive

iCloud Drive adds account-based keys to protect documents stored in iCloud. As withexisting iCloud services, it chunks and encrypts file contents and stores the encryptedchunks using third-party services. However, the file content keys are wrapped byrecord keys stored with the iCloud Drive metadata. These record keys are in turnprotected by the user’s iCloud Drive service key, which is then stored with the user’s
iCloud account. Users get access to their iCloud documents metadata by having
authenticated with iCloud, but must also possess the iCloud Drive service key toexpose protected parts of iCloud Drive storage.

CloudKit

CloudKit allows app developers to store key-value data, structured data, and assets in
iCloud. Access to CloudKit is controlled using app entitlements. CloudKit supports bothpublic and private databases. Public databases are used by all copies of the app, typically for general assets, and are not encrypted. Private databases store the user’s data.
As with iCloud Drive, CloudKit uses account-based keys to protect the information
stored in the user’s private database and, similar to other iCloud services, files are
chunked, encrypted, and stored using third-party services. CloudKit utilizes a hierarchyof keys, similar to Data Protection. The per-file keys are wrapped by CloudKit Record
keys. The Record keys, in turn, are protected by a zone-wide key, which is protected by
the user’s CloudKit Service key. The CloudKit Service key is stored in the user’s iCloudaccount and is available only after the user has authenticated with iCloud.
CloudKit
Service Key

CloudKit
Zone Key

CloudKit
Record Key

File
Metadata

File
Chunk List

File
Chunk
Convergent
Encryption

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201541

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 43 of 61 Page ID #:226

iCloud Backup

iCloud also backs up information—including device settings, app data, photos, andvideos in the Camera Roll, and conversations in the Messages app—daily over Wi-Fi.
iCloud secures the content by encrypting it when sent over the Internet, storing it in
an encrypted format, and using secure tokens for authentication. iCloud Backup occurs
only when the device is locked, connected to a power source, and has Wi-Fi access to
the Internet. Because of the encryption used in iOS, the system is designed to keep
data secure while allowing incremental, unattended backup and restoration to occur.
Here’s what iCloud backs up:• Information about purchased music, movies, TV shows, apps, and books, but not thepurchased content itself• Photos and videos in Camera Roll
• Contacts, calendar events, reminders, and notes• Device settings• App data
• PDFs and books added to iBooks but not purchased• Call history• Home screen and app organization• iMessage, text (SMS), and MMS messages• Ringtones• HomeKit data
• HealthKit data
• Visual Voicemail
When files are created in Data Protection classes that are not accessible when thedevice is locked, their per-file keys are encrypted using the class keys from the iCloud
Backup keybag. Files are backed up to iCloud in their original, encrypted state. Files in
Data Protection class No Protection are encrypted during transport.
The iCloud Backup keybag contains asymmetric (Curve25519) keys for each Data
Protection class, which are used to encrypt the per-file keys. For more information
about the contents of the backup keybag and the iCloud Backup keybag, see “Keychain
Data Protection” in the Encryption and Data Protection section.
The backup set is stored in the user’s iCloud account and consists of a copy of theuser’s files, and the iCloud Backup keybag. The iCloud Backup keybag is protected bya random key, which is also stored with the backup set. (The user’s iCloud password
is not utilized for encryption so that changing the iCloud password won’t invalidate
existing backups.)
While the user’s keychain database is backed up to iCloud, it remains protected by a
UID-tangled key. This allows the keychain to be restored only to the same device fromwhich it originated, and it means no one else, including Apple, can read the user’s
keychain items.
On restore, the backed-up files, iCloud Backup keybag, and the key for the keybag are
retrieved from the user’s iCloud account. The iCloud Backup keybag is decrypted using
its key, then the per-file keys in the keybag are used to decrypt the files in the backup
set, which are written as new files to the file system, thus re-encrypting them as per
their Data Protection class.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201542

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 44 of 61 Page ID #:227

Safari integration with iCloud Keychain
Safari can automatically generate cryptographically strong random strings forwebsite passwords, which are stored in
Keychain and synced to your other devices. Keychain items are transferred fromdevice to device, traveling through Apple
servers, but are encrypted in such a waythat Apple and other devices cannot readtheir contents.

iCloud Keychain
iCloud Keychain allows users to securely sync his or her passwords between iOS
devices and Mac computers without exposing that information to Apple. In addition
to strong privacy and security, other goals that heavily influenced the design andarchitecture of iCloud Keychain were ease of use and the ability to recover a keychain.
iCloud Keychain consists of two services: keychain syncing and keychain recovery.
Apple designed iCloud Keychain and keychain recovery so that a user’s passwords
are still protected under the following conditions:• A user’s iCloud account is compromised.
• iCloud is compromised by an external attacker or employee.
• Third-party access to user accounts.

Keychain syncing

When a user enables iCloud Keychain for the first time, the device establishes a circleof trust and creates a syncing identity for itself. A syncing identity consists of a private
key and a public key. The public key of the syncing identity is put in the circle, and thecircle is signed twice: first by the private key of the syncing identity, then again withan asymmetric elliptical key (using P256) derived from the user’s iCloud accountpassword. Also stored with the circle are the parameters (random salt and iterations)used to create the key that is based on the user’s iCloud password.
The signed syncing circle is placed in the user’s iCloud key value storage area. It cannot
be read without knowing the user’s iCloud password, and cannot be modified validly
without having the private key of the syncing identity of its member.
When the user turns on iCloud Keychain on another device, the new device notices
in iCloud that the user has a previously established syncing circle that it is not a member of. The device creates its syncing identity key pair, then creates an application
ticket to request membership in the circle. The ticket consists of the device’s public
key of its syncing identity, and the user is asked to authenticate with his or her iCloud
password. The elliptical key generation parameters are retrieved from iCloud andgenerate a key that is used to sign the application ticket. Finally, the application ticketis placed in iCloud.
When the first device sees that an application ticket has arrived, it displays a notice forthe user to acknowledge that a new device is asking to join the syncing circle. The user
enters his or her iCloud password, and the application ticket is verified as signed by amatching private key. This establishes that the person who generated the request to
join the circle entered the user’s iCloud password at the time the request was made.
Upon the user’s approval to add the new device to the circle, the first device adds the
public key of the new member to the syncing circle, signs it again with both its syncing identity and the key derived from the user’s iCloud password. The new syncing
circle is placed in iCloud, where it is similarly signed by the new member of the circle.
There are now two members of the signing circle, and each member has the public
key of its peer. They now begin to exchange individual keychain items via iCloud key
value storage. If both circle members have the same item, the one with the mostrecent modification date will be synced. Items are skipped if the other member has theitem and the modification dates are identical. Each item that is synced is encrypted
specifically for the device it is being sent to. It cannot be decrypted by other devices
or Apple. Additionally, the encrypted item is ephemeral in iCloud; it’s overwritten witheach new item that’s synced.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201543

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 45 of 61 Page ID #:228

This process is repeated as new devices join the syncing circle. For example, when athird device joins, the confirmation appears on both of the other user’s devices. The
user can approve the new member from either of those devices. As new peers areadded, each peer syncs with the new one to ensure that all members have the same
keychain items.
However, the entire keychain is not synced. Some items are device-specific, such as
VPN identities, and shouldn’t leave the device. Only items with the attributekSecAttrSynchronizable are synced. Apple has set this attribute for Safari
user data (including user names, passwords, and credit card numbers), as well as
Wi-Fi passwords and HomeKit encryption keys.
Additionally, by default, keychain items added by third-party apps do not sync.
Developers must set the kSecAttrSynchronizable when adding items
to the keychain.

Keychain recovery

Keychain recovery provides a way for users to optionally escrow their keychain withApple, without allowing Apple to read the passwords and other data it contains. Even
if the user has only a single device, keychain recovery provides a safety net against
data loss. This is particularly important when Safari is used to generate random, strong
passwords for web accounts, as the only record of those passwords is in the keychain.
A cornerstone of keychain recovery is secondary authentication and a secure escrowservice, created by Apple specifically to support this feature. The user’s keychain is
encrypted using a strong passcode, and the escrow service will provide a copy of the
keychain only if a strict set of conditions are met.
When iCloud Keychain is turned on, the user is asked to create an iCloud Security
Code. This code is required to recover an escrowed keychain. By default, the user is
asked to provide a simple four-digit value for the security code. However, users canalso specify their own, longer code, or let their devices create a cryptographicallyrandom code that they can record and keep on their own.
Next, the iOS device exports a copy of the user’s keychain, encrypts it wrapped withkeys in an asymmetric keybag, and places it in the user’s iCloud key value storage
area. The keybag is wrapped with the user’s iCloud Security Code and the public keyof the HSM (hardware security module) cluster that will store the escrow record. This
becomes the user’s iCloud Escrow Record.
If the user decided to accept a cryptographically random security code, instead of
specifying his or her own or using a four-digit value, no escrow record is necessary.
Instead, the iCloud Security Code is used to wrap the random key directly.
In addition to establishing a security code, users must register a phone number. Thisis used to provide a secondary level of authentication during keychain recovery. The
user will receive an SMS that must be replied to in order for the recovery to proceed.

Escrow security

iCloud provides a secure infrastructure for keychain escrow that ensures only
authorized users and devices can perform a recovery. Topographically positioned
behind iCloud are clusters of hardware security modules (HSM). These clusters guard
the escrow records. Each has a key that is used to encrypt the escrow records under
their watch, as described previously.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201544

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 46 of 61 Page ID #:229

To recover a keychain, users must authenticate with their iCloud account and password
and respond to an SMS sent to their registered phone number. Once this is done, users
must enter their iCloud Security Code. The HSM cluster verifies that a user knows his or
her iCloud Security Code using Secure Remote Password protocol (SRP); the code itself
is not sent to Apple. Each member of the cluster independently verifies that the user
has not exceeded the maximum number of attempts that are allowed to retrieve hisor her record, as discussed below. If a majority agree, the cluster unwraps the escrowrecord and sends it to the user’s device.
Next, the device uses the iCloud Security Code to unwrap the random key used toencrypt the user’s keychain. With that key, the keychain—retrieved from iCloud key
value storage—is decrypted and restored onto the device. Only 10 attempts toauthenticate and retrieve an escrow record are allowed. After several failed attempts,
the record is locked and the user must call Apple Support to be granted more
attempts. After the 10th failed attempt, the HSM cluster destroys the escrow record
and the keychain is lost forever. This provides protection against a brute-force attempt
to retrieve the record, at the expense of sacrificing the keychain data in response.
These policies are coded in the HSM firmware. The administrative access cards that
permit the firmware to be changed have been destroyed. Any attempt to alter the
firmware or access the private key will cause the HSM cluster to delete the private key.
Should this occur, the owners of all keychains protected by the cluster will receive amessage informing them that their escrow record has been lost. They can then choose
to re-enroll.

Siri
By simply talking naturally, users can enlist Siri to send messages, schedule meetings,
place phone calls, and more. Siri uses speech recognition, text-to-speech, and aclient- server model to respond to a broad range of requests. The tasks that Sirisupports have been designed to ensure that only the absolute minimal amount of
personal information is utilized and that it is fully protected.
When Siri is turned on, the device creates random identifiers for use with the voicerecognition and Siri servers. These identifiers are used only within Siri and are utilized
to improve the service. If Siri is subsequently turned off, the device will generate a
new random identifier to be used if Siri is turned back on.
In order to facilitate Siri’s features, some of the user’s information from the device
is sent to the server. This includes information about the music library (song titles,
artists, and playlists), the names of Reminders lists, and names and relationships thatare defined in Contacts. All communication with the server is over HTTPS.
When a Siri session is initiated, the user’s first and last name (from Contacts), alongwith a rough geographic location, is sent to the server. This is so Siri can respond with
the name or answer questions that only need an approximate location, such as thoseabout the weather.
If a more precise location is necessary, for example, to determine the location of
nearby movie theaters, the server asks the device to provide a more exact location.
This is an example of how, by default, information is sent to the server only when it’sstrictly necessary to process the user’s request. In any event, session information is
discarded after 10 minutes of inactivity.
When Siri is used from Apple Watch, the watch creates its own random unique
identifier, as described above. However, instead of sending the user’s information again,
its requests also send the Siri identifier of the paired iPhone to provide a reference tothat information.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201545

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 47 of 61 Page ID #:230

The recording of the user’s spoken words is sent to Apple’s voice recognition server.
If the task involves dictation only, the recognized text is sent back to the device.
Otherwise, Siri analyzes the text and, if necessary, combines it with information fromthe profile associated with the device. For example, if the request is “send a message
to my mom,” the relationships and names that were uploaded from Contacts are
utilized. The command for the identified action is then sent back to the device to be
carried out.
Many Siri functions are accomplished by the device under the direction of the server.
For example, if the user asks Siri to read an incoming message, the server simply tells
the device to speak the contents of its unread messages. The contents and sender ofthe message are not sent to the server.
User voice recordings are saved for a six-month period so that the recognition system
can utilize them to better understand the user’s voice. After six months, another copy
is saved, without its identifier, for use by Apple in improving and developing Siri for
up to two years. Additionally, some recordings that reference music, sports teams
and players, and businesses or points of interest are similarly saved for purposes ofimproving Siri.
Siri can also be invoked hands-free via voice activation. The voice trigger detection is
performed locally on the device. In this mode, Siri is activated only when the incoming
audio pattern sufficiently matches the acoustics of the specified trigger phrase.
When the trigger is detected, the corresponding audio including the subsequent
Siri command is sent to Apple’s voice recognition server for further processing, which
follows the same rules as other user voice recordings made through Siri.

Continuity
Continuity takes advantage of technologies like iCloud, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi to enable
users to continue an activity from one device to another, make and receive phone calls,
send and receive text messages, and share a cellular Internet connection.

Handoff

With Handoff, when a user’s Mac and iOS device are near each other, the user can automatically pass whatever they’re working on from one device to the other. Handoff lets
the user switch devices and instantly continue working.
When a user signs in to iCloud on a second Handoff capable device, the two devices
establish a Bluetooth Low Energy 4.0 pairing out-of-band using the Apple Push
Notification service (APNs). The individual messages are encrypted in a similar fashion
to iMessage. Once the devices are paired, each will generate a symmetric 256-bit
AES key that gets stored in the device’s keychain. This key is used to encrypt andauthenticate the Bluetooth Low Energy advertisements that communicate the device’s
current activity to other iCloud paired devices using AES-256 in GCM mode, with replay
protection measures. The first time a device receives an advertisement from a new
key, it will establish a Bluetooth Low Energy connection to the originating device andperform an advertisement encryption key exchange. This connection is secured using
standard Bluetooth Low Energy 4.0 encryption as well as encryption of the individual
messages, which is similar to how iMessage is encrypted. In some situations, thesemessages will go via the Apple Push Notification service instead of Bluetooth Low
Energy. The activity payload is protected and transferred in the same way as an
iMessage.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201546

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 48 of 61 Page ID #:231

Handoff between native apps and websites
Handoff allows an iOS native app to resume webpages in domains legitimately
controlled by the app developer. It also allows the native app user activity to beresumed in a web browser.
To prevent native apps from claiming to resume websites not controlled by thedeveloper, the app must demonstrate legitimate control over the web domains it
wants to resume. Control over a website domain is established via the mechanism
used for shared web credentials. For details, refer to “Access to Safari saved passwords”
in the Encryption and Data Protection section. The system must validate an app’s
domain name control before the app is permitted to accept user activity Handoff.
The source of a webpage Handoff can be any browser that has adopted the Handoff
APIs. When the user views a webpage, the system advertises the domain name of the
webpage in the encrypted Handoff advertisement bytes. Only the user’s other devices
can decrypt the advertisement bytes (as previously described in the section above).
On a receiving device, the system detects that an installed native app accepts Handoff
from the advertised domain name and displays that native app icon as the Handoff
option. When launched, the native app receives the full URL and the title of the
webpage. No other information is passed from the browser to the native app.
In the opposite direction, a native app may specify a fallback URL when a Handoffreceiving device does not have the same native app installed. In this case, the system
displays the user’s default browser as the Handoff app option (if that browser has
adopted Handoff APIs). When Handoff is requested, the browser will be launched andgiven the fallback URL provided by the source app. There is no requirement that the
fallback URL be limited to domain names controlled by the native app developer.
Handoff of larger data
In addition to the basic feature of Handoff, some apps may elect to use APIs that
support sending larger amounts of data over Apple-created peer-to-peer Wi-Fi
technology (in a similar fashion to AirDrop). For example, the Mail app uses these
APIs to support Handoff of a mail draft, which may include large attachments.
When an app uses this facility, the exchange between the two devices starts off justas in Handoff (see previous sections). However, after receiving the initial payload using
Bluetooth Low Energy, the receiving device initiates a new connection over Wi-Fi. Thisconnection is encrypted (TLS), which exchanges their iCloud identity certificates. The
identity in the certificates is verified against the user’s identity. Further payload data issent over this encrypted connection until the transfer is complete.
iPhone Cellular Call Relay
When your Mac, iPad, or iPod is on the same Wi-Fi network as your iPhone, it can makeand receive phone calls using your iPhone cellular connection. Configuration requires
your devices to be signed in to both iCloud and FaceTime using the same Apple ID
account.
When an incoming call arrives, all configured devices will be notified via the Apple
Push Notification service (APNs), with each notification using the same end-to-end
encryption as iMessage uses. Devices that are on the same network will present theincoming call notification UI. Upon answering the call, the audio will be seamlesslytransmitted from your iPhone using a secure peer-to-peer connection between thetwo devices.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201547

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 49 of 61 Page ID #:232

Outgoing calls will also be relayed to iPhone via the Apple Push Notification service,
and audio will be similarly transmitted over the secure peer-to-peer link between
devices.
Users can disable phone call relay on a device by turning off iPhone Cellular Calls in
FaceTime settings.

iPhone Text Message Forwarding

Text Message Forwarding automatically sends SMS text messages received on iPhone
to a user’s enrolled iPad, iPod touch, or Mac. Each device must be signed in to theiMessage service using the same Apple ID account. When SMS Message Forwarding
is turned on, enrollment is verified on each device by entering a random six-digit
numeric code generated by iPhone.
Once devices are linked, iPhone encrypts and forwards incoming SMS text messages
to each device, utilizing the methods described in the iMessage section of this document. Replies are sent back to iPhone using the same method, then iPhone sends the
reply as a text message using the carrier’s SMS transmission mechanism. Text Message
Forwarding can be turned on or off in Messages settings.

Instant Hotspot

iOS devices that support Instant Hotspot use Bluetooth Low Energy to discover andcommunicate to devices that have signed in to the same iCloud account. Compatible
Mac computers running OS X Yosemite and later use the same technology to discoverand communicate with Instant Hotspot iOS devices.
When a user enters Wi-Fi Settings on the iOS device, the device emits a Bluetooth
Low Energy signal containing an identifier that all devices signed in to the same iCloudaccount agree upon. The identifier is generated from a DSID (Destination Signaling
Identifier) tied to the iCloud account, and rotated periodically. When other devices
signed in to the same iCloud account are in close proximity and support personal
hotspot, they detect the signal and respond, indicating availability.
When a user chooses a device available for personal hotspot, a request to turn on
Personal Hotspot is sent to that device. The request is sent across a link that is encrypted using standard Bluetooth Low Energy encryption, and the request is encrypted ina fashion similar to iMessage encryption. The device then responds across the same
Bluetooth Low Energy link using the same per-message encryption with personal
hotspot connection information.

Spotlight Suggestions
Safari search and Spotlight search include search suggestions from the Internet, apps,
iTunes, App Store, movie showtimes, locations nearby, and more.
To make suggestions more relevant to users, user context and search feedback withsearch query requests are sent to Apple. Context sent with search requests provides
Apple with: i) the device’s approximate location; ii) the device type (e.g., Mac, iPhone,
iPad, or iPod); iii) the client app, which is either Spotlight or Safari; iv) the device’s
default language and region settings; v) the three most recently used apps on thedevice; and vi) an anonymous session ID. All communication with the server isencrypted via HTTPS.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201548

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 50 of 61 Page ID #:233

To help protect user privacy, Spotlight Suggestions never sends exact location, instead
blurring the location on the client before sending. The level of blurring is based on
estimated population density at the device’s location; for instance, more blurring isused in a rural location versus less blurring in a city center where users will typicallybe closer together. Further, users can disable the sending of all location information
to Apple in Settings, by turning off Location Services for Spotlight Suggestions. If
Location Services is disabled, then Apple may use the client’s IP address to infer anapproximate location.
The anonymous session ID allows Apple to analyze patterns between queries conducted in a 15-minute period. For instance, if users frequently search for “Café phone
number” shortly after searching for “Café,” Apple may learn to make the phone number
more available in results. Unlike most search engines, however, Apple’s search service
does not use a persistent personal identifier across a user’s search history to tie queries
to a user or device; instead, Apple devices use a temporary anonymous session ID forat most a 15-minute period before discarding that ID.
Information on the three most recently used apps on the device is included asadditional search context. To protect the privacy of users, only apps that are in an
Apple-maintained whitelist of popular apps and have been accessed within the last
three hours are included.
Search feedback sent to Apple provides Apple with: i) timings between user actions
such as key-presses and result selections; ii) Spotlight Suggestions result selected, ifany; and iii) type of local result selected (e.g., “Bookmark” or “Contact”). Just as withsearch context, the search feedback is not tied to any individual person or device.
Apple retains Spotlight Suggestions logs with queries, context, and feedback for up
to 18 months. Reduced logs including only query, country, language, date (to the hour),and device-type are retained up to two years. IP addresses are not retained withquery logs.
In some cases, Spotlight Suggestions may forward queries for common words andphrases to a qualified partner in order to receive and display the partner’s search
results. These queries are not stored by the qualified partner and partners do notreceive search feedback. Partners also do not receive user IP addresses. Communication
with the partner is encrypted via HTTPS. Apple will provide city-level location, device
type, and client language as search context to the partner based on which locations,device types, and languages Apple sees repeated queries from.
Spotlight Suggestions can be turned off in Settings for Spotlight, for Safari, or for
both. If turned off for Spotlight, then Spotlight is reverted to being a local on-deviceonly search client that does not transmit information to Apple. If turned off in Safari,the user’s search queries, search context, and search feedback are not transmitted toApple.
Spotlight also includes mechanisms for making local, on-device content searchable:• The CoreSpotlight API, which allows Apple and third-party apps to pass indexable
content to Spotlight.
• The NSUserActivity API, which allows Apple and third-party apps to pass information
to Spotlight regarding app pages visited by the user.
Spotlight maintains an on-device index of the information it receives using these two
methods, so that results from this data can be shown in response to a user’s search, or
automatically when Spotlight is launched. There is also an on-device federated search
API, only available to Apple-provided apps, which allows Spotlight to pass user search
queries to apps for processing, and receive their results.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201549

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 51 of 61 Page ID #:234

Device Controls
iOS supports flexible security policies and configurations that are easy to enforce andmanage. This enables organizations to protect corporate information and ensure that
employees meet enterprise requirements, even if they are using devices they’ve provided themselves—for example, as part of a “bring your own device” (BYOD) program.
Organizations can use resources such as passcode protection, configuration profiles,
remote wipe, and third-party MDM solutions to manage fleets of devices and help
keep corporate data secure, even when employees access this data on their personal
iOS devices.

Passcode protection
By default, the user’s passcode can be defined as a numeric PIN. On devices with
Touch ID, the minimum passcode length is six digits. On other devices, the minimum
length is four digits. Users can specify a longer alphanumeric passcode by selecting
Custom Alphanumeric Code in the Passcode Options in Settings > Passcode. Longer
and more complex passcodes are harder to guess or attack, and are recommended
for enterprise use.
Administrators can enforce complex passcode requirements and other policies using
MDM or Exchange ActiveSync, or by requiring users to manually install configuration
profiles. The following passcode policies are available:• Allow simple value• Require alphanumeric value• Minimum passcode length• Minimum number of complex characters• Maximum passcode age• Passcode history• Auto-lock timeout• Grace period for device lock
• Maximum number of failed attempts• Allow Touch ID
For details about each policy, see the Configuration Profile Key Reference
documentation at https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/featuredarticles/
iPhoneConfigurationProfileRef/.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201550

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 52 of 61 Page ID #:235

iOS pairing model
iOS uses a pairing model to control access to a device from a host computer.
Pairing establishes a trust relationship between the device and its connected host,signified by public key exchange. iOS uses this sign of trust to enable additional functionality with the connected host, such as data synchronization. In iOS 9, services that
require pairing cannot be started until after the device has been unlocked by the user.
The pairing process requires the user to unlock the device and accept the pairing
request from the host. After the user has done this, the host and device exchange
and save 2048-bit RSA public keys. The host is then given a 256-bit key that can unlock
an escrow keybag stored on the device (see Escrow keybags in the Keybags section).
The exchanged keys are used to start an encrypted SSL session, which the device
requires before it will send protected data to the host or start a service (iTunes syncing,
file transfers, Xcode development, etc.). The device requires connections from a hostover Wi-Fi to use this encrypted session for all communication, so it must have beenpreviously paired over USB. Pairing also enables several diagnostic capabilities. In IOS
9, if a pairing record has not been used for more than six months, it expires. For more
information, see https://support.apple.com/kb/HT6331.
Certain services, including com.apple.pcapd, are restricted to work only
over USB. Additionally, the com.apple.file_relay service requires an Apple-signed
configuration profile to be installed.
A user can clear the list of trusted hosts by using the “Reset Network Settings” or“Reset Location & Privacy” options. For more information, see
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT5868.

Configuration enforcement
A configuration profile is an XML file that allows an administrator to distribute configuration information to iOS devices. Settings that are defined by an installed configuration profile can’t be changed by the user. If the user deletes a configuration profile, all
the settings defined by the profile are also removed. In this manner, administrators canenforce settings by tying policies to access. For example, a configuration profile thatprovides an email configuration can also specify a device passcode policy. Users won’t
be able to access mail unless their passcodes meet the administrator’s requirements.
An iOS configuration profile contains a number of settings that can be specified,including:• Passcode policies• Restrictions on device features (disabling the camera, for example)• Wi-Fi settings• VPN settings• Mail server settings• Exchange settings• LDAP directory service settings• CalDAV calendar service settings• Web clips• Credentials and keys
• Advanced cellular network settings

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201551

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 53 of 61 Page ID #:236

Configuration profiles can be signed and encrypted to validate their origin, ensure
their integrity, and protect their contents. Configuration profiles are encrypted using
CMS (RFC 3852), supporting 3DES and AES-128.
Configuration profiles can also be locked to a device to completely prevent theirremoval, or to allow removal only with a passcode. Since many enterprise users own
their iOS devices, configuration profiles that bind a device to an MDM server can beremoved—but doing so will also remove all managed configuration information,
data, and apps.
Users can install configuration profiles directly on their devices using Apple
Configurator, or they can be downloaded via Safari, sent via a mail message, orsent over the air using an MDM server.

Mobile device management (MDM)
iOS support for MDM allows businesses to securely configure and manage scaled
iPhone and iPad deployments across their organizations. MDM capabilities are built
on existing iOS technologies such as configuration profiles, over-the-air enrollment,
and the Apple Push Notification service (APNs). For example, APNs is used to wake thedevice so it can communicate directly with its MDM server over a secured connection.
No confidential or proprietary information is transmitted via APNs.
Using MDM, IT departments can enroll iOS devices in an enterprise environment,
wirelessly configure and update settings, monitor compliance with corporate policies,and even remotely wipe or lock managed devices. For more information on mobile
device management, see www.apple.com/iphone/business/it/management.html.

Device Enrollment Program
The Device Enrollment Program (DEP) provides a fast, streamlined way to deploy iOS
devices that an organization has purchased directly from Apple or through participating Apple Authorized Resellers and carriers. The organization can automatically enroll
devices in MDM without having to physically touch or prep the devices before users
get them. The setup process for users can be further simplified by removing specificsteps in the Setup Assistant, so users are up and running quickly. Administrators canalso control whether or not the user can remove the MDM profile from the device andensure that device restrictions are in place from the very start. For example, they canorder the devices from Apple, configure all the management settings, and have thedevices shipped directly to the user’s home address. Once the device is unboxed andactivated, the device enrolls in the organization’s MDM—and all management settings,
apps, and books are ready for the user.
The process is simple: After enrolling in the program, administrators log in to theprogram website, link the program to their MDM server, and “claim” the iOS devices
purchased through Apple. The devices can then be assigned to users via MDM. Once auser has been assigned, any MDM-specified configurations, restrictions, or controls areautomatically installed. For more information, see https://deploy.apple.com.
Note: The Device Enrollment Program is not available in all countries or regions.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201552

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 54 of 61 Page ID #:237

Apple Configurator
In addition to MDM, Apple Configurator for OS X makes it easy for anyone to deploy
iOS devices. Apple Configurator can be used to quickly configure large numbers ofdevices with apps, data, restrictions, and settings.

SupervisionDuring the setup of a device, an organization can configure a device to be supervised.
Supervision denotes that a device is institutionally owned, which provides additional
control over its configuration and restrictions. Devices can be supervised during setup
through the Device Enrollment Program or Apple Configurator.
For more information on configuring and managing devices using MDM or Apple
Configurator, see the iOS Deployment Reference at
https://help.apple.com/deployment/ios.
For information about the additional controls for supervised devices, see theConfiguration Profile Reference: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/featuredarticles/iPhoneConfigurationProfileRef/iPhoneConfigurationProfileRef.pdf.

Device restrictions
Administrators can restrict device features by installing a configuration profile. Some of
the restrictions available include:• Allow app installs• Allow trusting enterprise apps
• Allow use of camera• Allow FaceTime• Allow screenshots• Allow voice dialing while locked• Allow automatic sync while roaming• Allow in-app purchases• Allow syncing of recent Mail
• Force user to enter store password for all purchases• Allow Siri while device is locked• Allow use of iTunes Store• Allow documents from managed sources in unmanaged destinations• Allow documents from unmanaged sources in managed destinations• Allow iCloud Keychain sync
• Allow updating certificate trust database over the air• Allow showing notifications on Lock screen• Force AirPlay connections to use pairing passwords• Allow Spotlight to show user-generated content from the Internet• Enable Spotlight Suggestions in Spotlight• Allow Handoff• Treat AirDrop as unmanaged destination• Allow enterprise books to be backed up• Allow notes and bookmarks in enterprise books to sync across the user’s devices• Allow use of Safari

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201553

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 55 of 61 Page ID #:238• Enable Safari autofill• Force Fraudulent Website Warning• Enable JavaScript• Limit ad tracking in Safari• Block pop-ups• Accept cookies• Allow iCloud backup• Allow iCloud document and key-value sync
• Allow iCloud Photo Sharing• Allow diagnostics to be sent to Apple• Allow user to accept untrusted TLS certificates• Force encrypted backups• Allow Touch ID• Allow Control Center access from Lock screen• Allow Today view from Lock screen• Require Apple Watch wrist detection

Supervised-only restrictions• Allow iMessage• Allow removal of apps
• Allow manual install of configuration profiles• Global network proxy for HTTP
• Allow pairing to computers for content sync
• Restrict AirPlay connections with whitelist and optional connection passcodes• Allow AirDrop• Allow Find My Friends modification• Allow autonomous Single App Mode for certain managed apps
• Allow account modification• Allow cellular data modification• Allow host pairing (iTunes)• Allow Activation Lock
• Prevent Erase All Content and Settings• Prevent enabling restrictions• Third-party content filter• Single App mode
• Always-on VPN• Allow passcode modification• Allow Apple Watch pairing• Allow automatic app downloads• Allow keyboard prediction, autocorrection, spell check, and short cuts
For more information about restrictions, see https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/featuredarticles/iPhoneConfigurationProfileRef/iPhoneConfigurationProfileRef.pdf

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201554

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 56 of 61 Page ID #:239

Remote wipe
iOS devices can be erased remotely by an administrator or user. Instant remote wipe
is achieved by securely discarding the block storage encryption key from Effaceable
Storage, rendering all data unreadable. A remote wipe command can be initiated by
MDM, Exchange, or iCloud.
When a remote wipe command is triggered by MDM or iCloud, the device sends an
acknowledgment and performs the wipe. For remote wipe via Exchange, the device
checks in with the Exchange Server before performing the wipe.
Users can also wipe devices in their possession using the Settings app. And as
mentioned, devices can be set to automatically wipe after a series of failed
passcode attempts.

Find My iPhone and Activation Lock
If a device is lost or stolen, it’s important to deactivate and erase the device. With
iOS 7 or later, when Find My iPhone is turned on, the device can’t be reactivatedwithout entering the owner’s Apple ID credentials. It’s a good idea for an organization
to either supervise its devices or have a policy in place for users to disable the featureso that Find My iPhone doesn’t prevent the organization from assigning the device
to another individual.
With iOS 7.1 or later, a compatible MDM solution can enable Activation Lock onsupervised devices when a user turns on Find My iPhone. MDM administrators
can manage Find My iPhone Activation Lock by supervising devices with Apple
Configurator or the Device Enrollment Program. The MDM solution can then store
a bypass code when Activation Lock is enabled, and later use this code to clear
Activation Lock automatically when the device needs to be erased and assigned
to a new user. See your MDM
solution documentation for details.
Important: By default, supervised devices never have Activation Lock enabled, even
if the user turns on Find My iPhone. However, an MDM server may retrieve a bypass
code and permit Activation Lock on the device. If Find My iPhone is turned on when
the MDM server enables Activation Lock, it is enabled at that point. If Find My iPhone
is turned off when the MDM server enables Activation Lock, it’s enabled the next time
the user activates Find My iPhone.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201555

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 57 of 61 Page ID #:240

Privacy Controls
Apple takes customer privacy seriously and has numerous built-in controls and options
that allow iOS users to decide how and when apps utilize their information, as well as
what information is being utilized.

Location Services
Location Services uses GPS, Bluetooth, and crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower
locations to determine the user’s approximate location. Location Services can beturned off using a single switch in Settings, or users can approve access for each appthat uses the service. Apps may request to receive location data only while the app isbeing used or allow it at any time. Users may choose not to allow this access, and maychange their choice at any time in Settings. From Settings, access can be set to neverallowed, allowed when in use, or always, depending on the app’s requested locationuse. Also, if apps granted access to use location at any time make use of this permission while in background mode, users are reminded of their approval and may change
an app’s access.
Additionally, users are given fine-grained control over system services’ use of location
information. This includes being able to turn off the inclusion of location information
in information collected by the diagnostic and usage services used by Apple toimprove iOS, location-based Siri information, location-based context for Spotlight
Suggestions searches, local traffic conditions, and frequently visited locations used toestimate travel times.

Access to personal data
iOS helps prevent apps from accessing a user’s personal information without permission.
Additionally, in Settings, users can see which apps they have permitted to accesscertain information, as well as grant or revoke any future access. This includes access to:• Contacts				• Microphone• Calendars				• Camera• Reminders				• HomeKit• Photos				• HealthKit• Motion activity on iPhone 5s or later• Bluetooth sharing• Social media accounts, such as
Twitter and Facebook
If the user signs in to iCloud, apps are granted access by default to iCloud Drive. Users
may control each app’s access under iCloud in Settings. Additionally, iOS provides
restrictions that prevent data movement between apps and accounts installed by
MDM and those installed by the user.

Privacy policy
Apple’s privacy policy is available online at https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201556

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 58 of 61 Page ID #:241

Conclusion
A commitment to security
Apple is committed to helping protect customers with leading privacy and security
technologies that are designed to safeguard personal information, as well ascomprehensive methods to help protect corporate data in an enterprise environment.
Security is built into iOS. From the platform to the network to the apps, everything abusiness needs is available in the iOS platform. Together, these components give iOS
its industry-leading security without compromising the user experience.
Apple uses a consistent, integrated security infrastructure throughout iOS and the iOS
apps ecosystem. Hardware-based storage encryption provides remote wipe capabilities
when a device is lost, and enables users to completely remove all corporate and personal
information when a device is sold or transferred to another owner. Diagnostic information is also collected anonymously.
iOS apps designed by Apple are built with enhanced security in mind. Safari offers safebrowsing with support for Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP), EV certificates,
and certificate verification warnings. Mail leverages certificates for authenticated andencrypted Mail by supporting S/MIME, which permits per-message S/MIME, so S/MIME
users can choose to always sign and encrypt by default, or selectively control how
individual messages are protected. iMessage and FaceTime also provide client-to-client
encryption.
For third-party apps, the combination of required code signing, sandboxing, andentitlements gives users solid protection against viruses, malware, and other exploits
that compromise the security of other platforms. The App Store submission process
works to further shield users from these risks by reviewing every iOS app before it’smade available for sale.
To make the most of the extensive security features built into iOS, businesses areencouraged to review their IT and security policies to ensure that they are taking
full advantage of the layers of security technology offered by this platform.
Apple maintains a dedicated security team to support all Apple products. The teamprovides security auditing and testing for products under development, as well as forreleased products. The Apple team also provides security tools and training, and actively
monitors for reports of new security issues and threats. Apple is a member of the Forumof Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST). To learn more about reporting issues
to Apple and subscribing to security notifications, go to apple.com/support/security.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201557

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 59 of 61 Page ID #:242

Glossary

Address space layout
randomization (ASLR)

A technique employed by iOS to make the successful exploitation of a software bug much
more difficult. By ensuring memory addresses and offsets are unpredictable, exploit code can’t
hard code these values. In iOS 5 and later, the position of all system apps and libraries are
randomized, along with all third-party apps compiled as position-independent executables.

Apple Push Notification service (APNs)

A worldwide service provided by Apple that delivers push notifications to iOS devices.

Boot ROMThe very first code executed by a device’s processor when it first boots. As an integral part ofthe processor, it can’t be altered by either Apple or an attacker.

Data Protection

File and keychain protection mechanism for iOS. It can also refer to the APIs that apps use toprotect files and keychain items.

Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU)

A mode in which a device’s Boot ROM code waits to be recovered over USB. The screen
is black when in DFU mode, but upon connecting to a computer running iTunes, the following
prompt is presented: “iTunes has detected an iPad in recovery mode. You must restore this iPadbefore it can be used with iTunes.”

ECID

A 64-bit identifier that’s unique to the processor in each iOS device. Used as part of thepersonalization process, it’s not considered a secret.

Effaceable Storage

A dedicated area of NAND storage, used to store cryptographic keys, that can be addressed
directly and wiped securely. While it doesn’t provide protection if an attacker has physicalpossession of a device, keys held in Effaceable Storage can be used as part of a key hierarchy
to facilitate fast wipe and forward security.

File system key

The key that encrypts each file’s metadata, including its class key. This is kept in Effaceable
Storage to facilitate fast wipe, rather than confidentiality.

Group ID (GID)

Like the UID but common to every processor in a class.

Hardware security module (HSM)

A specialized tamper-resistant computer that safeguards and manages digital keys.

iBoot

Code that’s loaded by LLB, and in turn loads XNU, as part of the secure boot chain.

Identity Service (IDS)Apple’s directory of iMessage public keys, APNs addresses, and phone numbers and email
addresses that are used to look up the keys and device addresses.

Integrated circuit (IC)Also known as a microchip.

Joint Test Action Group (JTAG)

Standard hardware debugging tool used by programmers and circuit developers.

KeybagA data structure used to store a collection of class keys. Each type (system, backup, escrow, or
iCloud Backup) has the same format:• A header containing:– Version (set to 3 in iOS 5)– Type (system, backup, escrow, or iCloud Backup)– Keybag UUID
– An HMAC if the keybag is signed– The method used for wrapping the class keys: tangling with the UID or PBKDF2, alongwith the salt and iteration count• A list of class keys:– Key UUID
– Class (which file or keychain Data Protection class this is)– Wrapping type (UID-derived key only; UID-derived key and passcode-derived key)
– Wrapped class key– Public key for asymmetric classes

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201558

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 60 of 61 Page ID #:243

Keychain

The infrastructure and a set of APIs used by iOS and third-party apps to store and retrieve
passwords, keys, and other sensitive credentials.

Key wrapping

Encrypting one key with another. iOS uses NIST AES key wrapping, as per RFC 3394.

Low-Level Bootloader (LLB)

Code that’s invoked by the Boot ROM, and in turn loads iBoot, as part of the secure boot chain.

Per-file key

The AES 256-bit key used to encrypt a file on the file system. The per-file key is wrapped by aclass key and is stored in the file’s metadata.

Provisioning Profile

A plist signed by Apple that contains a set of entities and entitlements allowing apps to beinstalled and tested on an iOS device. A development Provisioning Profile lists the devices thata developer has chosen for ad hoc distribution, and a distribution Provisioning Profile contains
the app ID of an enterprise-developed app.

Ridge flow angle mapping

A mathematical representation of the direction and width of the ridges extracted from a portionof a fingerprint.

Smart card

An integrated, embedded circuit that provides secure identification, authentication, and data
storage.

System on a chip (SoC)

An integrated circuit (IC) that incorporates multiple components into a single chip. The Secure
Enclave is an SoC within Apple’s A7-or-later central processor.

Tangling

The process by which a user’s passcode is turned into a cryptographic key and strengthened
with the device’s UID. This ensures that a brute-force attack must be performed on a given
device, and thus is rate limited and cannot be performed in parallel. The tangling algorithm is
PBKDF2, which uses AES keyed with the device UID as the pseudorandom function (PRF) for
each iteration.

Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)

A string of characters that identifies a web-based resource.

Unique ID (UID)

A 256-bit AES key that’s burned into each processor at manufacture. It cannot be read byfirmware or software, and is used only by the processor’s hardware AES engine. To obtain theactual key, an attacker would have to mount a highly sophisticated and expensive physicalattack against the processor’s silicon. The UID is not related to any other identifier on the device
including, but not limited to, the UDID.

XNU

The kernel at the heart of the iOS and OS X operating systems. It’s assumed to be trusted, andenforces security measures such as code signing, sandboxing, entitlement checking, and ASLR.

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201559

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 61 of 61 Page ID #:244

Document Revision History
Date

Summary

September 2015

Updated for iOS 9• Apple Watch activation lock• Passcode policies• Touch ID API support• Data Protection on A8 uses AES-XTS• Keybags for unattended software update• Certification updates• Enterprise app trust model• Data protection for Safari bookmarks• App Transport Security• VPN specifications• iCloud Remote Access for HomeKit• Apple Pay Rewards cards• Apple Pay card issuer’s app• Spotlight on-device indexing• iOS Pairing Model• Apple Configurator• Restrictions• For more information about the security contents of iOS 9 see:support.apple.com/HT205212© 2015 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, AirDrop, AirPlay, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Bonjour, FaceTime, iBooks,
iMessage, iPad, iPhone, iPod, iPod touch, iTunes, Keychain, Mac, OS X, Safari, Siri, Spotlight, and Xcode are trademarks of Apple Inc.,
registered in the U.S. and other countries. Apple Pay, CarPlay Lightning, and Touch ID are trademarks of Apple Inc. iCloud andiTunes Store are service marks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store and iBooks Store are service
marks of Apple Inc. IOS is a trademark or registered trademark of Cisco in the U.S. and other countries and is used under license.
The Bluetooth® word mark and logos are registered trademarks owned by Bluetooth SIG, Inc. and any use of such marks by Appleis under license. Java is a registered trademark of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other product and company names mentioned herein
may be trademarks of their respective companies. Product specifications are subject to change without notice. September 2015

iOS Security—White Paper | September 201560

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-13 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:245

Exhibit L

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-13 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:246

Home • News • Testimony • Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balances Between Public Safety and Privacy

James B. Comey
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Recent Testimonies
12.09.15

Law Enforcement Implications of Illegal Online
Gambling
Joseph S. Campbell, Assistant Director, Criminal
Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Statement Before the House Committee on Oversightand Government Reform, Washington, D.C.

12.09.15

Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Washington, D.C.

10.22.15

Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the House Judiciary
Committee, Washington, D.C.

10.21.15

Worldwide Threats and Homeland Security
Challenges
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the House Committeeon Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.

10.08.15

Threats to the HomelandJames B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the Senate Committeeon Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, D.C.

08.05.15

Inspector General Access
Kevin L. Perkins, Associate Deputy Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Joint Statement with
Department of Justice Associate Deputy Attorney
General Carlos Uriarte Before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Washington, D.C.

07.08.15

Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and theChallenges of Going Dark
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the Senate SelectCommittee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C.

07.08.15

Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and theBalances Between Public Safety …
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Joint Statement with Deputy Attorney
General Sally Quillian Yates Before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C.

06.18.15

FBI’s Plans for the Use of Rapid DNA Technology in
CODIS
Amy S. Hess, Executive Assistant Director, Science andTechnology Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Statement Before the House Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
Security, and Investigations, Washington, D.C.

06.03.15

Terrorism Gone Viral: The Attack in Garland, Texas
and Beyond
Michael B. Steinbach, Assistant Director,
Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the House Homeland

Joint Statement with Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian
Yates Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington, D.C.
July 08, 2015

Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, and members of the Judiciary
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the growing challenges to public safety
and national security that have eroded our ability to obtain electronic information and evidence
pursuant to a court order or warrant. We in law enforcement often refer to this problem as “Going
Dark.”
We would also like to thank this committee more generally for its continued support for the mission of
the Department of Justice. We know that you, like us, take very seriously the role of the Department inprotecting the public in a manner that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law.
Introduction
In recent years, new methods of electronic communication have transformed our society, most visibly
by enabling ubiquitous digital communications and facilitating broad e­commerce. As such, it isimportant for our global economy and our national security to have strong encryption standards. The
development and robust adoption of strong encryption is a key tool to secure commerce and trade,safeguard private information, promote free expression and association, and strengthen cyber security.
The Department is on the frontlines of the fight against cyber crime, and we know first­hand thedamage that can be caused by those who exploit vulnerable and insecure systems. We support andencourage the use of secure networks to prevent cyber threats to our critical national infrastructure, ourintellectual property, and our data so as to promote our overall safety.
American citizens care deeply about privacy, and rightly so. Many companies have been responding toa market demand for products and services that protect the privacy and security of their customers.
This has generated positive innovation that has been crucial to the digital economy. We, too, care about
these important principles. Indeed, it is our obligation to uphold civil liberties, including the right toprivacy.
We have always respected the fundamental right of people to engage in private communications,regardless of the medium or technology. Whether it is instant messages, texts, or old­fashioned letters,
citizens have the right to communicate with one another in private without unauthorized government
surveillance—not simply because the Constitution demands it, but because the free flow of information
is vital to a thriving democracy.
The benefits of our increasingly digital lives, however, have been accompanied by new dangers, and wehave been forced to consider how criminals and terrorists might use advances in technology to theiradvantage. For example, malicious actors can take advantage of the Internet to covertly plot violentrobberies, murders, and kidnappings; sex offenders can establish virtual communities to buy, sell, andencourage the creation of new depictions of horrific sexual abuse of children; and individuals,organized criminal networks, and nation­states can exploit weaknesses in our cyber­defenses to steal
our sensitive, personal information. Investigating and prosecuting these offenders is a core
responsibility and priority of the Department of Justice. As national security and criminal threats
continue to evolve, the Department has worked hard to stay ahead of changing threats and changing
technology.
We must ensure both the fundamental right of people to engage in private communications as well as
the protection of the public. One of the bedrock principles upon which we rely to guide us is theprinciple of judicial authorization: that if an independent judge finds reason to believe that certain
private communications contain evidence of a crime, then the government can conduct a limited search
for that evidence. For example, by having a neutral arbiter—the judge—evaluate whether thegovernment’s evidence satisfies the appropriate standard, we have been able to protect the public andsafeguard citizens’ Constitutional rights.
The Department of Justice has been and will always be committed to protecting the liberty and securityof those whom we serve. In recent months, however, we have on a new scale seen mainstream products
and services designed in a way that gives users sole control over access to their data. As a result, law
enforcement is sometimes unable to recover the content of electronic communications from thetechnology provider even in response to a court order or duly­authorized warrant issued by a federal
judge. For example, many communications services now encrypt certain communications by default,

Security Committee, Washington, D.C.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-13 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:247

judge. For example, many communications services now encrypt certain communications by default,
with the key necessary to decrypt the communications solely in the hands of the end user. This applies
both when the data is “in motion” over electronic networks, or “at rest” on an electronic device. If thecommunications provider is served with a warrant seeking those communications, the provider cannot
provide the data because it has designed the technology such that it cannot be accessed by any third
party.
Threats

The more we as a society rely on electronic devices to communicate and store information, the more
likely it is that information that was once found in filing cabinets, letters, and photo albums will now be
stored only in electronic form. We have seen case after case—from homicides and kidnappings, to drugtrafficking, financial fraud, and child exploitation—where critical evidence came from smart phones,
computers, and online communications.
When changes in technology hinder law enforcement’s ability to exercise investigative tools and follow
critical leads, we may not be able to identify and stop terrorists who are using social media to recruit,
plan, and execute an attack in our country. We may not be able to root out the child predators hiding inthe shadows of the Internet, or find and arrest violent criminals who are targeting our neighborhoods.
We may not be able to recover critical information from a device that belongs to a victim who cannot
provide us with the password, especially when time is of the essence.
These are not just theoretical concerns. We continue to identify individuals who seek to join the ranks
of foreign fighters traveling in support of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, commonly known as
ISIL, and also homegrown violent extremists who may aspire to attack the United States from within.
These threats remain among the highest priorities for the Department of Justice, including the FBI,and the United States government as a whole.
Of course, encryption is not the only technology terrorists and criminals use to further their ends.
Terrorist groups, such as ISIL, use the Internet to great effect. With the widespread horizontal
distribution of social media, terrorists can spot, assess, recruit, and radicalize vulnerable individuals of
all ages in the United States either to travel or to conduct a homeland attack. As a result, foreign
terrorist organizations now have direct access into the United States like never before. For example, inrecent arrests, a group of individuals was contacted by a known ISIL supporter who had alreadysuccessfully traveled to Syria and encouraged them to do the same. Some of these conversations occur
in publicly accessed social networking sites, but others take place via private messaging platforms.
These encrypted direct messaging platforms are tremendously problematic when used by terrorist
plotters.
Outside of the terrorism arena we see countless examples of the impact changing technology is havingon our ability to affect our court authorized investigative tools. For example, last December a long­haul
trucker kidnapped his girlfriend, held her in his truck, drove her from state to state and repeatedly
sexually assaulted her. She eventually escaped and pressed charges for sexual assault and kidnapping.
The trucker claimed that the woman he had kidnapped engaged in consensual sex. The trucker in thiscase happened to record his assault on video using a smartphone, and law enforcement was able toaccess the content stored on that phone pursuant to a search warrant, retrieving video that revealed
that the sex was not consensual. A jury subsequently convicted the trucker.
In a world where users have sole control over access to their devices and communications, and so caneasily block all lawfully authorized access to their data, the jury would not have been able to consider
that evidence, unless the truck driver, against his own interest, provided the data. And the theoreticalavailability of other types of evidence, irrelevant to the case, would have made no difference. In thatworld, the grim likelihood that he would go free is a cost that we must forthrightly acknowledge andconsider.
We are seeing more and more cases where we believe significant evidence resides on a phone, a tablet,or a laptop—evidence that may be the difference between an offender being convicted or acquitted. If
we cannot access this evidence, it will have ongoing, significant impacts on our ability to identify, stop,and prosecute these offenders.
Legal Framework
We would like to emphasize that the Going Dark problem is, at base, one of technological choices andcapability. We are not asking to expand the government’s surveillance authority, but rather we areasking to ensure that we can continue to obtain electronic information and evidence pursuant to thelegal authority that Congress has provided to us to keep America safe.
The rules for the collection of the content of communications in order to protect public safety have been
worked out by Congress and the courts over decades. Our country is justifiably proud of the strong
privacy protections established by the Constitution and by Congress, and the Department of Justicefully complies with those protections. The core question is this: Once all of the requirements andsafeguards of the laws and the Constitution have been met, are we comfortable with technical design
decisions that result in barriers to obtaining evidence of a crime?
We would like to describe briefly the law and the extensive checks, balances, and safeguards that it
contains. In addition to the Constitution, two statutes are particularly relevant to the Going Dark
problem. Generally speaking, in order for the government to conduct real­time—i.e., data in motion—
electronic surveillance of the content of a suspect’s communications, it must meet the standards set
forth in either the amended versions of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of1968 (often referred to as “Title III” or the “Wiretap Act”) or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Actof 1978 (or “FISA”). Title III authorizes the government to obtain a court order to conduct surveillanceof wire, oral, or electronic communications when it is investigating federal felonies. Generally speaking,
FISA similarly relies upon judicial authorization, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(FISC), to approve surveillance directed at foreign intelligence and international terrorism threats.

MoreCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-13 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:248(FISC), to approve surveillance directed at foreign intelligence and international terrorism threats.
Regardless of which statute governs, however, the standards for the real­time electronic surveillance ofUnited States persons’ communications are demanding. For instance, if federal law enforcement seeks
the authority to intercept phone calls in a criminal case using the Wiretap Act, a federal district court
judge must find:That there is probable cause to believe the person whose communications are targeted forinterception is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, a felony offense;
That alternative investigative procedures have failed, are unlikely to succeed, or are too
dangerous; andThat there is probable cause to believe that evidence of the felony will be obtained through thesurveillance.

The law also requires that before an application is even brought to a court, it must be approved by ahigh­ranking Department of Justice official. In addition, court orders allowing wiretap authority expire
after 30 days; if the government seeks to extend surveillance beyond this period, it must submit
another application with a fresh showing of probable cause and investigative necessity. And thegovernment is required to minimize to the extent possible its electronic interceptions to exclude non­pertinent and privileged communications. All of these requirements are approved by a federal court.
The statutory requirements for electronic surveillance of U.S. persons under FISA are also demanding.
To approve that surveillance, the FISC, must, among other things, find probable cause to believe:
That the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power; andThat each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used
or is about to be used by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Similarly, when law enforcement investigators seek access to electronic information stored—i.e., data at
rest—on a device, such as a smartphone, they are likewise bound by the mandates of the Fourth
Amendment, which typically require them to demonstrate probable cause to a neutral judge, who
independently decides whether to issue a search warrant for that data.
Collectively, these statutes reflect a concerted Congressional effort, overseen by an independent
judiciary, to validate the principles enshrined in our Constitution and balance several sometimes
competing, yet equally legitimate social interests: privacy, public safety, national security, and effective
justice. The evolution and operation of technology today has led to recent trends that threaten this time­
honored approach. In short, the same ingenuity that has improved our lives in so many ways has also
resulted in the proliferation of products and services where providers can no longer assist law
enforcement in executing warrants.
Provider Assistance
BothTitle III and FISA include provisions mandating technical assistance so that the government will
be able to carry out activities authorized by the court. For example, Title III specifies that a “service
provider, landlord…or other person shall furnish [the government]…forthwith all…technical assistancenecessary to accomplish the interception.” As the communications environment has grown in volume
and complexity, technical assistance has proven to be essential for interception to occur. These
provisions alone, however, have not historically been sufficient to enable the government to conduct
electronic surveillance in a timely and effective manner.
In the early 1990s, the telecommunications industry was undergoing a major transformation and thegovernment faced a similar problem: determining how best to ensure that law enforcement could
reliably obtain evidence from emerging telecommunications networks. At that time, law enforcement
agencies were experiencing a reduced ability to conduct intercepts of mobile voice communications as
digital, switch­based telecommunications services grew in popularity. In response, Congress enacted
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994. CALEA requires“telecommunications carriers” to develop and deploy intercept solutions in their networks to ensurethat the government is able to intercept electronic communications when lawfully authorized, although
it does not require a carrier to decrypt communications encrypted by the customer unless the carrier
provided the encryption and possesses the information necessary to decrypt. Specifically, it requires
carriers to be able to isolate and deliver particular communications, to the exclusion of othercommunications, and to be able to deliver information regarding the origination and termination of
the communication (also referred to as “pen register information” or “dialing and signaling
information”). CALEA regulates the capabilities that covered entities must have and does not affect theprocess or the legal standards that the government must meet in order to obtain a court order to collectcommunications or related data.
While CALEA was intended to keep pace with technological changes, its focus was on
telecommunications carriers that provided traditional telephony and mobile telephone services, notInternet­based communications services. Over the years, through interpretation of the statute by theFederal Communications Commission, the reach of CALEA has been expanded to include facilities­
based broadband Internet access and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services that are fullyinterconnected with the public switched telephone network. Although that expansion of coverage has
been extremely helpful, CALEA does not cover popular Internet­based communications services suchas e­mail, Internet messaging, social networking sites, or peer­to­peer services.
At the time CALEA was enacted, Internet­based communications were in a fairly early stage ofdevelopment, and digital telephony represented the greatest challenge to law enforcement. However,
due to the revolutionary shift in communications technology in recent years, the government has lost
ground in its ability to execute court orders with respect to Internet­based communications that are notcovered by CALEA.
The harms resulting from the inability of companies to comply with court­ordered surveillanceCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-13 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:249

The harms resulting from the inability of companies to comply with court­ordered surveillance
warrants are not abstract, and have very real consequences in different types of criminal and national
security investigations.
Going Forward

Mr. Chairman, The Department of Justice believes that the challenges posed by the Going Dark
problem are grave, growing, and extremely complex. At the outset, it is important to emphasize that we
believe that there is no one­size­fits­all strategy that will ensure progress. We have been asked what weshould do going forward. We believe we will need to pursue multiple paths:
All involved must continue to ensure that citizens’ legitimate privacy interests can be effectively
secured, including through robust technology and legal protections.
We must continue the current public debate about how best to ensure that privacy and security can co­exist and reinforce each other, and continue to consider all of the legitimate concerns at play, including
ensuring that law enforcement can keep us safe. The debate so far has been a challenging and highly
charged discussion, but one that we believe is essential to have. This includes a productive andmeaningful dialogue on how encryption as currently implemented poses real barriers to law
enforcement’s ability to seek information in specific cases of possible national security threat.
We also cannot lose sight of the international implications of this issue. It is clear that governments
across the world, including those of our closest allies, recognize the serious public safety risks if
criminals can plan and undertake illegal acts without fear of detection. It is also true that othercountries—particularly those without our commitment to the rule of law—are using this debate as a
cynical means to create trade barriers, impose undue burdens on our companies, and undermine
human rights. We should be clear that any steps that we take here in the United States may impact thedecisions that other nations take—both our closest democratic allies and more repressive regimes. In
addition, any next steps we identify will be more effective if we are working together with our allies,
and made more difficult if we are isolated.
We should also continue to invest in developing tools, techniques, and capabilities designed to mitigate
the increasing technical challenges associated with the Going Dark problem. In limited circumstances,
this investment may help mitigate the risks posed in high priority national security or criminal cases,
although it will most likely be unable to provide a timely or scalable solution in terms of addressing thefull spectrum of public safety needs.
We don’t have any silver bullet, and the discussions within the Executive Branch are still ongoing.
While there has not yet been a decision whether to seek legislation, we must work with Congress,
industry, academics, privacy groups and others to craft an approach that addresses all of the multiple,competing legitimate concerns that have been the focus of so much debate in recent months. But wecan all agree that we will need ongoing honest and informed public debate about how best to protect
liberty and security in both our laws and our technology.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Leahy, we would like to thank you and the members of thiscommittee again for your attention to this subject of national importance. While technology may
change, our basic commitment at the Department to upholding the rule of law and our constitutional
traditions does not. Our goal at the Department is to work collaboratively and in good faith withinterested stakeholders to explore approaches that protect the integrity of technology and promotestrong encryption to protect privacy, while still allowing lawful access to information in order to protect
public safety and national security.
We would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice

CloseCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:250

Exhibit M

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:251

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:252

Foreword
Just over a year ago, with support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Berkman Center
for Internet & Society at Harvard University convened a diverse group of security and policy experts fromacademia, civil society, and the U.S. intelligence community to begin to work through some of theparticularly vexing and enduring problems of surveillance and cybersecurity.
The group came together understanding that there has been no shortage of debate. Our goals were tofoster a straightforward, non-talking-point exchange among people who do not normally have a chance toengage with each other, and then to contribute in meaningful and concrete ways to the discourse on theseissues.
A public debate unfolded alongside our meetings: the claims and questions around the government
finding a landscape that is “going dark” due to new forms of encryption introduced into mainstream
consumer products and services by the companies who offer them. We have sought to distill ourconversations and some conclusions in this report. The participants in our group who have signed on to
the report, as listed on the following page, endorse “the general viewpoints and judgments reached by thegroup, though not necessarily every finding and recommendation.” In addition to endorsing the report,
some signatories elected to individually write brief statements, which appear in Appendix A.
Our participants who are currently employed full-time by government agencies are precluded fromsigning on because of their employment, and nothing can or should be inferred about their views from thecontents of the report. We simply thank them for contributing to the group discussions.
– Matt Olsen, Bruce Schneier, and Jonathan Zittrain
Project Conveners

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:253

Signatories

Urs Gasser

Matthew G. Olsen

Nancy Gertner

Daphna Renan

Jack Goldsmith

Julian Sanchez

Susan Landau

Bruce Schneier

Joseph Nye

Larry Schwartztol

David R. O’Brien

Jonathan Zittrain

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:254

Don’t Panic
Making Progress on the “Going Dark” Debate
February 1, 2016

Introduction
In the last year, conversations around surveillance have centered on the use of encryption incommunications technologies. The decisions of Apple, Google, and other major providers ofcommunications services and products to enable end-to-end encryption in certain applications, on
smartphone operating systems, as well as default encryption of mobile devices, at the same time thatterrorist groups seek to use encryption to conceal their communication from surveillance, has fueled thisdebate.
The U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities view this trend with varying degrees of alarm,
alleging that their interception capabilities are “going dark.” As they describe it, companies are
increasingly adopting technological architectures that inhibit the government’s ability to obtain access tocommunications, even in circumstances that satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.
Encryption is the hallmark of these architectures. Government officials are concerned because, without
access to communications, they fear they may not be able to prevent terrorist attacks and investigate andprosecute criminal activity. Their solution is to force companies to maintain access to user
communications and data, and provide that access to law enforcement on demand, pursuant to theapplicable legal process. However, the private sector has resisted. Critics fear that architectures geared toguarantee such access would compromise the security and privacy of users around the world, while also
hurting the economic viability of U.S. companies. They also dispute the degree to which the proposedsolutions would truly prevent terrorists and criminals from communicating in mediums resistant tosurveillance.

1Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:255
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Leading much of the debate on behalf of the U.S. government is the Department of Justice, including theFederal Bureau of Investigation, whose leaders have commented on the matter in numerous publicstatements, speeches, and Congressional testimony throughout 2014 and 2015. After nearly a year of
discourse, which included numerous statements critical of the government’s position from former U.S.
intelligence officials and security technologists, the White House declared in October 2015 it would not
pursue a legislative fix in the near future. 1
However, this decision has not brought closure. The FBI has since focused its energy on encouraging
companies to voluntarily find solutions that address the investigative concerns. Most recently, terrorist
attacks in San Bernardino, Paris, and elsewhere around the world, along with rising concern about theterrorist group ISIS, have focused increased attention on the issues of surveillance and encryption. Thesedevelopments have led to renewed calls, including among U.S. Presidential candidates, for thegovernment and private sector to work together on the going dark issue and for the Obamaadministration to reconsider its position.

Findings
Although we were not able to unanimously agree upon the scope of the problem or the policy solutionthat would strike the best balance, we take the warnings of the FBI and others at face value: conducting
certain types of surveillance has, to some extent, become more difficult in light of technological changes.
Nevertheless, we question whether the “going dark” metaphor accurately describes the state of affairs. Are
we really headed to a future in which our ability to effectively surveil criminals and bad actors is
impossible? We think not.
Short of a form of government intervention in technology that appears contemplated by no one outside of
the most despotic regimes, communication channels resistant to surveillance will always exist. This isespecially true given the generative nature of the modern Internet, in which new services and software canbe made available without centralized vetting. However, the question we explore is the significance of thislack of access to communications for legitimate government interests. We argue that communications in
the future will neither be eclipsed into darkness nor illuminated without shadow. Market forces andcommercial interests will likely limit the circumstances in which companies will offer encryption that
obscures user data from the companies themselves, and the trajectory of technological development points
to a future abundant in unencrypted data, some of which can fill gaps left by the very communication
channels law enforcement fears will “go dark” and beyond reach.

2Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:256
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
In short, our findings are:x

End-to-end encryption and other technological architectures for obscuring user data areunlikely to be adopted ubiquitously by companies, because the majority of businesses thatprovide communications services rely on access to user data for revenue streams andproduct functionality, including user data recovery should a password be forgotten.

x

Software ecosystems tend to be fragmented. In order for encryption to become bothwidespread and comprehensive, far more coordination and standardization than currently
exists would be required.

x

Networked sensors and the Internet of Things are projected to grow substantially, andthis has the potential to drastically change surveillance. The still images, video, and audio
captured by these devices may enable real-time intercept and recording with after-thefact access. Thus an inability to monitor an encrypted channel could be mitigated by theability to monitor from afar a person through a different channel.

x

Metadata is not encrypted, and the vast majority is likely to remain so. This is data thatneeds to stay unencrypted in order for the systems to operate: location data from cell
phones and other devices, telephone calling records, header information in e-mail, and soon. This information provides an enormous amount of surveillance data that was
unavailable before these systems became widespread.

x

These trends raise novel questions about how we will protect individual privacy andsecurity in the future. Today’s debate is important, but for all its efforts to take account oftechnological trends, it is largely taking place without reference to the full picture.

A Catalyst: Apple, Google, and Others Introduce
Easy-to-Use, Built-In Encryption
In September 2014, about a year and a half after the disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward
Snowden, Apple announced its decision to include default encryption of the password-protected contentsof its devices in the then-next version of its mobile operating systems, iOS 8. 2 Indeed, data generated bymany of the system apps on iOS 8 and later versions are encrypted when data is stored locally on thephone, in transit, and stored on Apple’s servers. 3 The decryption keys are tied to the device password andonly stored locally on the phone.
Not long after Apple’s announcement, Google followed suit by announcing that Lollipop, its next versionof Android OS, would enable device encryption by default. 4 Then, in November 2014, WhatsApp, the3Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:257
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
popular instant messaging service for smartphones now owned by Facebook, announced it would support
TextSecure, an end-to-end encryption protocol.5 In March 2015, Yahoo introduced source code for an
extension that encrypts messages in Yahoo Mail, though it requires users to run a key exchange server.6
These steps bring to the appliance-style mobile world some of the technologies that have long been
available – if not enabled by default – for personal computing operating systems, such as Apple’s FileVault
and Microsoft’s Bitlocker.
The most significant aspects of these announcements are that the encryption takes place using keys solely
in the possession of the respective device holders, and it is enabled by default.
While the going dark problem encompasses a range of architectural changes that impede government
access, the adoption of encryption of data at rest, and end-to-end encryption in some common
communications applications, by companies has become a focal point in the current debate, particularly
those in which service providers do not have access to the keys. For example, end-to-end encryption is
being used to describe scenarios in which information is being encrypted at the end points of acommunication channel, and only the original sender and intended recipient possess the keys necessary to
decrypt the message. In other words, the information is (in theory, and as advertised) not capable of being
read by anyone who sees it traverse a network between the sender and the receiver, including anintermediary service provider, such as Apple. Similarly, device encryption – in which the keys exist only on
locked devices – prevents the contents from being read by anyone who does not possess the keys.
The distinction is important because an overwhelming percentage of Internet users communicate throughweb-based services, such as webmail, instant messages, and social networking websites that are not endto-end encrypted. In the course of an investigation, government officials can intercept communications
and seek access to stored communications held by these intermediaries by obtaining a warrant, court
order, or subpoena, provided that the company is capable of producing the information sought. However,
without access to the keys, a company like Apple is incapable of providing a means to access
communications in transit or stored on the company’s services, regardless of whether law enforcement
presents a valid warrant or court order. 7
The role of default options and native support for encryption is also important. As with Filevault and
Bitlocker for their data at rest, individuals have been able to use encryption software to send and receive
end-to-end encrypted messages for a long time. For example, the first widely available public-key crypto
software, Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), was made available to the public in the early 1990s. However, forthe average computer user, e-mail encryption software has proven difficult to use, especially when it is notsupported natively by communication software. 8 There is a well-documented learning curve to using the4Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:258
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
software and it adds several steps to sending messages – both the sender and the recipient need tounderstand the encryption process, possess the software, generate a key pair, share the public keys, andencrypt and decrypt the messages. Much of this adds complexity and friction that is simply too much formost users to bother.
The complexity is substantially reduced when encryption is supported natively by communication
software. When encryption is seamlessly integrated, a user does not have to take any affirmative actions toencrypt or decrypt messages, and much of the process occurs on the back end of the software. In fact, anaverage user might not be able to tell the difference between an encrypted message and an unencrypted
message. When these options are enabled by default on popular devices and platforms, like the iPhone, alarge swath of communications is encrypted. 9 Up to this point, government officials have not had to worry
about the widespread use of such encryption, but the default nature of these schemes could alter thelandscape. To be sure, in the past there was simply less data for government officials to seek in the firstplace – the amount of digital communications taking place in the PC-only era from 1977 to 2007 – evenwith the rise of the Internet in between – is dwarfed by the communications facilitated by mobile devices.
Despite all the noise, few of the headline-grabbing and anxiety-provoking (for government, at least)
moves by device and operating system makers from 2014 have materialized into real-world default
encryption that is beyond the reach of government actors. 10 Moreover, as we explore below, for a varietyof reasons, it is not clear that the wave of encryption introduced in recent years will continue.

The “Going Dark” Debate Begins (Again)
This is not the first debate about the public’s ability to use encryption and the government’s ability toaccess communications. Often recounted as the “crypto wars,” government access to encrypted
communications has been the subject of hot debate and restrictive policy since the 1970s, with thegovernment ultimately relaxing many export-control restrictions on software containing strong
cryptographic algorithms in 2000.11 The roles and obligations of telecommunications companies inproviding a means for government actors to wiretap voice communications – in particular on the legacy
telephone system that predated the PC and Internet era – have also been debated extensively over these
decades. This was framed in the U.S. by the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act –CALEA – which required telephone companies and others to ensure that their networks could be
wiretapped, with appropriate legal process, as network technologies moved from analog to digital. 12
The FBI has led the government’s participation in the current debate. The Bureau started publicly raisingconcerns in 2010 about its ability to capture online communications. 13 The FBI’s then-General Counsel,

5Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 38 Page ID #:259
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Valerie Caproni, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and used the phrase “going dark” tocharacterize the concern, citing a widening gap between law enforcement’s legal privilege to intercept
electronic communications and its practical ability to actually intercept those communications. 14 Her
testimony emphasized that many Internet-based communications services have not only become more
complex but have also deployed in modalities that are not subject to the Communications Assistance to
Law Enforcement Act. 15 Other reports with similar accounts surfaced during this time period as well,including a declassified FBI situational report on cyber activity that described how data can be “hidden”
from law enforcement by using encryption and the end points of communications channels can be
obfuscated through use of proxies such as the Tor network. 16
While the FBI has been the most vocal government agency about this issue, 17 foreign intelligenceagencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency also face obstacles due toencryption and other architectures that impede their access. The government is not a monolithic
organization, and the encryption debate is not viewed the same way across governmental organizations oramong the individuals within these organizations. The needs and resources of government organizations
differ, as do their jurisdictional ambits. For instance, the resources available to the FBI for defeating
encryption may be fewer than those available to the NSA. Likewise, state and local authorities have accessto fewer resources than law enforcement operating at the federal level. However, while the degree ofconcern and operational value may not be shared across different agencies and levels of government, there
is a general sense by actors within both the intelligence and law enforcement communities that, were all
else equal, they would benefit if technological architectures did not present a barrier to investigations. (Tobe sure, all else is not equal – for example, if all communications were routinely unencrypted, citizens
would be exposed to surveillance from myriad sources, many of whom might be viewed as national
security threats by those citizens’ governments.) Meanwhile certain agencies, including the Department ofState, the Naval Research Laboratories, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
have helped support the development of the Tor network, which hides the transactional information of
Web-based communications. There are security reasons as well as human-rights interests for the U.S.
government’s support of Tor.
Since Caproni’s invocation of the going dark metaphor in 2010, the problem, according to government
officials, continues to worsen. Encryption has become central to their concerns. FBI Director James
Comey, who has perhaps been the most vocal government official on this topic throughout the last year,
highlighted his unease in October 2014 shortly after the announcements from Apple and Google:

6

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 38 Page ID #:260
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University“Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has createda significant public safety problem. We call it ‘Going Dark,’ and what it means is this:Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence weneed to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism even with lawful authority. We have thelegal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to court
order, but we often lack the technical ability to do so.” 18
In other public statements and Congressional testimony, Director Comey and others, including Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates, have continued to call attention to the problem. According to thesestatements, the going dark problem is being fueled by “the advent of default encryption settings andstronger encryption standards on both devices and networks,” 19 and, it may have a number of
implications. For instance, according to FBI officials, “if there is no way to access the data . . . we may not
be able to identify those who seek to steal our technology, our state secrets, our intellectual property, andour trade secrets.” 20
According to government officials, use of encryption may inhibit the ability of law enforcement and theintelligence community to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks. More specifically, Director Comey has
stated that ISIS operators in Syria are “recruiting and tasking dozens of troubled Americans to kill people,[using] a process that increasingly takes part through mobile messaging apps that are end-to-end
encrypted, communications that may not be intercepted, despite judicial orders under the Fourth
Amendment.” 21 FBI officials have also emphasized that the FBI does not possess the capability to defeat
encryption using brute-force attacks and there is not an easy way to get around strong encryption.22
Recently, Director Comey in Congressional testimony identified a terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, as
an example: “[B]efore one of those terrorists left and tried to commit mass murder, he exchanged 109
messages with an overseas terrorist,” Comey told a Senate committee. “We have no idea what he said,
because those messages were encrypted.” 23
Others from the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement community, including NSA Director Admiral
Michael Rogers, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch havealso voiced concerns about the going dark problem. 24 In the wake of the November 2015 ISIS-associatedattacks in Paris, even in the absence of an on-the-record assertion that the terrorists used encryption toprotect their communications, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan suggested terrorists’use of technology “make it exceptionally difficult, both technically as well as legally, for intelligence andsecurity services to have the insight they need to uncover it.” 25 Whatever the assessment of the use of7

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 38 Page ID #:261
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
encrypted communications to frustrate government investigations, a number of former officials from law
enforcement and the intelligence community have disagreed about the need for a policy intervention. 26
Although much of the debate in the media has focused on whether Director Comey is asking forcompanies like Google and Apple to preserve access to user data, no formal proposals have emerged fromthe FBI or other members of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. In July 2015, Director
Comey noted in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees that“while there has not yet been a decision whether to seek legislation, we must work with Congress,
industry academics, privacy groups, and others to craft an approach that addresses all of the multiple,competing legitimate concerns that have been the focus of so much debate in recent months.” 27 Director
Comey has also called on the private sector for help in identifying solutions that provide the public withsecurity without frustrating lawful surveillance efforts. Most recently, in October 2015, Comey confirmedin testimony that the Obama administration will not, for the time being, pursue a legislative mandate, butwill instead “continue conversations with industry” to find voluntary solutions. 28
Similar debates are ongoing in other countries. 29 In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David
Cameron proposed an outright ban on end-to-end encryption technologies following the January 2015attacks at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.30 The more recent November attacks in Paris have also
caused French authorities to question policies surrounding the availability of encryption software. 31 Other
European countries have passed or are considering legislation that would require companies to retain
readable user data and provide access to government authorities on request. 32 And nation states thatrecognize fewer constitutional or other legal barriers to generating government demands for data, such as
Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the U.A.E., have pioneered the use of pre-emptive legal mandates for dataretention and decryption by technology providers.
Before we delve into the issues with the going dark metaphor, a few general observations are worthhighlighting in brief.
The debate brings to the fore a number of tensions between security, privacy, economic competitiveness,and government access to information. A rich trove of expert literature explores these issues in detail. 33
Many of the technical and political merits of the debate were the focus of the recently published Keys
Under Doormats report, authored by several of those who join this paper. 34 While these perspectives areout of scope for this paper, we acknowledge their importance for understanding the many dimensions of
the going dark debate.

8Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 38 Page ID #:262
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
The global stage on which this debate is unfolding is worth emphasizing. Many geopolitical partners to
the U.S. are actively engaged in discussions about promoting cybersecurity and the appropriate limits ofsurveillance across borders. For instance, the U.S.-E.U. Data Protection safe harbor, which provided alegal framework since the turn of the century for commercial cross-border data flows, was recently ruled
invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union due to concerns about the U.S. intelligencecommunity’s ability to access data. 35 The U.N. has also weighed in to a limited extent on encryption,
recently declaring it “necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.” 36
Meanwhile, many U.S. companies must also answer to governments of foreign countries in which they dobusiness. In this vein, they are increasingly playing a quasi-sovereign role as they face difficult decisions
when foreign government agencies pressure them to produce data about citizens abroad. Many companies
refuse to change the architecture of their services to allow such surveillance. However, if the U.S.
government were to mandate architectural changes, surveillance would be made easier for both the U.S.
government and foreign governments, including autocratic regimes known to crack down on politicaldissidents. The comparatively well-developed legal doctrines, procedural requirements, and redress
mechanisms that serve as backstops to the U.S. government’s surveillance activities are not mirrored
worldwide.
On the subject of surveillance tools and techniques, much has changed over the past twenty years. The
digital revolution has proven to be a boon for surveillance – it has become possible to track and learn
about individuals at very granular level.37 Although use of encryption may present a barrier to surveillance,
it may not be impermeable. There are many ways to implement encryption incorrectly and other
weaknesses beyond encryption that are exploitable. 38 For example, encryption does not prevent intrusions
at the end points, which has increasingly become a technique used in law enforcement investigations. 39
Encryption typically does not protect metadata, such as e-mail addresses and mobile-device location
information, that must remain in plaintext to serve a functional purpose. Data can also be leaked into
unencrypted media, through cloud backups and syncing across multiple devices.40

Going Dark is the Wrong Metaphor
The going dark metaphor suggests that communications are becoming steadily out of reach – an apertureis closing, and once closed we are blind. This does not capture the current state and trajectory oftechnological development.
To be sure, encryption and provider-opaque services make surveillance more difficult in certain cases, but
the landscape is far more variegated than the metaphor suggests. There are and will always be pockets of9

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 14 of 38 Page ID #:263
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
dimness and some dark spots – communications channels resistant to surveillance – but this does notmean we are completely “going dark.” Some areas are more illuminated now than in the past and others
are brightening. Three trends in particular facilitate government access. First, many companies’ businessmodels rely on access to user data. Second, products are increasingly being offered as services, andarchitectures have become more centralized through cloud computing and data centers. A service, which
entails an ongoing relationship between vendor and user, lends itself much more to monitoring andcontrol than a product, where a technology is purchased once and then used without further vendor
interaction. Finally, the Internet of Things promises a new frontier for networking objects, machines, andenvironments in ways that we just beginning to understand. When, say, a television has a microphone anda network connection, and is reprogrammable by its vendor, it could be used to listen in to one side of atelephone conversation taking place in its room – no matter how encrypted the telephone service itself
might be. These forces are on a trajectory towards a future with more opportunities for surveillance.
In this section, we hope to elucidate this counter narrative. We do not suggest that the problem the FBI
and others have identified is necessarily solved by the availability of other sources of data, nor do weconflate availability with the government’s ability to gain access. Rather, we think that the forces opening
new opportunities for government surveillance mean that, whatever the situation with iOS 8 encryption
versus its predecessor, “going dark” does not aptly describe the long-term landscape for government
surveillance. Any debate about surveillance capabilities today that will result in lasting policy should take
into account these larger trends.

Encryption Runs Counter to the Business Interests of Many Companies
Current company business models discourage implementation of end-to-end encryption and othertechnological impediments to company, and therefore government, access.
For the past fifteen years, consumer-facing Internet companies have relied on advertising as their
dominant business model. Ads are frequently used to subsidize free content and services. Internetcompanies more recently have been shifting towards data-driven advertising, and the technology thatfacilitates advertising delivery has become more reliant on user data for targeting ads based on
demographics and behaviors. Companies seek to make behavioral assessments to match ads to individuals
on the fly. Google products display advertising determined by behavioral patterns, search queries, andother signals collected by Google. 41 Similarly, Facebook claims it is capable of reaching narrow audiencesin advertising campaigns with “89% accuracy” based on location, demographics, interests, and behaviors. 42
Yahoo products are also supported by advertising.43 And, the list goes on.

10

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 15 of 38 Page ID #:264
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
To fuel this lucrative market, companies typically wish to have unencumbered access to user data – withprivacy assured through either restricting dissemination of identifiable customer information outside theboundaries of the company (and of governments, should they lawfully request the data). Implementing
end-to-end encryption by default for all, or even most, user data streams would conflict with theadvertising model and presumably curtail revenues. Market trends so far reflect that companies have little
incentive to veer from this model, making it unlikely that end-to-end encryption will become ubiquitous
across applications and services. As a result, many Internet companies will continue to have the ability torespond to government orders to provide access to communications of users.
Cloud computing entails the movement of data and software to centralized locations operated bycompanies instead of under direct user custody. This technology, made possible by ubiquitousconnectivity, enables businesses and individuals to extend their computing resources through the Internet
at remote data centers, much like a utility service.44 As a result, products are increasingly being offered asservices, which in turn marks a shift away from traditional notions of ownership and control, and more
towards centralized repositories of user data. Software and data no longer need to be installed and stored
locally on an individual’s computer – they can be delivered through a cloud service (e.g., Google Apps) or
stored remotely in a cloud storage service (e.g., Dropbox) where they can be conveniently accessed fromanywhere through a web browser or a smartphone app. 45 Webmail, social networking, word processing,and other common applications are now typically delivered as networked services. 46 These services deliver
substantial benefits and convenience to both individuals and companies, and they are often provided freein ad-subsidized models or in economical pay-as-you-go arrangements. 47
End-to-end encryption is currently impractical for companies who need to offer features in cloud services
that require access to plaintext data. For example, Google offers a number of features in its web-based
services that require access to plaintext data, including full text search of documents and files stored in thecloud. In order for such features to work, Google must have access to the plaintext. While Apple says thatit encrypts communications end-to-end in some apps it develops, the encryption does not extend to all of
its services. This includes, in particular, the iCloud backup service, which conveniently enables users torecover their data from Apple servers. iCloud is enabled by default on Apple devices. Although Apple
does encrypt iCloud backups, 48 it holds the keys so that users who have lost everything are not left
without recourse. So while the data may be protected from outside attackers, it is still capable of being
decrypted by Apple. 49 Since Apple holds the keys, it can be compelled through legal process to produce
user data that resides in iCloud.

11

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 16 of 38 Page ID #:265
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
There are a number of other reasons why a shift to encryption or other architectures would not appeal tobusinesses. Encryption schemes often add complexity to the user experience. Former Facebook Chief
Security Officer Joe Sullivan observed that Facebook “has been able to deploy end-to-end encryption for along time,” but it has held back due to the added complexity and because “when end-to-end encryption isdone right, it’s hard for the average person to communicate.” 50 Google has also reportedly held off on
implementing device encryption by default on locked Android devices due to performance issues, despite
its announcements that it would do so in 2014. 51 To date, the latest version of Android does not enableencryption by default.
Fragmentation in software ecosystems can also impede the degree to which new conventions andarchitectural changes – especially those that would enable user-to-user encryption across different devices
and services – become widespread. In these ecosystems, multiple points of control may exist that influence
the types of apps and operating system updates that eventually filter down to end users.
For example, in the Android ecosystem, smartphones are controlled by the wireless providers and handset
manufacturers who create customized versions of the Android operating systems for the phones they sell.
These companies have little incentive to update older phones to the latest versions of Android, because it
would require them to invest resources into making the customized features compatible with newer
versions of Android. 52 In fact, many older Android smartphones are never updated to newer OS versions.
According to Google, as of this writing, approximately 32% of Android devices are running the latest
Lollipop, which was released in November 2014. 53 In addition, although the next version of Android
released by Google may contain apps that support end-to-end encryption, a manufacturer or wirelessprovider may modify the software to include its own suite of custom apps that do not support encryption.
Some of these companies may have commercial interests in retaining access to plaintext
communications. 54 A wide variety of third-party messaging applications are also available on Google Play,and end users can install and use them in place of the pre-installed messaging app that ships on theirphones. In order for end-to-end encryption to work properly, both a sender’s and receiver’s messaging
apps must be able to support it, and not all do. If the ecosystem is fragmented, encryption is that muchless likely to become all encompassing.

The Internet of Things and Networked Sensors Open Uncharted Paths to Surveillance
A plethora of networked sensors are now embedded in everyday objects. These are prime mechanisms forsurveillance: alternative vectors for information-gathering that could more than fill many of the gaps left
behind by sources that have gone dark – so much so that they raise troubling questions about how
exposed to eavesdropping the general public is poised to become. To paint an overall picture of going dark12

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 17 of 38 Page ID #:266
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
based upon the fact that a number of widely used applications and products have introduced encryption
by default risks obscuring this larger trend.
According to analysts and commentators representing the conventional wisdom, the Internet of Things(IoT) is the next revolution in computing. Expert observers have suggested that “the Internet of Things
has the potential to fundamentally shift the way we interact with our surroundings,” at work, at home, inretail environments, in cars, and on public streets. 55 The IoT market is forecast to grow into a multitrillion dollar industry within the next ten years, 56 and according to a survey of experts, it will have“widespread and beneficial effects by 2025.” 57 This will result in significant changes in how members ofsociety interact with one another and the inanimate objects around them. 58
Appliances and products ranging from televisions and toasters to bed sheets, light bulbs, cameras,
toothbrushes, door locks, cars, watches and other wearables are being packed with sensors and wirelessconnectivity. 59 Numerous companies are developing platforms and products in these areas. 60 To name but
a few, Phillips, GE, Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, Samsung, and Nike are all working on
products with embedded IoT functionality, with sensors ranging from gyroscopes, accelerometers,
magnetometers, proximity sensors, microphones, speakers, barometers, infrared sensors, fingerprint
readers, and radio frequency antennae with the purpose of sensing, collecting, storing, and analyzing finegrained information about their surrounding environments. These devices will all be connected to eachother via the Internet, transmitting telemetry data to their respective vendors in the cloud for processing. 61
The audio and video sensors on IoT devices will open up numerous avenues for government actors to
demand access to real-time and recorded communications. A ten-year-old case involving an inautomobile concierge system provides an early indication of how this might play out. The system enables
the company to remotely monitor and respond to a car’s occupants through a variety of sensors and acellular connection. At the touch of a button, a driver can speak to a representative who can provide
directions or diagnose problems with the car. During the course of an investigation, the FBI sought to use
the microphone in a car equipped with such a system to capture conversations taking place in the car’s
cabin between two alleged senior members of organized crime. In 2001, a federal court in Nevada issued
ex parte orders that required the company to assist the FBI with the intercept. The company appealed,
and though the Ninth Circuit disallowed the interception on other grounds, it left open the possibility ofusing in-car communication devices for surveillance provided the systems’ safety features are not disabledin the process. 62 Such assistance might today be demanded from any company capable of recording
conversations or other activity at a distance, whether through one’s own smartphone, an Amazon Echo, a13Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 18 of 38 Page ID #:267
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
baby monitor, an Internet-enabled security camera, or a futuristic “Elf on a Shelf” laden with networked
audio and image sensors.63
In February 2015, stories surfaced that Samsung smart televisions were listening to conversations throughan onboard microphone and relaying them back to Samsung to automatically discern whether owners
were attempting to give instructions to the TV. 64 A statement published in Samsung’s privacy policy
instructed users to “be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information,that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of the
Voice Recognition.” 65
Any given step of Samsung’s process makes sense to offer the TV’s features. Voice recognition is acomputationally intensive task, and the processing capabilities of a modern television would beinsufficient to make such a feature work. This is a common challenge for IoT devices that have limited
processing power and limited battery capacity. The solution, in this case, was to utilize cloudinfrastructure through a network connection to send the voice data to a remote server for processing andinterpretations of that data back to the television as machine-actionable commands. Simple commands,
such as “switch to channel 13,” could be processed locally, but more complex ones, such as “show me a
sci-fi movie like last week’s, but not with Jane Fonda,” would need to be sent to the cloud infrastructure –and in Samsung’s case, to a third party, for processing.
Similarly, Google’s Chrome browsing software supports voice commands using the onboard microphone
in a laptop or desktop computer. The feature is activated when a user states the phrase “OK Google,” andthe resource intensive voice processing takes place on Google’s remote servers. 66 Even children’s toys are
beginning to possess these features. In April 2015, Mattel introduced “Hello Barbie,” an interactive dollcapable of responsive speech, which is accomplished by recording children’s interactions with the dollthrough a microphone, processing it in the cloud, and sending verbal responses through a speaker on thedoll. 67 IP video cameras have also risen in popularity in the last several years. Devices like the Nest Cam
record high resolution video with a wide-angle lens camera broadcast over the Internet to accountholders. 68 Users can tune into the recording from Nest’s website or through an app on their phone, and acamera will send an alert if it detects motion or an unusual noise. The Nest Cam can also exchange dataand interact with other devices, such as Nest’s thermostats and smoke detectors, which themselvescontain sensors and microphones.
Law enforcement or intelligence agencies may start to seek orders compelling Samsung, Google, Mattel,
Nest or vendors of other networked devices to push an update or flip a digital switch to intercept theambient communications of a target. These are all real products now. If the Internet of Things has as14

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 19 of 38 Page ID #:268
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
much impact as is predicted, the future will be even more laden with sensors that can be commandeered
for law enforcement surveillance; and this is a world far apart from one in which opportunities forsurveillance have gone dark. It is vital to appreciate these trends and to make thoughtful decisions about
how pervasively open to surveillance we think our built environments should be – by home and foreign
governments, and by the companies who offer the products that are transforming our personal spaces.

Concluding Thoughts
The debate over encryption raises difficult questions about security and privacy. From the national
security perspective, we must consider whether providing access to encrypted communications to help
prevent terrorism and investigate crime would also increase our vulnerability to cyber espionage and otherthreats, and whether nations that do not embrace the rule of law would be able to exploit the same access.
At the same time, from a civil liberties perspective, we must consider whether preventing the government
from gaining access to communications under circumstances that meet Fourth Amendment and statutory
standards strike the right balance between privacy and security, particularly when terrorists and criminals
seek to use encryption to evade government surveillance.
In examining these questions, our group focused on the trajectory of surveillance and technology. We
concluded that the “going dark” metaphor does not fully describe the future of the government’s capacity
to access the communications of suspected terrorists and criminals. The increased availability ofencryption technologies certainly impedes government surveillance under certain circumstances, and in
this sense, the government is losing some surveillance opportunities. However, we concluded that the
combination of technological developments and market forces is likely to fill some of these gaps and,more broadly, to ensure that the government will gain new opportunities to gather critical informationfrom surveillance.
Looking forward, the prevalence of network sensors and the Internet of Things raises new and difficult
questions about privacy over the long term. This means we should be thinking now about the
responsibilities of companies building new technologies, and about new operational procedures and rules
to help the law enforcement and intelligence communities navigate the thicket of issues that will surely
accompany these trends.

15

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 20 of 38 Page ID #:269

Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories
Three signatories to this report elected to write statements to individually reflect on the report orparticular issues discussed within it. The statements listed below are included in this Appendix.
Susan Landau, “The National-Security Needs for Ubiquitous Encryption”
Bruce Schneier, “Security or Surveillance?”
Jonathan Zittrain, “The Good News and the Troubling News: We’re not going dark”

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 21 of 38 Page ID #:270
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories

The National-Security Needs for Ubiquitous
Encryption
Susan Landau
Each terrorist attack grabs headlines, but the insidious theft of U.S. intellectual property – software,business plans, designs for airplanes, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, etc. – by other nations does not. The
latter is the real national-security threat and a strong reason for national policy to favor ubiquitous use of
encryption.
In 2000, the U.S. government loosened export controls on encryption. In part this was because ofpressures from Silicon Valley and Congress, 1 but in large part, the reason for this change was national
security. The end of the Cold War led to a temporary decline in military spending. One way toaccommodate the shift was to turn to commercial off the shelf (COTS) equipment, a requirement
formalized in the 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act. 2 Another reason for the shift to COTS equipment forcommunications and computer technology was the speed of innovation in Silicon Valley. The need for
ubiquitous security throughout our communications systems represented the third major reason.
There was an era when Blackberrys were the communication device of choice for the corporate world;
these devices, unlike the recent iPhones and Androids, can provide cleartext of the communications to thephone’s owner (the corporation for whom the user works). Thus businesses favored Blackberrys.
But apps drive the phone business. With the introduction of iPhones and Androids, consumers voted
with their hands. People don’t like to carry two devices, and users choose to use a single consumer device
for all communications. We have moved to a world of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device).3 In someinstances, e.g., jobs in certain government agencies, finance, and the Defense Industrial Base, theworkplace can require that work communications occur only over approved devices. But such control islargely ineffective in most work situations. So instead of Research in Motion developing a large consumer
user base, the company lost market share as employees forced businesses to accept their use of personal1

For a longer explanation of the confluence of issues, see, e.g., Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau, “The Export of

Cryptography in the 20th Century and the 21st” in Karl De Leeuw and Jan Bergstra (eds.), The History ofInformation Security (Elsevier, 2007), at 733-735.
2
3

40 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.
Mick Slattery, “How Consumer Technology is Remaking the Workplace,” WIRED, March 2013,

http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/03/how-consumer-technology-is-remaking-the-workplace/.

1Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 22 of 38 Page ID #:271
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories
devices for corporate communications. Thus access to U.S. intellectual property lies not only on corporate
servers – which may or may not be well protected – but on millions of private communication devices.
Protecting U.S. intellectual property is crucial for U.S. economic and national security, and given BYOD
– a social change that is here to stay – encrypted communications are necessary for national security. In a
July 2015 Washington Post op-ed former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, former NSA Director Mike
McConnell, and former Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn concurred, observing that
“Strategically, the interests of U.S. businesses are essential to protecting U.S. national security interest. . . .
If the United States is to maintain its global role and influence, protecting business interests from massive
economic espionage is essential.” 4 They concluded that the security provided by encrypted
communications was more important than the difficulties encryption present to law enforcement.
There are, after all, other ways of going after communications content than providing law enforcementwith “exceptional access” to encrypted communications. These include using the existing vulnerabilities
present in the apps and systems of the devices themselves. While such an approach makes investigations
more expensive, this approach is a tradeoff enabling the vast majority of communications to be far moresecure.
Exceptional access is dangerous. As my co-authors and I have described in our Keys under Doormats
paper, 5 proposals for law-enforcement “exceptional access” ignore the realities of current software.
Getting software correct is very difficult. Thus, for example, when NSA tested CALEA-compliant
switches, 6 it discovered security problems with every implementation. 7 Furthermore, exceptional access

4

Mike McConnell, Michael Chertoff, and William Lynn, “Why the fear of ubiquitous data encryption is

overblown,” The Washington Post, July 28, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-need-forubiquitous-data-encryption/2015/07/28/3d145952-324e-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html.
5

Hal Abelson et al., “Keys under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data andcommunications,” Journal of Cybersecurity, Vol. 1(1) (2015).
6

The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires all digitally switched

networks be built to accommodate lawful surveillance. Pub. L. 103-414.
7

Private communication with Richard George, Former Technical Director for Information Assurance, National

Security Agency (Dec. 1, 2011).

2

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 23 of 38 Page ID #:272
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories
prevents the deployment of two extremely useful forms of security: forward secrecy and authenticatedencryption. 8
At a time when nation-state espionage is heavily aimed at business communications and thesecommunications are often found on personal devices, national security dictates that they be secured. And
that means policy facilitating the ubiquitous use of uncompromised strong encryption is in our national
security interest.

8

Hal Abelson et al., “Keys under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data andcommunications,” Journal of Cybersecurity, Vol. 1(1) (2015).

3

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 24 of 38 Page ID #:273
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories

Security or Surveillance?
Bruce Schneier
Both the “going dark” metaphor of FBI Director James Comey 1 and the contrasting “golden age ofsurveillance” metaphor of privacy law professor Peter Swire 2 focus on the value of data to law
enforcement. As framed in the media, encryption debates are about whether law enforcement should havesurreptitious access to data, or whether companies should be allowed to provide strong encryption to theircustomers.
It’s a myopic framing that focuses only on one threat – criminals, including domestic terrorists – and thedemands of law enforcement and national intelligence. This obscures the most important aspects of theencryption issue: the security it provides against a much wider variety of threats.
Encryption secures our data and communications against eavesdroppers like criminals, foreign
governments, and terrorists. We use it every day to hide our cell phone conversations from eavesdroppers,
and to hide our Internet purchasing from credit card thieves. Dissidents in China and many othercountries use it to avoid arrest. It’s a vital tool for journalists to communicate with their sources, forNGOs to protect their work in repressive countries, and for attorneys to communicate with their clients.
Many technological security failures of today can be traced to failures of encryption. In 2014 and 2015,
unnamed hackers – probably the Chinese government – stole 21.5 million personal files of U.S.
government employees and others. They wouldn’t have obtained this data if it had been encrypted. Manylarge-scale criminal data thefts were made either easier or more damaging because data wasn’t encrypted:
Target, TJ Maxx, Heartland Payment Systems, and so on. Many countries are eavesdropping on the
unencrypted communications of their own citizens, looking for dissidents and other voices they want tosilence.

1

James B. Comey, “Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public Safety on a Collision Course,” speech at

Brookings Institution, October 16, 2014. https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacyand-public-safety-on-a-collision-course.
2Peter Swire, testimony at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and theBalance Between Public Safety and Privacy,” July 8, 2015. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-0815%20Swire%20Testimony.pdf.

1Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 25 of 38 Page ID #:274
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories
Adding backdoors will only exacerbate the risks. As technologists, we can’t build an access system that
only works for people of a certain citizenship, or with a particular morality, or only in the presence of a
specified legal document. 3 If the FBI can eavesdrop on your text messages or get at your computer’s hard
drive, so can other governments. So can criminals. So can terrorists. This is not theoretical; again andagain, backdoor accesses built for one purpose have been surreptitiously used for another. Vodafone built
backdoor access into Greece’s cell phone network for the Greek government; it was used against the
Greek government in 2004-2005. 4 Google kept a database of backdoor accesses provided to the U.S.
government under CALEA; the Chinese breached that database in 2009. 5
We’re not being asked to choose between security and privacy. We’re being asked to choose between lesssecurity and more security.
This trade-off isn’t new. In the mid-1990s, cryptographers argued that escrowing encryption keys withcentral authorities would weaken security. 6 In 2011, cybersecurity researcher Susan Landau published her
excellent book Surveillance or Security?, which deftly parsed the details of this trade-off and concluded that
security is far more important. 7
Ubiquitous encryption protects us much more from bulk surveillance than from targeted surveillance. For
a variety of technical reasons, computer security is extraordinarily weak. If a sufficiently skilled, funded,
and motivated attacker wants in to your computer, they’re in. If they’re not, it’s because you’re not highenough on their priority list to bother with. Widespread encryption forces the listener – whether a foreign
government, criminal, or terrorist – to target. And this hurts repressive governments much more than it
hurts terrorists and criminals.

3

Hal Abelson et al., “Keys under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data andcommunications,” Journal of Cybersecurity, Vol. 1(1) (2015).
4

Vassilis

Prevelakis,

Diomidis

Spinellis,“The

AthensAffair,”IEEE

Spectrum,

June

27,

2007.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-athens-affair.
5

Ellen Nakashima, “Chinese hackers who breached Google gained access to sensitive data, U.S. officials say,” The

Washington Post, May 20, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hackers-whobreached-google-gained-access-to-sensitive-data-us-officials-say/2013/05/20/51330428-be34-11e2-89c93be8095fe767_story.html.
6

Hal Abelson et al., “The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third-Party Encryption,” 1998.

https://www.schneier.com/paper-key-escrow.html.
7

Susan Landau, Surveillance or Security: The Risks Posed by New Wiretapping Technologies (Cambridge: MIT

Press, 2011).

2

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 26 of 38 Page ID #:275
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories
Of course, criminals and terrorists have used, are using, and will use encryption to hide their planningfrom the authorities, just as they will use many aspects of society’s capabilities and infrastructure: cars,
restaurants, telecommunications. In general, we recognize that such things can be used by both honest
and dishonest people. Society thrives nonetheless because the honest so outnumber the dishonest.
Compare this with the tactic of secretly poisoning all the food at a restaurant. Yes, we might get lucky
and poison a terrorist before he strikes, but we’ll harm all the innocent customers in the process.
Weakening encryption for everyone is harmful in exactly the same way.

3

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 27 of 38 Page ID #:276
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories

The Good News and the Troubling News: We’re notgoing dark
Jonathan Zittrain
Two trends have dominated the U.S. foreign intelligence landscape for the past fifteen years.
The first arises from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The attacks reshaped the priorities of the U.S.
intelligence community, as extraordinary resources have been allocated to prevent and counter terrorism.
Our national security establishment has pioneered new technological tools and new legal authorities (orinterpretations of existing ones) in an effort to secure safety.
The second trend is the mainstreaming of the Internet and surrounding technologies built around andupon it, which has led to an unprecedented proliferation of data that can be analyzed by the intelligence
services. In late 2001 there were no smartphones and no social media. Facebook and Twitter were still
years away from capturing our imagination, our time – and our data. The more bits we generate, actively
through typing and talking, and passively by sharing our location, our social relationships, and otherinformation as we go about our lives, the more there is for vendors – and the governments to whom theyanswer – to potentially review, whether in bulk or individually.
The intersection of these trends led to what Peter Swire and Kenesa Ahmad in 2011 called “the Golden
Age of Surveillance.” 1 Since then, that high water mark for opportunities for surveillance has receded inplaces. Some communications and data previously accessible by governments through vendors is no longer
so easily obtained, because some vendors have refined the technologies they offer to prevent eventhemselves from seeing the data the users generate and exchange with one another. Such technologies,
including the use of encryption, are not new as a category, but their entry into mainstream usage perhaps
is. Losing a tool, rather than never having had it to begin with, is no doubt highly salient for the directorof the FBI and others charged with protecting security. They ask: if we have a warrant or other legal
authority, why should previously-accessible information now be off-limits to us?
I empathize with the idea that just how much government can learn about us should not depend on thecat and mouse game of technological measure and counter-measure. Ideally, a polity would carefully
calibrate its legal authorities to permit access exactly and only where it comports with the imperatives of

1Peter Swire and Kenesa Ahmad, “‘Going Dark’ Versus a Golden Age of Surveillance,” Center for Democracy &Technology, November 28, 2011.

1

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 28 of 38 Page ID #:277
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories
legitimate security – and with basic human rights as recognized through the protections of conventions
and constitutions. For one intriguing attempt to reconcile government use of technological hacking tools
with appropriate privacy protections, you might read the proposal for “lawful hacking” that civil libertiesminded computer scientists Steven Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Sandy Clark, and fellow project participant
Susan Landau have advocated. 2
But it is a very large step – a leap, even – to go beyond the legal demand for information already in acompany’s possession, and beyond the use of technological tools to reveal what otherwise is obscure, torequirements on how technology must be deployed to begin with. I’ve written reasons why this leap is illadvised.3 To try to constrain the generative Internet ecosystem in that way would be either futile or
require that we, in the fitting words of the U.S. Supreme Court, “burn the house to roast the pig.” 4 Thatturn of phrase was used by Justice Frankfurter to explain why a Michigan law banning books that could
tend to “corruption of the morals of youth” violated the First Amendment, even if it was aimed at alaudable goal. Here, too, there are times we will rue the cleverness or luck of a criminal who benefits firstfrom the Internet’s facilitation of communication and organization, and then from encryption to prevent
his or her activities from being discovered or investigated. But this is not reason enough to require thatfoundational technologies be restricted or eliminated in general use – any more than the population ofMichigan could rightly be restricted to reading only what is fit for children.
Most of the “Don’t Panic” report from our Berklett cybersecurity project isn’t about that. Given the
spectrum of roles and viewpoints represented in the room, our focus was more on a factual (if speculative)
question – are we really “going dark”? – than one of articulating and balancing values. The answer, in the
big picture, is no, even as it’s small solace to a prosecutor holding both a warrant and an iPhone with apassword that can’t be readily cracked. (To be sure, many of those situations will also have an owner who
could, after process, be ordered by a court to unlock the phone on pain of contempt.)

2

See Steven M. Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Sandy Clark, and Susan Landau, “Lawful Hacking: Using Existing

Vulnerabilities for Wiretapping on the Internet,” 12 Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property 1(2014), available at http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol12/iss1/1.
3

See Jonathan Zittrain, “An Open Letter to Prime Minister Cameron: 20th-Century Solutions Won’t Help 21st-Century Surveillance,” (2015), https://medium.com/message/dear-prime-minister-cameron-20th-century-solutionswont-help-21st-century-surveillance-ff2d7a3d300c.
4

Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383 (1957).

2

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 29 of 38 Page ID #:278
Appendix A: Individual Statements from Signatories
As data collection volume and methods proliferate, the number of human and technical weaknesses
within the system will increase to the point that it will overwhelmingly likely be a net positive for theintelligence community. Consider all those IoT devices with their sensors and poorly updated firmware.
We’re hardly going dark when – fittingly, given the metaphor – our light bulbs have motion detectors andan open port. The label is “going dark” only because the security state is losing something that it fleetingly
had access to, not because it is all of a sudden lacking in vectors for useful information.
But exactly what should reassure government officials, and stay the momentum for major policy
interventions into Internet technology development, is what should also trouble everyone: we are hurtling
towards a world in which a truly staggering amount of data will be only a warrant or a subpoena away,
and in many jurisdictions, even that gap need not be traversed. That’s why this report and thedeliberations behind it are genuinely only a beginning, and there’s much more work to do before thefuture is upon us.

3

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 30 of 38 Page ID #:279
Appendix B: Berklett Cybersecurity Project Group Members and Guests

Appendix B: Berklett Cybersecurity Project Group
Members and Guests
More information about the Berkman Center’s Berklett Cybersecurity Project can be found here:
http://brk.mn/cybersecurity.
At the heart of the project is an extremely diverse group of experts who regularly convene, approximately
every three months, to discuss enduring problems of surveillance and cybersecurity. As part of themeetings, special guests are occasionally invited to join these meetings for the opportunity to share uniqueperspectives on specific topics of discussion.
The core members of the group are: *John DeLong: the Director of the Commercial Solutions Center at the National Security Agency.
Formerly he was the Director of Compliance at the NSA and previously served as the Deputy
Director of the National Cyber Security Division at the Department of Homeland Security. He
has also developed classes and taught at the National Cryptologic School in areas of compliance,computer science, and cybersecurity.
Urs Gasser: the Executive Director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and a Professorof Practice at Harvard Law School. His research includes activities focused on information law,policy, and society with projects in collaboration with leading international research institutions
exploring regulation, ICT interoperability, cybersecurity, and the law’s impact on innovation andrisk in the ICT space. Urs is the author of several books, including, with John Palfrey, Interop:
The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems (Basic Books, 2012).
Hon. Nancy Gertner (ret.): a former U.S. federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Massachusetts. She was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994,*

This publication would not have been possible without contributions from the project's talented team members andcollaborators, in particular Samantha Bates, Tiffany Lin, Shailin Thomas, and Jordi Weinstock, who contributed
research, editing, and inspiration throughout the writing process. A number of the Berkman Center's summer
interns, research assistants, and Harvard Law School students also contributed to the report, including Abby
Colella, David Eichert, Lydia Lichlyter, and Grant Nelson. We are also indebted to many other staff members at
the Center and Harvard Law School who supported the project and the report, including Carey Andersen, Ryan
Budish, Rob Faris, Dan Jones, Sue Kriegsman, Amanda McMahan, Annie Pruitt, Daniel Oyolu, Gretchen Weber,and Amy Zhang.

1Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 31 of 38 Page ID #:280
Appendix B: Berklett Cybersecurity Project Group Members and Guests
holding the position for 17 years. She has written and spoken widely on various legal issues
concerning civil rights and liberties, criminal justice, and procedural issues. Currently, she is a
Senior Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.
Jack Goldsmith: formerly served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, andSpecial Counsel to the Department of Defense for the Bush Administration. He is the Henry L.
Shattuck Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution
at Stanford University. He is also the co-founder of Lawfareblog.com, and focuses on national
security, international, and Internet law, and cybersecurity.
Susan Landau: a professor of cybersecurity policy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a visiting
professor in computer science at University College London. She works at the intersection of
cybersecurity, national security, law, and policy, and is the author of numerous books, including
Surveillance or Security?: Risks Posed by New Wiretapping Technologies (MIT Press, 2011) and, withWhitfield Diffie, Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption (MIT Press, rev.
ed. 2007). Susan has previously served as a senior staff Privacy Analyst at Google and aDistinguished Engineer at Sun Microsystems.
Anne Neuberger: the Chief Risk Officer at the National Security Agency, responsible for the
implementation of the risk management process. She is also a member of the NSA’s Senior
Leadership team. Previously she served as the Director of NSA’s Commercial Solutions Center,and as Special Assistant to the Director for the Enduring Security Framework.
Joseph Nye: formerly served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and was the Deputy Under Secretary of Statefor Security Assistance, Science and Technology. Ranked as the most influential scholar on
American foreign policy, he has written extensively on international relations and power. He wasformerly the Dean of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and is currently a University
Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard.
David R. O’Brien: a Senior Researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
University, where he leads research initiatives on privacy and cybersecurity. He formerly practiced
intellectual property and technology law in Boston.
Matthew G. Olsen: former Director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center appointed byPresident Obama in 2011. Prior to that position, he served as General Counsel for the National
Security Agency, in leadership positions at the Department of Justice, and as a federal prosecutor.
Currently, he is a president and co-founder of IronNet Cybersecurity, a lecturer at Harvard Law
School, and a national security analyst for ABC News.

2

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 32 of 38 Page ID #:281
Appendix B: Berklett Cybersecurity Project Group Members and Guests
Daphna Renan: served as an Attorney Advisor in the Justice Department’s Office of LegalCounsel as well as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General. She is currently an AssistantProfessor of Law at Harvard Law School where her research examines surveillance as ongoing androutinized domestic administration, and explores mechanisms for its systematic governance.
Julian Sanchez: a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute who studies technology, privacy, and civil
liberties, with a particular focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. He was formerly
the Washington editor for Ars Technica, and was a writer for The Economist’s Democracy inAmerica. He is also a founding editor of the policy blog, Just Security.
Bruce Schneier: a renowned security technologist who has written extensively on security issues,
both academically and within the public. He is the Chief Technology Officer of Resilient Systems,
a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, a program fellow at the Open Technology
Institute, and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He is also the author ofnumerous books on security, surveillance, and cryptography, including the New York Times
Bestseller Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World (WWNorton and Company, 2015).
Larry Schwartztol: formerly worked as a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s
National Security project, litigating cases involving foreign intelligence surveillance. He was also astaff attorney in the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, litigating cases at the intersection of racialand economic justice. He is currently the executive director of the Criminal Justice Program ofStudy, Research & Advocacy at Harvard Law School.
Jonathan Zittrain: is the George Bemis Professor of International Law at Harvard Law School
and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Professor of Computer Science at the Harvard
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and co-founder and Faculty Director of the
Berkman Center for Internet & Society. He is a member of the Board of Directors of theElectronic Frontier Foundation and also contributes to the advisory board of the National Security
Agency.

Meeting guests have included:
James Baker, Federal Bureau of Investigation
James Burell, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Janice Gardner, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Melissa Hathaway, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center; Hathaway Global Strategies
Eli Sugarman, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Ben Wittes, Lawfare; Brookings Institution3

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 33 of 38 Page ID #:282
Notes

1

See Ellen Nakashima and Andrea Peterson, “Obama administration opts not to force firms to decrypt data – fornow,” The Washington Post, October 8, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obamaadministration-opts-not-to-force-firms-to-decrypt-data--for-now/2015/10/08/1d6a6012-6dca-11e5-aa5bf78a98956699_story.html.
2David Sanger, “Signaling Post-Snowden Era, New iPhone Locks Out NSA,” The New York Times, September 26,

2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/technology/iphone-locks-out-the-nsa-signaling-a-post-snowden-era.html.
2

Apple, Inc., “iOS Security Guide: iOS 8.1 or later,” October 2014.

3

Ibid.

4

Craig Timberg, “Newest Androids will join iPhones in offering default encryption, blocking police,” The

Washington Post, September 18, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/18/newestandroids-will-join-iphones-in-offering-default-encryption-blocking-police/.
5

Andy Greenberg, “WhatsApp Just Switched on End-to-End Encryption for Hundreds of Millions of Users,”

WIRED, November 18, 2014, http://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/.
6Alex Stamos, “User-Focused Security: End-to-End Encryption Extension for Yahoo Mail,” Yahoo Blog, March 15,

2015, http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/113708033335/user-focused-security-end-to-end-encryption.
6

Charlie Savage, “U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet,” The New York Times, September 27, 2010,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html.
7

See filings related to In Re Order Requiring Apple, Inc. To Assist In The Execution Of A Search Warrant Issued By This

Court, No. 15-MC-1902 (EDNY October 9, 2015).
8

Alma Whitten and J.D. Tygar, “Why Johnny Can’t Encrypt: A Usability Evaluation of PGP 5.0,” in Lori Cranor

and Simpson Garfinkel, Security and Usability: Designing Systems that People Can Use (O’Reilly: Sebastapol, 2005).
9

In early 2014, more than 600 million individuals worldwide were estimated to use iPhones and more than 1.9

billion individuals were estimated to use phones running Android. See Dawiderpal Sahota, “Android Domination tocontinue in 2014; iPhone loses ground,” Telecoms.com, January 2014, http://telecoms.com/210391/androiddomination-to-continue-in-2014-iphone-loses-ground/.
10

See, e.g., Nathan Freitas, “6 Ways Law Enforcement Can Track Terrorists in an Encrypted World,” MIT

Technology Review, November 24, 2015, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/543896/6-ways-law-enforcementcan-track-terrorists-in-an-encrypted-world/; Nicholas Weaver, “iPhones, The FBI, and Going Dark,” Lawfare,August 4, 2015, https://www.lawfareblog.com/iphones-fbi-and-going-dark; Jan Willem Aldershoff, “Users
shouldn’t trust WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption,” MYCE.com, May 1, 2015, http://www.myce.com/news/usersshouldnt-trust-on-whatsapps-end-to-end-encryption-75939/.
11

For a thorough history, see Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau, Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping andEncryption (MIT Press: Cambridge, 2007).

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 34 of 38 Page ID #:283
Notes

12

See Ben Adida, Collin Anderson, Annie Anton, et al., “CALEA II: Risks of Wiretap Modifications to

Endpoints,” (May 17, 2013).
13

Charlie Savage, “U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet,” The New York Times, September 27, 2010,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html.
14“Going Dark: Lawful Electronic Surveillance in the Face of New Technologies,” Before the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
House of Representatives, 112th Cong. (2011), http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/printers/112th/11259_64581.PDF.
15

Enacted in 1994, CALEA required require telecommunications companies to modify their digital infrastructureso that law enforcement agencies would be able to conduct lawful surveillance activities. Pub. L. 103-414, 108 Stat.
4279 (October 5, 1994) (codified at 47 USC §§ 1001-1010).
16

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Situational Information Report, Cyber Activity Alert, “Going Dark: Law

Enforcement Problems in Lawful Surveillance,” June 29, 2011, http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBIGoingDark.pdf.
17

State and local government agencies have also issued reports and statements on the debate. See, e.g., “Report of theManhattan District Attorney’s Office on Smartphone Encryption and Public Safety,” November 2015,
http://manhattanda.org/sites/default/files/11.18.15%20Report%20on%20Smartphone%20Encryption%20and%20P
ublic%20Safety.pdf.
18

James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director, “Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public

Safety on a Collision Course?,” speech delivered to Brookings Institution, October 2014,
http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-public-safety-on-a-collision-course.
19

Amy Hess, Executive Assistant Director, Science and Technology Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation,“Encryption and Cyber Security for Mobile Electronic Communication Devices,” Encryption Technology andPotential U.S. Policy Responses, Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee
on Information Technology, April 29, 2015, http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/encryption-and-cyber-securityfor-mobile-electronic-communication-devices.
20

Amy Hess, Executive Assistant Director, Science and Technology Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation,“Encryption and Cyber Security for Mobile Electronic Communication Devices,” Encryption Technology andPotential U.S. Policy Responses, Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee
on Information Technology, April 29, 2015.
21

James B. Comey, “Counter Intelligence and the Challenges of Going Dark,” Statement Before the Senate SelectCommittee on Intelligence, July 8, 2015, https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/counterterrorismcounterintelligence-and-the-challenges-of-going-dark; https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/going-darkencryption-technology-and-the-balances-between-public-safety-and-privacy; James Comey, “Encryption, Public
Safety, and ‘Going Dark,’” Lawfare, July 6, 2015, https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-public-safety-andgoing-dark. See also Michael Steinbach, “ISIL in America: Domestic Terror and Radicalization,” Statement Before

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 35 of 38 Page ID #:284
Notes

the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations,February 26, 2015, https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/isil-in-america-domestic-terror-and-radicalization.
22

James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director, “Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public

Safety on a Collision Course?,” speech delivered to Brookings Institution, October 2014.
23

James Comey, Oral Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “Oversight of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation,” December 9, 2015.
24

John Reed, “Transcript: NSA Director Mike Rogers vs Yahoo! on Encryption Backdoors,” Just Security, February

23, 2015, http://justsecurity.org/20304/transcript-nsa-director-mike-rogers-vs-yahoo-encryption-doors/; Nick
Gass, “Jeh Johnson warns of post-Snowden encryption frenzy,” Politico, May 15, 2015,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeh-johnson-edward-snowden-fallout-117986.html.
25

See Damian Paletta, “Paris Attack Reopens U.S. Privacy vs Security Debate,” The Wall Street Journal, November

16, 2015, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/16/paris-attack-reopens-u-s-privacy-vs-security-debate/.
26

Mike McConnell, Michael Chertoff, and William Lynn, “Why the fear of ubiquitous data encryption is

overblown,” The Washington Post, July 28, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-need-forubiquitous-data-encryption/2015/07/28/3d145952-324e-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html.
27James B. Comey, “Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balances Between Public Safety andEncryption,” Joint Statement with Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates Before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, July 8, 2015, https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/going-dark-encryption-technology-and-thebalances-between-public-safety-and-privacy.
28

Ellen Nakashima and Andrea Peterson, “Obama administration opts not to force firms to decrypt data – for now,”

The Washington Post, October 8, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obamaadministration-opts-not-to-force-firms-to-decrypt-data--for-now/2015/10/08/1d6a6012-6dca-11e5-aa5bf78a98956699_story.html.
29

Cyrus Vance, Fraçois Molins, Adrian Leppard, and Javier Zaragoza, “When Phone Encryption Blocks Justice,”

The New York Times, August 11, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/apple-google-when-phoneencryption-blocks-justice.html.
30

See Rowena Mason, “U.K. spy agencies need more powers, says Cameron,” The Guardian, January 12, 2015,

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-parisattacks; Rob Price, “The U.K. government insists it’s not going to try and ban encryption,” Business Insider, July 14,
2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-government-not-going-to-ban-encryption-2015-7.
31

See David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, “Encrypted Messaging Apps May Face New Scrutiny Over Possible Rolein Paris Attacks,” The New York Times, November 16, 2015,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/encrypted-messaging-apps-face-new-scrutiny-over-possiblerole-in-paris-attacks.html.
32

See Paul Mozur, “New Rules in China Upset Western Tech Companies,” The New York Times, January 28, 2015,

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/technology/in-china-new-cybersecurity-rules-perturb-western-tech-

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 36 of 38 Page ID #:285
Notes

companies.html; Zack Whittaker, “E.U wants to force Internet, phone companies to turn over encryption keys,”
ZDNet, January 22, 2015, http://www.zdnet.com/article/eu-wants-internet-phone-companies-to-hand-overencryption-keys/; Paul Hockenos, “Europe Considers Surveillance Expansion After Deadly Attacks,” The Intercept,
January 20, 2015, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/20/europe-considers-surveillance-expansion/.
33

To give but a few examples, see Hal Abelson et al., “Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring

government access to all data and communications,” Journal of Cybersecurity, Vol.1(1) (2015); Kenneth Dam andHerbert Lin, eds., Cryptography’s Role in Securing the Information Society (National Academies Press: Washington,
DC, 1996); Hal Abelson, Ross Anderson, et al., “The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third-Party
Encryption,” (1997); Peter Swire and Kenesa Ahmad, “Encryption and Globalization,” 13 Columbia Science &Technology Review 416 (September 2012); Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau, “The Export of Cryptography in the20th Century and the 21st” in Karl De Leeuw and Jan Bergstra (eds.), The History of Information Security (Elsevier,2007). Technology companies have also joined members of civil society, academics, and security technologists inrecent public statements concerning the debate. See Kevin Bankston, “Massive Coalition of Security Experts, Tech
Companies and Privacy Advocates Presses Obama to Oppose Surveillance Backdoors,” New America Foundation,
Open Technology Institute, May 19, 2015, https://www.newamerica.org/oti/massive-coalition-of-security-expertstech-companies-and-privacy-advocates-presses-obama-to-oppose-surveillance-backdoors/.
34

Hal Abelson et al., “Keys Under Doormats: Mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data andcommunications,” Journal of Cybersecurity, Vol. 1(1) (2015).
35

Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, C-362/14 (CJEU October 6, 2015),

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf.
36David Kaye, Human Rights Council, United Nations, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion andprotection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,” May 22, 2015. See also David Kravets, “U.N. says
encryption ‘necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom’,” Ars Technica, May 28, 2015,
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/un-says-encryption-necessary-for-the-exercise-of-the-right-tofreedom/.
37

See Peter Swire and Kenesa Ahmad, “‘Going Dark’ Versus a Golden Age of Surveillance,” Center for Democracy& Technology, November 28, 2011.
38

Nathan Freitas, “6 Ways Law Enforcement Can Track Terrorists in an Encrypted World,” MIT Technology

Review, November 24, 2015, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/543896/6-ways-law-enforcement-can-trackterrorists-in-an-encrypted-world/; Nicholas Weaver, “iPhones, The FBI, and Going Dark,” Lawfare, August 4,
2015, https://www.lawfareblog.com/iphones-fbi-and-going-dark.
39

See Steven M. Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Sandy Clark, and Susan Landau, “Lawful Hacking: Using Existing

Vulnerabilities for Wiretapping on the Internet,” 12 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 1(April 2014).
40

See, e.g., Nathan Freitas, “6 Ways Law Enforcement Can Track Terrorists in an Encrypted World,” MIT

Technology Review, November 24, 2015, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/543896/6-ways-law-enforcement-

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 37 of 38 Page ID #:286
Notes

can-track-terrorists-in-an-encrypted-world/; Nicholas Weaver, “iPhones, The FBI, and Going Dark,” Lawfare,August 4, 2015, https://www.lawfareblog.com/iphones-fbi-and-going-dark.
41

See, e.g., Google, “Showing Gmail ads,” https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/6105478.

42

Facebook, “How to target Facebook Ads,” https://www.facebook.com/business/a/online-sales/ad-targeting-details.
43

Yahoo, “Advertising,” https://advertising.yahoo.com/.

44

Michael Ambrust et al., “Above the Clouds: A Berkeley View of Cloud Computing,”

https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2009/EECS-2009-28.pdf
45See, e.g., Dropbox, http://dropbox.com/.

46

See, e.g., Janna Anderson and Lee Rainie, “The future of cloud computing,” Pew Research Center, June 11, 2010,

http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/06/11/the-future-of-cloud-computing/.
47

See Quentin Hardy, “The Era of Cloud Computing,” The New York Times, June 11, 2014,

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/the-era-of-cloud-computing/.
48

Apple, “iOS Security,” September 2015, https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

49

Nicholas Weaver, “iPhones, the FBI, and Going Dark,” Lawfare, August 4, 2015,

https://www.lawfareblog.com/iphones-fbi-and-going-dark.
50

Zach Miners, “End-to-end encryption needs to be easier for users before Facebook embraces it,” PC World,

March 19, 2014, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2109582/end-to-end-encryption-needs-to-be-easier-for-usersbefore-facebook-embraces-it.html.
51

Andrew Cunningham, “Google quietly backs away from encrypting new Lollipop devices by default,” Ars

Technica, March 2, 2015, http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/03/google-quietly-backs-away-from-encryptingnew-lollipop-devices-by-default/; Timothy J. Seppala, “Google won’t force Android encryption by default,”
Engadget, March 2, 2015, http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/02/android-lollipop-automatic-encryption/.
52

Alex Dobie, “Why you’ll never have the latest version of Android,” Android Central, September 6, 2012,

http://www.androidcentral.com/why-you-ll-never-have-latest-version-android.
53

Android Developer Dashboards, http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html (visited January 27,2016).
54

See, e.g., Anton Troianovski, “Phone Firms Sell Data on Customers,” The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2013,

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323463704578497153556847658; Julianne Pepitone, “What yourwireless carrier knows about you,” CNN Money, December 16, 2013,
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/16/technology/mobile/wireless-carrier-sell-data/; Declan McCullagh, “Verizon
draws fire for monitoring app usage, browsing habits,” CNET, October 16, 2012,
http://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-draws-fire-for-monitoring-app-usage-browsing-habits/.
55

McKinsey, “Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of things,” June 2015.

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/The_Internet_of_Things_The_value_of_digitizing_the_physical_world.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-14 Filed 02/25/16 Page 38 of 38 Page ID #:287
Notes

56

See McKinsey, “Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of things,” June 2015.

57

See Janna Anderson and Lee Rainie, "The Internet of Things Will Thrive by 2025,” Pew Research Center, March

14, 2014, http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/05/14/internet-of-things/.
58

See Kelsey Finch and Omer Tene, “Welcome to the Metropicon: Protecting Privacy in a Hyperconnected Town,”

41 Fordham Law Review 1581 (October 2014).
59

See, e.g., “Discover the internet of things,” http://iolist.co.

60

See, e.g., https://aws.amazon.com/iot/; http://www.apple.com/ios/homekit/; https://developers.google.com/brillo/.

61

See David Linthicum, “Thank the cloud for making big data and IoT possible,” InfoWorld, January 16, 2015,

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2867978/cloud-computing/thank-the-cloud-for-making-big-data-and-internetof-things-possible.html.
62

The Company v. United States, 349 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Adam Liptak, “Court Leaves the DoorOpen For Safety System Wiretaps,” The New York Times, October 21, 2003,
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/automobiles/court-leaves-the-door-open-for-safety-system-wiretaps.html,
and Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It (2008), “Tethered Appliances, Software as
Service, and Perfect Enforcement,” http://yupnet.org/zittrain/2008/03/14/chapter-5-tethered-appliances-softwareas-service-and-perfect-enforcement/.
63

There are numerous consumer products – including baby monitors, security cameras, and even children’s toys –with networked sensors that rely telemetry and other data to third-party intermediaries for processing and otherpurposes. See, e.g., “Amazon Echo,” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X4WHP5E/; Nest, “Meet Nest
Cam,” https://nest.com/camera/meet-nest-cam/; Phillips, “In.Sight Wireless HD Baby Monitor,”
http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/B120_37/in.sight-wireless-hd-baby-monitor.
64

See Shane Harris, “Your Samsung SmartTV Is Spying on You, Basically,” The Daily Beast, February 5, 2015,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/05/your-samsung-smarttv-is-spying-on-you-basically.html.
65

Samsung, “Samsung Privacy Policy – SmartTV Supplement,”

http://www.samsung.com/sg/info/privacy/smarttv.html (accessed October 26, 2015).
66

Samuel Gibbs, “Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission,” The Guardian, June 23,

2015, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/23/google-eavesdropping-tool-installed-computerswithout-permission.
67

Ariella Brown, “Smart Barbie Puts Child’s Play in the Cloud,” Information Week, April 5, 2015,

http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/smart-barbie-puts-childs-play-in-the-cloud/a/d-id/1319779.
68

Nest, “Meet Nest Cam,” https://nest.com/camera/meet-nest-cam/.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:288

Exhibit N

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:289

Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International—written evidence(IPB0093)
1.
The world today faces security threats from criminals and terrorists who threaten ourshared commitment to a peaceful and productive future. Apple has a long history ofcooperating with the UK government on a wide range of important issues, and in thattradition, thanks the Committee for the opportunity to share our views on this topic.
2.
Apple is deeply committed to protecting public safety and shares the Government’s
determination to combat terrorism and other violent crimes. Strong encryption is vital toprotecting innocent people from malicious actors. While the Government has said it does
not intend to weaken encryption, its representatives have made clear if, “the Secretary ofState and a judicial commissioner think there is necessity and proportionality in order to beable to provide that information, those companies should be required to provide that
information in the clear.”3.
The fact is to comply with the Government’s proposal, the personal data of millions of
law-abiding citizens would be less secure.
Summary4.
Hundreds of millions of people depend on Apple’s products and services. Our
customers trust Apple and their Apple devices with some of their most personal information— their financial data, health data, family photos, videos and messages.
5.
Two things have changed in a short period of time: 1) the amount of sensitive
information innocent individuals put on their devices; and 2) the sophistication anddetermination of malicious cyber-attackers. Governments, businesses, and individuals haveall been victims, and we’ve all been surprised by the successful implementation of exploits
the experts viewed as still merely theoretical.
6.
Increasingly sophisticated hacking schemes and cyber-attacks have become the newnormal as individuals live more of their lives on their devices and online. Without strong
defense, these attacks have the potential to impose chaos, and threaten our way of life,
economic stability and infrastructure.
7.
We owe it to our customers to protect their personal data to the best of our ability.
Increasingly stronger — not weaker — encryption is the best way to protect against thesethreats.
8.
The bill threatens to hurt law-abiding citizens in its effort to combat the few bad
actors who have a variety of ways to carry out their attacks. The creation of backdoors andintercept capabilities would weaken the protections built into Apple products and endanger
all our customers. A key left under the doormat would not just be there for the good guys.
The bad guys would find it too.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:290

9.
Encryption today is as ubiquitous as computing itself and we are all the better for it.
There are hundreds of products that use encryption to protect user data, many of them
open-source and beyond the regulation of any one government. By mandating weakened
encryption in Apple products, this bill will put law-abiding citizens at risk, not the criminals,
hackers and terrorists who will continue having access to encryption.
10. Some would portray this as an all-or-nothing proposition for law enforcement.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Law enforcement today has access to more data —data which they can use to prevent terrorist attacks, solve crimes and help bring
perpetrators to justice — than ever before in the history of our world.
11. If the UK Government forces these capabilities, there’s no assurance they will not be
imposed in other places where protections are absent.
12. On the pages that follow, our submission will also take exception to the fact the billwould attempt to force non-UK companies to take actions that violate the laws of theirhome countries. This would immobilize substantial portions of the tech sector and spark
serious international conflicts. It would also likely be the catalyst for other countries toenact similar laws, paralyzing multinational corporations under the weight of what could be
dozens or hundreds of contradictory country-specific laws.
13. Finally, the bill would also force companies to expend considerable resources hacking
their own systems at the Government’s direction. This mandate would require Apple toalter the design of our systems and could endanger the privacy and security of users in the
UK and elsewhere.
14. We are committed to doing everything in our power to create a safer and more secureworld for our customers. But it is our belief this world cannot come by sacrificing personal
security.
Encryption
15. Every day, over a trillion transactions occur safely over the Internet as a result ofencrypted communications. These range from online banking and credit card transactions to
the exchange of healthcare records, ideas that will change the world for the better, andcommunications between loved ones. Governments like the United States fundsophisticated encryption technology including some of the best end-to-end encryption apps.
Encryption, in short, protects people.
16. Protecting our customers and earning their trust is fundamental to our businessmodel. At Apple, we’ve been providing customers easy ways to protect their data withstrong encryption in our products and services for well over 10 years. In 2003, we launched
FileVault to protect data on a user’s Mac. In 2010, with iOS 4, we began to encrypt data on
iOS devices to keys derived from a user’s passcode. We launched FaceTime in 2010 andiMessage in 2011, both with end-to-end encryption. As users increasingly entrust Apple andtheir devices with sensitive information, we will continue to deploy strong encryption
methods because we firmly believe they’re in our customers' best interests, and ultimately

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:291

in the best interests of humanity. Our job is to constantly stay 10 steps ahead of the badguys.
17. Some have asserted that, given the expertise of technology companies, they should be
able to construct a system that keeps the data of nearly all users secure but still allows thedata of very few users to be read covertly when a proper warrant is served. But theGovernment does not know in advance which individuals will become targets ofinvestigation, so the encryption system necessarily would need to be compromised foreveryone.
18. The best minds in the world cannot rewrite the laws of mathematics. Any processthat weakens the mathematical models that protect user data will by extension weaken theprotection. And recent history is littered with cases of attackers successfully implementing
exploits that nearly all experts either remained unaware of or viewed as merely theoretical.
Every day that companies hold the ability to decrypt their customers’ data is more time
criminals have to gain that ability. All the while, hacking technology grows moresophisticated. What might have been adequate security for customers two years ago nolonger is and that’s why we’ve strengthened our encryption protections.
19. Strong encryption does not eliminate Apple’s ability to give law enforcement
metadata or other categories of data, as outlined in our Law Enforcement Guidelines. The
information Apple and other companies provide helps catch criminals and save lives. It is forthis reason that UK law enforcement still requests this data from us routinely. Information
about our assistance can be found at http://www.apple.com/privacy/governmentinformation-requests/
20. We believe it would be wrong to weaken security for hundreds of millions of lawabiding customers so that it will also be weaker for the very few who pose a threat. In this
rapidly-evolving cyber-threat environment, companies should remain free to implement
strong encryption to protect customers.
Extraterritoriality
21. Apple has been established in Europe for more than 35 years. With the exception ofcertain limited retail and human resources data, Apple is not established in the UK.
22. Under European data protection law, Apple Distribution International established in
Cork, Ireland and iTunes S.à.r.l. established in Luxembourg have data controller
responsibility for Apple and iTunes user personal data of users located in the EEA and
Switzerland.
23. We take this responsibility very seriously and face sanction from data protection
authorities and/or user litigation if we fail to meet those requirements. Additionally, user
content is stored in the United States, and US law controls access to that data by law
enforcement. Failure on the part of any relevant US entity to follow those requirements
gives rise to criminal and civil liability. Most relevant, Title III of the US Omnibus Crime

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:292

Control and Safe Streets Act would subject Apple to criminal sanctions for any unauthorizedinterception of content in transit.
24. As defined in relevant EU Telecommunications Law, Apple is not an electronic
communications service provider. The Investigatory Powers Bill seeks to extend definitionsin this area to an extent beyond that provided for in relevant EU law.
25. The draft bill makes explicit its reach beyond UK borders to, in effect, any service
provider with a connection to UK consumers. In short, we believe this will lead to major
issues for businesses and could ultimately put UK users at greater risk.
26. The first problem with asserting such extraterritorial powers is that there will remain aproportion of service providers which will never assist British law enforcement regardless of
threatened sanction because they are underground or in jurisdictions unfriendly to British
interests. It is to these providers that dangerous people will gravitate.
27. Even leaving that aside, the implications for companies such as Apple who do assist
law enforcement will be profound. As well as complying with local law in the countries
where we are established for the provision of our services, we will have to attempt tooverlay compliance with UK law. On their face, those laws would not be in harmony.
Further, we know that the IP bill process is being watched closely by other countries. If the
UK asserts jurisdiction over Irish or American businesses, other states will too.
28. Those businesses affected will have to cope with a set of overlapping foreign anddomestic laws. When these laws inevitably conflict, the businesses will be left having toarbitrate between them, knowing that in doing so they might risk sanctions. That is an
unreasonable position to be placed in.
29. The Government has partly addressed this by providing a defense for businesses who
cannot comply with a warrant because of local laws (although not in all parts of the bill - see
below). However, once a third jurisdiction is overlaid (home country, UK and one other),the situation soon becomes very difficult for businesses to negotiate.
30. This will not just be an issue for companies like Apple: any British business withcustomers overseas might be faced with having to comply with a warrant from a foreign
jurisdiction which poses it ethical problems, or impinges on the privacy of British consumers.
31. Clearly this situation could arise regardless of whatever legislation is passed in the UK.
But Parliament will be leading the way with this bill and needs to carefully consider theprecedent it sets.
Equipment Interference
32. We believe the UK is the first national Government to attempt to provide a legislativebasis for equipment interference. Consumer trust in the public and private sectors canbenefit from a more concrete understanding of the framework in which these activities cantake place. However, it could at the same time be undermined by a blurring of theCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:293

boundaries of responsibilities, and the bill as it stands seems to threaten to extend
responsibility for hacking from Government to the private sector.
33. It would place businesses like Apple - whose relationship with customers is in part
built on a sense of trust about how data will be handled - in a very difficult position. For the
consumer in, say, Germany, this might represent hacking of their data by an Irish businesson behalf of the UK state under a bulk warrant - activity which the provider is not evenallowed to confirm or deny. Maintaining trust in such circumstances will be extremely
difficult.
34. For these reasons, we believe there is a need for much greater clarity as to how thepowers in the bill will be applied, not least because, once again, the extension of the powers
to overseas providers will set a precedent which, if followed by other countries, could
endanger the privacy and security of users in the UK and elsewhere.
Specific Comments on Clauses
Clauses 189, 190 and 191
35. These clauses govern the Secretary of State's ability to require businesses to establish
a technical capability to comply with warrants.
36. Paragraphs (1) to (5) of Clause 189 would authorize the Secretary of State to makeregulations imposing specified obligations on an operator. Paragraph (4) states that thoseobligations could include ones “relating to the removal of electronic protection applied by arelevant operator to any communications or data” in other words, the removal ofencryption.
37. As set out above, we believe there are significant risks to applying this power toencryption and to extending this power to overseas providers. We therefore do not believe
the clause should be retained in its current form and certainly should not extend outside theUK.
38. However, this power could have a very profound effect on any business to whom theclauses apply, and the details are worth examining.
39. First, the oversight seems less rigorous than other parts of the bill. There is no judicial
authorization of the requirements placed on businesses. There is no protection forbusinesses who cannot comply because of local laws.
40. Second, the system does not allow for a full weighing of the costs of compliance.
While the clauses require some assessment of compliance cost, it is not clear how thiswould be calculated. Even if a consensus could be reached on the number of working hours
and computing power needed to comply, a proper consideration would need to include theopportunity cost as other projects were put on hold, the knock-on effects for other services
and the change in the customer relationship.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:294

41. Third, because (as we explain above) any reduction in encryption in the UK will be
exploited by regimes and bad actors not subject to the same privacy and civil liberties
protections as UK law enforcement, the implications of a Notice under these clauses would
go way beyond either the UK or the affected business. The bill at present does not require
any consideration of this.
42. Fourth, there is no explicit obligation for the requirements on a business to be
proportionate. Our reading of the bill is that although the Secretary of State might berequired to take into account the benefits, costs and technical feasibility of the notice, andconsult the Technical Advisory Board and (in the case of review) the Investigatory Powers
Commissioner, it is at best implicit that she must only impose requirements that areproportionate. If there is a review, the bill requires that the Investigatory Powers
Commissioner must consider whether the notice is proportionate, but the Secretary of State
could still reject this advice.
43. The overall effect is a wide ranging power for the Secretary of State to demand abusiness remove encryption based on an insufficiently robust process and without regard to
the full effects, leaving the business with no effective means of appeal.
44.

Suggested amendments:
The steps required of a business by a Notice should not include removal of electronic
protection.
These powers should not extend to overseas businesses; a conflict of laws
exemption should be added.
A notice under s189 should require judicial authorization.
There should be clear and concise definitions for the following terms: "removal ofelectronic protection”, "technical feasibility” and "reasonably practicable”. These
are key terms that should not be left in the first instance for argument in court.
Parliament should define and agree what their intent is.
The criteria by which the assessment is made by the Secretary of State should bemade much more explicit.
The Technical Advisory Board advice should be made available to the affectedbusiness, and in the case of a review under clause 191, the Interception
Commissioner's advice as well.
Before imposing any requirement under s189, the Secretary of State should consider
whether the time spent in complying, cost (including opportunity cost), knock-on
effects and change in customer relationships are reasonable and proportionate to
the expected benefits.
The Secretary of State should also be obliged to consider the impact of a notice onhuman rights, in the UK and globally.
The Secretary of State should be required only to apply notices that areproportionate as advised by the Commissioner.

Clause 188

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:295

45. Paragraph (1) of Clause 188 would authorize the Secretary of State to give any
telecommunications operator in the UK a national security notice directing the operator totake such steps as the Secretary of State considers necessary in the interests of national
security. 188(4) precludes the powers under this clause being used as a shortcut if powers
exist elsewhere in the bill.
46. While we take the strong view that this bill should not be used to demand the removalof encryption, we would not want to see that clarified only for a catch-all Clause 188 toallow the Secretary of State to demand it unilaterally.
47.

Suggested amendment:
The Clause should be amended to clarify that it cannot be used to require businesses
to remove electronic protection from their products or services.

Clause 31
48. This clause places a duty on an operator to comply with a warrant. Again, in line with
our argument above, we continue to believe the duty should not be applied to overseas
businesses, but have some more general comments on the clause.
49. Clause 31 would require a relevant operator to take all reasonably practicable steps
for giving effect to a warrant. Although this is not explicit in the draft bill, our understandingof the government’s intention is that this would require us to remove end to end encryption
if that was necessary to give effect to the warrant and considered proportionate. The Home
Office indicated exactly this in the evidence to your committee we quoted above.
50. In other words, the bill as it stands means that whether or not the Secretary of State
has served a business with a Clause189 order requiring it to remove electronic protection, afresh warrant could be served on a business requiring them to provide data in the clear,backed up by the threat of imprisonment. This seems to represent a short cut for the
Secretary of State to insist on removal of encryption - but of course compliance with awarrant in the timescale required by a criminal investigation is likely to be impossible.
51.

Suggested amendments:
This Clause should not apply to overseas providers.
The Clause should be amended to make clear that ‘reasonably practicable steps’
cannot include removal of electronic protection unless dealt with separately undera Notice under Clause 189, subject to the amendments to that Clause we suggest
above.
The definition of ‘reasonably practicable steps’ should be clarified as we set out
above to distinguish it from ‘technical feasibility.’

Clauses 81 and 135
52.

These clauses deal with targeted and bulk equipment interference warrants.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-15 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:296

53. We are concerned about the way in which the bill could make private companies
implicated in the hacking of their customers.
54. Clause 81(2) provides that a warrant can be served on a person to require them toassist in hacking.
55. Is the intention that persons receiving a warrant would knowingly let the security
services break into their equipment or services or allow them to use that equipment tobreak into equipment used by a third party? Or does the envisaged power go even further
and require persons in receipt of a warrant to actively assist in the interference of their own
equipment and services?
56. These questions become even more pressing when applied to bulk equipment
interference warrants. It is extremely difficult to imagine circumstances in which this could
be justified, so we believe the bill must spell out in more detail the types of activities
required of communications providers and the circumstances in which they are expected tocarry them out. Additionally and in line with earlier comments, these clauses should nothave extra-territorial effect.
57.

Suggested amendments:
The powers in this part of the bill need to be fully understood as to their intent. The
bill should set out in much more detail what the requirement on a person servedwith a warrant will be.
The clauses should not apply to overseas providers who would be put in an
impossible conflict of laws position.

21 December 2015

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:297

Exhibit O

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:298

Opinions

Why the fear over ubiquitous data encryption is overblown

Clarification: Due to a production error, a version of this column was temporarily posted prematurely before
the editing process was complete.

By Mike McConnell, Michael Chertoff and William Lynn July 28, 2015

Mike McConnell is a former director of the National Security Agency and director of national intelligence.
Michael Chertoff is a former homeland security secretary and is executive chairman of the Chertoff Group,a security and risk management advisory firm with clients in the technology sector. William Lynn is a former
deputy defense secretary and is chief executive of Finmeccanica North America and DRS Technologies.
More than three years ago, as former national security officials, we penned an op­ed to raise awareness among the
public, the business community and Congress of the serious threat to the nation’s well­being posed by the massive
theft of intellectual property, technology and business information by the Chinese government throughcyberexploitation. Today, we write again to raise the level of thinking and debate about ubiquitous encryption toprotect information from exploitation.
In the wake of global controversy over government surveillance, a number of U.S. technology companies havedeveloped and are offering their users what we call ubiquitous encryption — that is, end­to­end encryption of datawith only the sender and intended recipient possessing decryption keys. With this technology, the plain text of
messages is inaccessible to the companies offering the products or services as well as to the government, even with
lawfully authorized access for public safety or law enforcement purposes.
The FBI director and the Justice Department have raised serious and legitimate concerns that ubiquitous encryption
without a second decryption key in the hands of a third party would allow criminals to keep their communications
secret, even when law enforcement officials have court­approved authorization to access those communications.
There also are concerns about such encryption providing secure communications to national security intelligencetargets such as terrorist organizations and nations operating counter to U.S. national security interests.
Several other nations are pursuing access to encrypted communications. In Britain, Parliament is considering
requiring technology companies to build decryption capabilities for authorized government access into products andservices offered in that country. The Chinese have proposed similar approaches to ensure that the government canmonitor the content and activities of their citizens. Pakistan has recently blocked BlackBerry services, which provide

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:299

ubiquitous encryption by default.

We recognize the importance our officials attach to being able to decrypt a coded communication under a warrant orsimilar legal authority. But the issue that has not been addressed is the competing priorities that support thecompanies’ resistance to building in a back door or duplicated key for decryption. We believe that the greater public
good is a secure communications infrastructure protected by ubiquitous encryption at the device, server andenterprise level without building in means for government monitoring.
First, such an encryption system would protect individual privacy and business information from exploitation at amuch higher level than exists today. As a recent MIT paper explains, requiring duplicate keys introduces
vulnerabilities in encryption that raise the risk of compromise and theft by bad actors. If third­party key holders
have less than perfect security, they may be hacked and the duplicate key exposed. This is no theoretical possibility,
as evidenced by major cyberintrusions into supposedly secure government databases and the successful compromiseof security tokens held by a major information security firm. Furthermore, requiring a duplicate key rules out
security techniques, such as one­time­only private keys.
Second, a requirement that U.S. technology providers create a duplicate key will not prevent malicious actors fromfinding other technology providers who will furnish ubiquitous encryption. The smart bad guys will find ways andtechnologies to avoid access, and we can be sure that the “dark Web” marketplace will offer myriad such capabilities.
This could lead to a perverse outcome in which law­abiding organizations and individuals lack protected
communications but malicious actors have them.
Finally, and most significantly, if the United States can demand that companies make available a duplicate key, othernations such as China will insist on the same. There will be no principled basis to resist that legal demand. The result
will be to expose business, political and personal communications to a wide spectrum of governmental accessregimes with varying degrees of due process.
Strategically, the interests of U.S. businesses are essential to protecting U.S. national security interests. After all,political power and military power are derived from economic strength. If the United States is to maintain its global
role and influence, protecting business interests from massive economic espionage is essential. And that imperative
may outweigh the tactical benefit of making encrypted communications more easily accessible to Westernauthorities.
History teaches that the fear that ubiquitous encryption will cause our security to go dark is overblown. There was agreat debate about encryption in the early ’90s. When the mathematics of “public key” encryption were discovered
as a way to provide encryption protection broadly and cheaply to all users, some national security officials wereconvinced that if the technology were not restricted, law enforcement and intelligence organizations would go dark

or deaf.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:300

As a result, the idea of “escrowed key,” known as Clipper Chip, was introduced. The concept was that unbreakableencryption would be provided to individuals and businesses, but the keys could be obtained from escrow by thegovernment under court authorization for legitimate law enforcement or intelligence purposes.
The Clinton administration and Congress rejected the Clipper Chip based on the reaction from business and the
public. In addition, restrictions were relaxed on the export of encryption technology. But the sky did not fall, and we
did not go dark and deaf. Law enforcement and intelligence officials simply had to face a new future. As witnesses tothat new future, we can attest that our security agencies were able to protect national security interests to an evengreater extent in the ’90s and into the new century.
Today, with almost everyone carrying a networked device on his or her person, ubiquitous encryption provides
essential security. If law enforcement and intelligence organizations face a future without assured access toencrypted communications, they will develop technologies and techniques to meet their legitimate mission goals.
Read more on this issue:
The Post’s View: Putting the digital keys to unlock data out of authorities’ reach
The Post’s View: Compromise needed on smartphone encryption
Cyrus R. Vance Jr.: Apple, Google threaten public safety with default smartphone encryption

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-17 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:301

Exhibit PProposal seeks to fine tech companies for noncompliance with wiretap orders - The Wash... Page 1 of 5
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-17 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:302

National Security

Proposal seeks to fine tech companies fornoncompliance with wiretap orders
By Ellen Nakashima April 28, 2013

A government task force is preparing legislation that would pressure companies such as Facebook and
Google to enable law enforcement officials to intercept online communications as they occur, according
to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the effort.
Driven by FBI concerns that it is unable to tap the Internet communications of terrorists and othercriminals, the task force’s proposal would penalize companies that failed to heed wiretap orders — court
authorizations for the government to intercept suspects’ communications.
Rather than antagonizing companies whose cooperation they need, federal officials typically back off
when a company is resistant, industry and former officials said. But law enforcement officials say the
cloak drawn on suspects’ online activities — what the FBI calls the “going dark” problem — means thatcritical evidence can be missed.
“The importance to us is pretty clear,” Andrew Weissmann, the FBI’s general counsel, said last month atan American Bar Association discussion on legal challenges posed by new technologies. “We don’t havethe ability to go to court and say, ‘We need a court order to effectuate the intercept.’ Other countries havethat. Most people assume that’s what you’re getting when you go to a court.”
There is currently no way to wiretap some of these communications methods easily, and companies
effectively have been able to avoid complying with court orders. While the companies argue that they
have no means to facilitate the wiretap, the government, in turn, has no desire to enter into what could bea drawn-out contempt proceeding.
Under the draft proposal, a court could levy a series of escalating fines, starting at tens of thousands ofdollars, on firms that fail to comply with wiretap orders, according to persons who spoke on the conditionof anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. A company that does not comply with an order within acertain period would face an automatic judicial inquiry, which could lead to fines. After 90 days, finesthat remain unpaid would double daily.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-com... 2/23/2016

Proposal seeks to fine tech companies for noncompliance with wiretap orders - The Wash... Page 2 of 5
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-17 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:303
Instead of setting rules that dictate how the wiretap capability must be built, the proposal would let
companies develop the solutions as long as those solutions yielded the needed data. That flexibility wasseen as inevitable by those crafting the proposal, given the range of technology companies that might
receive wiretap orders. Smaller companies would be exempt from the fines.

The proposal, however, is likely to encounter resistance, said industry officials and privacy advocates.
“This proposal is a non-starter that would drive innovators overseas and cost American jobs,” said Greg
Nojeim, a senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which focuses on issues of privacy
and security. “They might as well call it the Cyber Insecurity and Anti-Employment Act.”The Obama administration has not yet signed off on the proposal. Justice Department, FBI and WhiteHouse officials declined to comment. Still, Weissmann said at the ABA discussion that the issue is thebureau’s top legislative priority this year, but he declined to provide details about the proposal.

Increased urgency
The issue of online surveillance has taken on added urgency with the explosion of social media and chatservices and the proliferation of different types of online communication. Technology firms are seen as
critical sources of information about crime and terrorism suspects.
“Today, if you’re a tech company that’s created a new and popular way to communicate, it’s only a matterof time before the FBI shows up with a court order to read or hear some conversation,” said Michael
Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor and a partner at the law firm Perkins Coie’s Washington office
who represents technology firms. “If the data can help solve crimes, the government will be interested.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-com... 2/23/2016

Proposal seeks to fine tech companies for noncompliance with wiretap orders - The Wash... Page 3 of 5
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-17 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:304
Some technology companies have developed a wiretap capability for some of their services. But a range ofcommunications companies and services are not required to do so under what is known as CALEA, the1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Among those services are social media
networks and the chat features on online gaming sites.
Former officials say the challenge for investigators was exacerbated in 2010, when Google began end-toend encryption of its e-mail and text messages after its networks were hacked. Facebook followed suit.
That made it more difficult for the FBI to intercept e-mail by serving a court order on the Internet service
provider, whose pipes would carry the encrypted traffic.

The proposal would make clear that CALEA extends to Internet phone calls conducted between two
computer users without going through a central company server — what is sometimes called “peer-topeer” communication. But the heart of the proposal would add a provision to the 1968 Wiretap Act thatwould allow a court to levy fines.

Challenges abound
One former senior Justice Department official, who is not privy to details of the draft proposal, said law
enforcement officials are not seeking to expand their surveillance authorities. Rather, said Kenneth L.
Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security from 2006 to 2008, officials are seeking “tomake sure their existing authorities can be applied across the full range of communications technologies.”
Proponents say adding an enforcement provision to the 1968 Wiretap Act is a more politically palatable
way of achieving that goal than by amending CALEA to redefine what types of companies should becovered. Industry and privacy experts, including some former government officials, are skeptical.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-com... 2/23/2016

Proposal seeks to fine tech companies for noncompliance with wiretap orders - The Wash... Page 4 of 5
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-17 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:305“There will be widespread disagreement over what the law requires,” said Albert Gidari Jr., a partner at
Perkins Coie’s flagship Seattle office who represents telecommunications companies. “It takes companies
into a court process over issues that don’t belong in court but rather in standards bodies with technicalexpertise.”
Some experts said a few companies will resist because they believe they might lose customers who haveprivacy concerns. Google, for instance, prides itself on protecting its search service from law enforcement
surveillance, though it might comply in other areas, such as e-mail. And Skype has lost some of its cachet
as a secure communications alternative now that it has been bought by Microsoft and is reportedly
complying with wiretap orders.
Susan Landau, a former Sun Microsystems distinguished engineer, has argued that wiring in an intercept
capability will increase the likelihood that a company’s servers will be hacked. “What you’ve done iscreated a way for someone to silently go in and activate a wiretap,” she said. Traditional phone
communications were susceptible to illicit surveillance as a result of the 1994 law, she said, but the
problem “becomes much worse when you move to an Internet or computer-based network.”

Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division, said good
software coders can create an intercept capability that is secure. “But to do so costs money,” he said,
noting the extra time and expertise needed to develop, test and operate such a service.
A huge challenge, officials agree, is how to gain access to peer-to-peer communications. Anotherchallenge is making sense of encrypted communications.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-com... 2/23/2016

Proposal seeks to fine tech companies for noncompliance with wiretap orders - The Wash... Page 5 of 5
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-17 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:306
Thomas said officials need to strike a balance between the needs of law enforcement and those of thetechnology companies.
“You want to give law enforcement the ability to have the data they’re legally entitled to get, at the sametime not burdening industry and not opening up security holes,” he said.

Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for The Washington Post. She
focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/proposal-seeks-to-fine-tech-com... 2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-18 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:307

Exhibit Q

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-18 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:308

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
May 19, 2015
Dear President Obama,
We the undersigned represent a wide variety of civil society organizations dedicated toprotecting civil liberties, human rights, and innovation online, as well as technology
companies, trade associations, and security and policy experts. We are writing today torespond to recent statements by some Administration officials regarding the deploymentof strong encryption technology in the devices and services offered by the U.S.
technology industry. Those officials have suggested that American companies should
refrain from providing any products that are secured by encryption, unless thosecompanies also weaken their security in order to maintain the capability to decrypt theircustomers’ data at the government’s request. Some officials have gone so far as tosuggest that Congress should act to ban such products or mandate such capabilities.
We urge you to reject any proposal that U.S. companies deliberately weaken the
security of their products. We request that the White House instead focus ondeveloping policies that will promote rather than undermine the wide adoption ofstrong encryption technology. Such policies will in turn help to promote and protect
cybersecurity, economic growth, and human rights, both here and abroad.
Strong encryption is the cornerstone of the modern information economy’s security.
Encryption protects billions of people every day against countless threats—be they street
criminals trying to steal our phones and laptops, computer criminals trying to defraud us,
corporate spies trying to obtain our companies’ most valuable trade secrets, repressive
governments trying to stifle dissent, or foreign intelligence agencies trying tocompromise our and our allies’ most sensitive national security secrets.
Encryption thereby protects us from innumerable criminal and national security threats.
This protection would be undermined by the mandatory insertion of any new
vulnerabilities into encrypted devices and services. Whether you call them “front doors”
or “back doors”, introducing intentional vulnerabilities into secure products for thegovernment’s use will make those products less secure against other attackers. Everycomputer security expert that has spoken publicly on this issue agrees on this point,
including the government’s own experts.
In addition to undermining cybersecurity, any kind of vulnerability mandate would also
seriously undermine our economic security. U.S. companies are already struggling tomaintain international trust in the wake of revelations about the National Security
Agency’s surveillance programs. Introducing mandatory vulnerabilities into American
products would further push many customers—be they domestic or international,	
   1

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-18 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:309

individual or institutional—to turn away from those compromised products and services.
Instead, they—and many of the bad actors whose behavior the government is hoping to
impact—will simply rely on encrypted offerings from foreign providers, or avail
themselves of the wide range of free and open source encryption products that are easily
available online.
More than undermining every American’s cybersecurity and the nation’s economic
security, introducing new vulnerabilities to weaken encrypted products in the U.S. would
also undermine human rights and information security around the globe. If Americancompanies maintain the ability to unlock their customers’ data and devices on request,
governments other than the United States will demand the same access, and will also beemboldened to demand the same capability from their native companies. The U.S.
government, having made the same demands, will have little room to object. The result
will be an information environment riddled with vulnerabilities that could be exploited byeven the most repressive or dangerous regimes. That’s not a future that the American
people or the people of the world deserve.
The Administration faces a critical choice: will it adopt policies that foster a global digital
ecosystem that is more secure, or less? That choice may well define the future of theInternet in the 21st century. When faced with a similar choice at the end of the lastcentury, during the so-called “Crypto Wars”, U.S. policymakers weighed many of thesame concerns and arguments that have been raised in the current debate, and correctly
concluded that the serious costs of undermining encryption technology outweighed the
purported benefits. So too did the President’s Review Group on Intelligence andCommunications Technologies, who unanimously recommended in their December 2013
report that the US Government should “(1) fully support and not undermine efforts tocreate encryption standards; (2) not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken, or makevulnerable generally available commercial software; and (3) increase the use of
encryption and urge US companies to do so, in order to better protect data in transit, at
rest, in the cloud, and in other storage.”
We urge the Administration to follow the Review Group’s recommendation and adopt
policies that promote rather than undermine the widespread adoption of strong encryption
technologies, and by doing so help lead the way to a more secure, prosperous, and rightsrespecting future for America and for the world.
Thank you,
Civil Society Organizations
Access
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
BenetechBill of Rights Defense Committee	
   2

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-18 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:310

Center for Democracy & Technology
Committee to Protect Journalists
The Constitution Project
Constitutional AllianceCouncil on American-Islamic Relations
Demand Progress
Defending Dissent Foundation
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
EngineFight for the FutureFree Press
Free Software Foundation
Freedom of the Press Foundation
GNOME Foundation
Human Rights Watch
The Media Consortium
New America's Open Technology InstituteNiskanen Center
Open Source Initiative
PEN American Center
Project Censored/Media Freedom Foundation
R Street
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
TechFreedom
The Tor Project
U.S. Public Policy Council of Association for Computing Machinery
World Privacy Forum
X-Lab
Companies & Trade Associations
ACT | The App Association
Adobe
Apple Inc.
The Application Developers Alliance
Automattic
Blockstream
Cisco Systems
Coinbase
Cloud Linux Inc.
CloudFlare
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
Context Relevant
The Copia Institute	
   3

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-18 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:311

CREDO Mobile
Data Foundry
DropboxEvernote
Facebook
Gandi.net
Golden Frog
GoogleHackerOne
Hackers/Founders
Hewlett-Packard Company
Internet Archive
Internet Association
Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition)
Level 3 Communications
LinkedIn
Microsoft
Misk.com
MozillaOpen Spectrum Inc.
Rackspace
Rapid7
Reform Government Surveillance
Sonic
ServInt
Silent Circle
Slack Technologies, Inc.
Symantec
Tech Assets Inc.
TechNetTumblrTwitter
Wikimedia Foundation
Yahoo
Security and Policy Experts*
Hal Abelson, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology
Ben Adida, VP Engineering, Clever Inc.
Jacob Appelbaum, The Tor Project
Adam Back, PhD, Inventor, HashCash, Co-Founder & President, Blockstream
Alvaro Bedoya, Executive Director, Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown
Law
Brian Behlendorf, Open Source software pioneer
Steven M. Bellovin, Percy K. and Vida L.W. Hudson Professor of Computer Science,
Columbia University	
   4

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-18 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:312

Matt Bishop, Professor of Computer Science, University of California at Davis
Matthew Blaze, Director, Distributed Systems Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania
Dan Boneh, Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at Stanford
University
Eric Burger, Research Professor of Computer Science and Director, Security andSoftware Engineering Research Center (Georgetown), Georgetown University
Jon Callas, CTO, Silent Circle
L. Jean Camp, Professor of Informatics, Indiana University
Richard A. Clarke, Chairman, Good Harbor Security Risk Management
Gabriella Coleman, Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy, McGill
University
Whitfield Diffie, Dr. sc. techn., Center for International Security and Cooperation,
Stanford University
David Evans, Professor of Computer Science, University of Virginia
David J. Farber, Alfred Filter Moore Professor Emeritus of Telecommunications,
University of Pennsylvania
Dan Farmer, Security Consultant and Researcher, Vicious Fishes Consulting
Rik Farrow, Internet Security
Joan Feigenbaum, Department Chair and Grace Murray Hopper Professor of Computer
Science Yale University
Richard Forno, Jr. Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Law School Center for Internet and SocietyAlex Fowler, Co-Founder & SVP, Blockstream
Jim Fruchterman, Founder and CEO, Benetech
Daniel Kahn Gillmor, ACLU Staff Technologist
Robert Graham, creator of BlackICE, sidejacking, and masscan
Jennifer Stisa Granick, Director of Civil Liberties, Stanford Center for Internet andSociety
Matthew D. Green, Assistant Research Professor, Johns Hopkins University Information
Security Institute
Robert Hansen, Vice President of Labs at WhiteHat Security
Lance Hoffman, Director, George Washington University, Cyber Security Policy andResearch InstituteMarcia Hofmann, Law Office of Marcia Hofmann
Nadim Kobeissi, PhD Researcher, INRIA
Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology
Nadia Heninger, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer and Information Science,
University of Pennsylvania
David S. Isenberg, Producer, Freedom 2 Connect
Douglas W. Jones, Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa
Susan Landau, Worcester Polytechnic InstituteGordon Fyodor Lyon, Founder, Nmap Security Scanner Project
Aaron Massey, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Instituteof Technology
Jonathan Mayer, Graduate Fellow, Stanford University
Jeff Moss, Founder, DEF CON and Black Hat security conferences	
   5

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-18 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:313

Peter G. Neumann, Senior Principal Scientist, SRI International Computer Science Lab,
Moderator of the ACM Risks ForumKen Pfeil, former CISO at Pioneer Investments
Ronald L. Rivest, Vannevar Bush Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Paul Rosenzweig, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of
Law
Jeffrey I. Schiller, Area Director for Security, Internet Engineering Task Force (19942003), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bruce Schneier, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School
Micah Sherr, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Georgetown University
Adam Shostack, author, “Threat Modeling: Designing for Security”
Eugene H. Spafford, CERIAS Executive Director, Purdue University
Alex Stamos, CISO, Yahoo
Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The
University of Chicago
Peter Swire, Huang Professor of Law and Ethics, Scheller College of Business, Georgia
Institute of Technology
C. Thomas (Space Rogue), Security Strategist, Tenable Network Security
Dan S. Wallach, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Rice Scholar, Baker
Institute of Public Policy
Nicholas Weaver, Researcher, International Computer Science Institute
Chris Wysopal, Co-Founder and CTO, Veracode, Inc.
Philip Zimmermann, Chief Scientist and Co-Founder, Silent Circle*Affiliations provided only for identification purposes.

	
   6Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-19 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:314

Exhibit R

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-19 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:315

Home » News

Senior House Judiciary
Committee Democrats
Express Concern Over
Government Attempts toUndermine Encryption
FEB 18, 2016 Issues: Civil Justice, Government Oversight
Washington, D.C.—Earlier this week, through a court order, the UnitedStates government demanded that Apple Inc. help the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) develop software in an effort to break the encryption on
an iPhone that was recovered after the recent shootings in San Bernardino,
California. The government cited the “All Writs Act,” enacted in 1789, todemand that the technology company create a new version of the iPhone
operating system to circumvent several security features on the device.
Apple has five days to respond to the court’s order. The House Judiciary
Committee will hold an oversight hearing on the encryption debate on
March 1.
Senior Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps.
Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren and Jackson Lee, released the following
statement in response:“The terrorist attack in San Bernardino was a tragic event. We agree thatheightened vigilance is necessary to combat the threat of home grown
extremism in all of its forms. In this effort, we commit our full support to law
enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels and hope toCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-19 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:316

provide them with the resources and tools they require to perform theirjobs.
“But there is little reason for the government to make this demand on Apple—except to enact a policy proposal that has gained no traction in Congress
and was rejected by the White House.
“Properly understood, strong encryption is our best defense against online
criminals—including terrorist organizations. It is the backbone of theInternet economy and vital for the protection of both free expression andprivacy. The government’s demand on Apple would coerce a private U.S.
company to hack its own device, threatening the trust of millions ofcustomers and placing our technology industry at a significant
disadvantage abroad.
“In a September 2015 article, the Washington Post cited an email from a
top intelligence community official which stated: ‘the legislative environment
is very hostile today . . . it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or
criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law
enforcement.’ We are concerned that the heartbreaking event in San
Bernardino is being exploited to undertake an end­run around thelegislative process in just this fashion.”

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-20 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:317

Exhibit S

FBI — Threats to the Homeland
Page 1 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-20 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:318

Home • News • Testimony • Threats to the HomelandJames B. Comey
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Recent Testimonies
12.09.15

Law Enforcement Implications of Illegal Online
Gambling
Joseph S. Campbell, Assistant Director, Criminal
Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Statement Before the House Committee on Oversightand Government Reform, Washington, D.C.

12.09.15

Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Washington, D.C.

10.22.15

Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the House Judiciary
Committee, Washington, D.C.

10.21.15

Worldwide Threats and Homeland Security
Challenges
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the House Committeeon Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.

10.08.15

Threats to the HomelandJames B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the Senate Committeeon Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, D.C.

08.05.15

Inspector General Access
Kevin L. Perkins, Associate Deputy Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Joint Statement with
Department of Justice Associate Deputy Attorney
General Carlos Uriarte Before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Washington, D.C.

07.08.15

Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and theChallenges of Going Dark
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the Senate SelectCommittee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C.

07.08.15

Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and theBalances Between Public Safety …
James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Joint Statement with Deputy Attorney
General Sally Quillian Yates Before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C.

06.18.15

FBI’s Plans for the Use of Rapid DNA Technology in
CODIS
Amy S. Hess, Executive Assistant Director, Science andTechnology Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Statement Before the House Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,and Investigations, Washington, D.C.

06.03.15

Terrorism Gone Viral: The Attack in Garland, Texas
and Beyond
Michael B. Steinbach, Assistant Director,
Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Statement Before the House Homeland
Security Committee, Washington, D.C.

Statement Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
Washington, D.C.
October 08, 2015

Good afternoon Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee. Thankyou for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current threats to the homeland andour efforts to address new challenges, including terrorists’ use of technology to communicate—both toinspire and recruit. The widespread use of technology propagates the persistent terrorist message toattack U.S. interests whether in the homeland or abroad. As the threat to harm Western interests
evolves, we must adapt and confront the challenges, relying heavily on the strength of our federal, state,
local, and international partnerships. Our successes depend on interagency cooperation. We work
closely with our partners within the Department of Homeland Security and the National
Counterterrorism Center to address current and emerging threats.
Counterterrorism
Counterterrorism remains the FBI’s top priority, however, the threat has changed in two significant
ways. First, the core al Qaeda tumor has been reduced, but the cancer has metastasized. The progeny ofal Qaeda—including AQAP, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and the Islamic State of Iraq and theLevant (ISIL)—have become our focus.
Secondly, we are confronting the explosion of terrorist propaganda and training on the Internet. It is nolonger necessary to get a terrorist operative into the United States to recruit. Terrorists, in ungoverned
spaces, disseminate poisonous propaganda and training materials to attract troubled souls around theworld to their cause. They encourage these individuals to travel, but if they can’t travel, they motivatethem to act at home. This is a significant change from a decade ago.
We continue to identify individuals who seek to join the ranks of foreign fighters traveling in support of
ISIL, and also homegrown violent extremists who may aspire to attack the United States from within.
These threats remain among the highest priorities for the FBI and the Intelligence Community as awhole.
Conflicts in Syria and Iraq continue to serve as the most attractive overseas theaters for Western-based
extremists who want to engage in violence. We estimate approximately 250 Americans have traveled or
attempted to travel to Syria to participate in the conflict. While this number is lower in comparison to
many of our international partners, we closely analyze and assess the influence groups like ISIL haveon individuals located in the United States who are inspired to commit acts of violence. Whether or not
the individuals are affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization and are willing to travel abroad tofight or are inspired by the call to arms to act in their communities, they potentially pose a significant
threat to the safety of the United States and U.S. persons.
ISIL has proven relentless in its violent campaign to rule and has aggressively promoted its hatefulmessage, attracting like-minded extremists to include Westerners. To an even greater degree than al
Qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations, ISIL has persistently used the Internet to communicate.
From a homeland perspective, it is ISIL’s widespread reach through the Internet and social media
which is most concerning as ISIL has aggressively employed this technology for its nefarious strategy.
ISIL blends traditional media platforms, glossy photos, in-depth articles, and social media campaigns
that can go viral in a matter of seconds. No matter the format, the message of radicalization spreads
faster than we imagined just a few years ago.
Unlike other groups, ISIL has constructed a narrative that touches on all facets of life—from career
opportunities to family life to a sense of community. The message isn’t tailored solely to those who are
overtly expressing symptoms of radicalization. It is seen by many who click through the Internet every
day, receive social media push notifications, and participate in social networks. Ultimately, many ofthese individuals are seeking a sense of belonging.
As a communication medium, social media is a critical tool for terror groups to exploit. One recent
example occurred when an individual was arrested for providing material support to ISIL by facilitating
an associate’s travel to Syria to join ISIL. The arrested individual had multiple connections, via a social
media networking site, with other like-minded individuals.
There is no set profile for the susceptible consumer of this propaganda. However, one trend continues
to rise—the inspired youth. We’ve seen certain children and young adults drawing deeper into the ISIL
narrative. These individuals are often comfortable with virtual communication platforms, specificallysocial media networks.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/threats-to-the-homelandMore

2/23/2016

FBI — Threats to the Homeland
Page 2 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-20 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:319
ISIL continues to disseminate their terrorist message to all social media users regardless of age.
Following other groups, ISIL has advocated for lone offender attacks. In recent months ISIL released avideo, via social media, reiterating the group’s encouragement of lone offender attacks in Westerncountries, specifically advocating for attacks against soldiers and law enforcement, intelligencecommunity members, and government personnel. Several incidents have occurred in the United Statesand Europe over the last few months that indicate this “call to arms” has resonated among ISIL
supporters and sympathizers.
In one case, a New York-based male was arrested in September after he systematically attempted totravel to the Middle East to join ISIL. The individual, who was inspired by ISIL propaganda, expressed
his support for ISIL online and took steps to carry out acts encouraged in the ISIL call to arms.
The targeting of U.S. military personnel is also evident with the release of names of individuals serving
in the U.S. military by ISIL supporters. The names continue to be posted to the Internet and quickly
spread through social media, depicting ISIL’s capability to produce viral messaging. Threats to U.S.
military and coalition forces continue today.
Social media has allowed groups, such as ISIL, to use the Internet to spot and assess potential recruits.
With the widespread horizontal distribution of social media, terrorists can identify vulnerable
individuals of all ages in the United States—spot, assess, recruit, and radicalize—either to travel or to
conduct a homeland attack. The foreign terrorist now has direct access into the United States like neverbefore.
In other examples of arrests, a group of individuals was contacted by a known ISIL supporter who had
already successfully traveled to Syria and encouraged them to do the same. Some of theseconversations occur in publicly accessed social networking sites, but others take place via private
messaging platforms. As a result, it is imperative the FBI and all law enforcement organizations
understand the latest communication tools and are positioned to identify and prevent terror attacks in
the homeland.
We live in a technologically driven society, and just as private industry has adapted to modern forms ofcommunication, so, too, have terrorists. Unfortunately, changing forms of Internet communication andthe use of encryption are posing real challenges to the FBI’s ability to fulfill its public safety andnational security missions. This real and growing gap, to which the FBI refers as “Going Dark,” is anarea of continuing focus for the FBI; we believe it must be addressed given the resulting risks are grave
both in both traditional criminal matters as well as in national security matters. The United States
government is actively engaged with private companies to ensure they understand the public safety andnational security risks that result from malicious actors’ use of their encrypted products and services.
However, the administration is not seeking legislation at this time.
The FBI is utilizing all lawful investigative techniques and methods to combat the threat these
individuals may pose to the United States. In conjunction with our domestic and foreign partners, weare rigorously collecting and analyzing intelligence information as it pertains to the ongoing threat
posed by foreign terrorist organizations and homegrown violent extremists. We continue to encouragerobust information sharing; in partnership with our many federal, state, and local agencies assigned to
Joint Terrorism Task Forces around the country, we remain vigilant to ensure the safety of theAmerican public. Be assured, the FBI continues to pursue increased efficiencies and information
sharing processes as well as pursue technological and other methods to help stay ahead of threats to thehomeland.
Intelligence
Integrating intelligence and operations is part of the broader intelligence transformation the FBI has
undertaken in the last decade. We are making progress, but have more work to do. We have taken two
steps to improve this integration. First, we have established an Intelligence Branch within the FBI
headed by an executive assistant director (EAD). The EAD looks across the entire enterprise and drives
integration. Second, we now have special agents and new intelligence analysts at the FBI Academy
engaged in practical training exercises and taking core courses together. As a result, they are better
prepared to work well together in the field. Our goal every day is to get better at using, collecting andsharing intelligence to better understand and defeat our adversaries.
The FBI cannot be content to just work what is directly in front of us. We must also be able tounderstand the threats we face at home and abroad and how those threats may be connected. Towards
that end, intelligence is gathered, consistent with our authorities, to help us understand and prioritize
identified threats and to determine where there are gaps in what we know about these threats. We thenseek to fill those gaps and learn as much as we can about the threats we are addressing and others on
the threat landscape. We do this for national security and criminal threats, on both a national and local
field office level. We then compare the national and local perspectives to organize threats into priority
for each of the FBI’s 56 field offices. By categorizing threats in this way, we strive to place the greatest
focus on the gravest threats we face. This gives us a better assessment of what the dangers are, what’s
being done about them, and where we should prioritize our resources.
Cyber
An element of virtually every national security threat and crime problem the FBI faces is cyber-based or
facilitated. We face sophisticated cyber threats from state-sponsored hackers, hackers for hire,organized cyber syndicates, and terrorists. On a daily basis, cyber-based actors seek our state secrets,
our trade secrets, our technology, and our ideas—things of incredible value to all of us and of great
importance to the conduct of our government business and our national security. They seek to strike
our critical infrastructure and to harm our economy.
We continue to see an increase in the scale and scope of reporting on malicious cyber activity that canbe measured by the amount of corporate data stolen or deleted, personally identifiable information
compromised, or remediation costs incurred by U.S. victims. For example, as the committee is aware,
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) discovered earlier this year that a number of its systems
were compromised. These systems included those that contain information related to the backgroundhttps://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/threats-to-the-homeland

2/23/2016

FBI — Threats to the Homeland
Page 3 of 3
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-20 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:320
investigations of current, former, and prospective federal government employees, as well as otherindividuals for whom a federal background investigation was conducted. The FBI is working with ourinteragency partners to investigate this matter.
FBI agents, analysts, and computer scientists are using technical capabilities and traditional
investigative techniques—such as sources, court-authorized electronic surveillance, physicalsurveillance, and forensics—to fight cyber threats. We are working side-by-side with our federal, state,
and local partners on Cyber Task Forces in each of our 56 field offices and through the National Cyber
Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), which serves as a coordination, integration, and information
sharing center for 19 U.S. agencies and several key international allies for cyber threat investigations.
Through CyWatch, our 24-hour cyber command center, we combine the resources of the FBI andNCIJTF, allowing us to provide connectivity to federal cyber centers, government agencies, FBI field
offices and legal attachés, and the private sector in the event of a cyber intrusion.
We take all potential threats to public and private sector systems seriously and will continue toinvestigate and hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace.
***
Finally, the strength of any organization is its people. The threats we face as a nation have never been
greater or more diverse and the expectations placed on the Bureau have never been higher. Our fellow
citizens look to us to protect the United States from all of those threats and the men and women of the
Bureau continue to meet—and exceed—those expectations, every day. I want to thank them for their
dedication and their service.
Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Carper, and committee members, I thank you for theopportunity to testify concerning the threats to the homeland and terrorists’ use of the Internet andsocial media as a platform for spreading ISIL propaganda and inspiring individuals to target thehomeland, and the impact of the Going Dark problem on mitigating their efforts. I am happy to answer
any questions you might have.
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of JusticeClose

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/threats-to-the-homeland

2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-21 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:321

Exhibit T

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-21 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:322

Home • News • News Blog • Director Discusses Encryption, Patriot Act Provisions

May 20, 2015 04:45 PM

Director Discusses Encryption, Patriot Act Provisions

More News & Information­ Field Press Releases­ National Press Releases­ Photo Gallery­ Podcasts & Radio Shows­ Stories­ Testimony­ Speeches­ VideoNews by Subject­ Terrorism­ Foreign Counterintelligence­ Cyber­ Public Corruption­ Civil Rights­ Organized Crime­ White­Collar Crime­ Major Thefts/­ Violent Crime­ MoreConnect & Subscribe
Facebook

YouTubeTwitter

iTunesE­mail Updates

News Feeds

FBI Director James Comey discusses cyber threats with interviewer Benjamin Powell at the Cybersecurity Law
Institute at Georgetown Law Center on May 20, 2015.

FBI Director James Comey spoke to legal professionals and scholars this week about cyber threats
and the FBI’s abilities to counter and investigate those evolving threats.
In remarks at the American Law Institute on Tuesday and at a cyber security summit on Wednesday at
Georgetown University Law Center, Comey said the group calling itself the Islamic State, or ISIL,
represents the FBI’s most urgent threat. He described the organization’s use of social media tomotivate troubled people in the United States to engage in acts of violence—either by traveling to theso­called caliphate or killing where they are. Comey said ISIL reaches out to individuals on Twitter andelsewhere, then moves their more sensitive communications to encrypted platforms.
“The threat we face has morphed,” Comey said on Wednesday. “It’s a chaotic spider web throughsocial media—increasingly invisible to us because the operational communications are happening inan encrypted channel.”Comey later elaborated on the issue of encryption, which is a process of encoding messages—on
mobile phones for example—that only authorized parties can access. While it can be effective atthwarting digital thieves, strong encryption also limits the amount of information—or evidence—that
law enforcement can effectively gather from a device.
“Increasingly we’re finding ourselves unable to read what we find, or unable to open a device,” Comeysaid, “and that is a serious concern.”
The issue of “going dark,” as the Bureau calls it, is worthy of a larger public conversation about thebalance between privacy and public safety, Comey said. Momentum toward universal encryption, he
explained, may have unintended consequences.
“As all of our lives become digital, the logic of encryption is all of our lives will be covered by strong
encryption, and therefore all of our lives—including the lives of criminals and terrorists and spies—will
be in a place that is utterly unavailable to court­ordered process,” he said. “And that, I think, to a
democracy should be very, very concerning.”
The Director also pointed to provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001 that, if allowed to expire on June 1,
could hobble the FBI’s investigative abilities. One of the provisions is Section 215, which authorized
the National Security Agency’s database of telephony records and metadata.
Comey said the FBI relies on that provision fewer than 200 times a year—in particular cases to getparticular records. “If we lose that authority,” Comey said, “we can’t get information that I think
everybody wants us to attain.”
Two other provisions include:
Roving wiretaps. The FBI has had authority since the 1980s to use legally authorized roving

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-21 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:323

Roving wiretaps. The FBI has had authority since the 1980s to use legally authorized roving
wiretaps in criminal cases—allowing authorities to follow surveillance targets rather than theirphones, which can be easily trashed and replaced. The Patriot Act extended that authority toterrorism and counterintelligence cases.

The Lone Wolf provision. In 2004, Congress amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
to authorize intelligence gathering on individuals not affiliated with any known terrorist
organization.
“These three are going to go away June 1,” Comey said, “and I don’t want them to get lost in theconversation about metadata.”
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice

CloseCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-22 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:324

Exhibit U

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-22 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:325

ĿǺẄ< İț'ș Ňǿț Jųșț Țħě įPħǿňě Ŀǻẅ Ěňfǿřčěměňț
Ẅǻňțș Țǿ Ųňŀǿčķ
Updated February 22, 2016 · 1:50 PM ET
Published February 21, 2016 · 7:57 AM ET

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:
We've been hearing a lot about the tension right now between privacy rights and law
enforcement's need for information to solve crimes. All of this stems from last year's
massacre in San Bernardino. On one side, you have the FBI that wants access to thedata on one of the shooter's iPhones. On the other side, you have Apple, which says if
it develops the software needed to unlock that phone, it will set a dangerous precedent.
We're going to hear one legal perspective on this issue now. Cyrus Vance Jr. is a
Manhattan district attorney. He joins me on the line. Thanks so much for being withus.
CYRUS VANCE JR.: Good morning, Rachel.
MARTIN: You believe Apple should comply with the court order from the federal
government and build the technology needed to open this particular phone. Can you
summarize your argument for me?
VANCE: Sure, Rachel. The thing that I believe folks need to understand is thatcriminals are using their smartphone devices to communicate with each other, to store
information about their crimes on their phones. Our inability, as a result of Apple's
engineering its phones to make it impossible for them to use a digital key to open aphone, has left us in a place where we are simply unable to perform our function toprotect the public.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-22 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:326

MARTIN: So you're saying this is bigger than just this one case, that this is a problem
you run up against all the time.
VANCE: In fact, Rachel, it's a problem that affects us more than actually I believe it
affects the federal government. We started tracking the number of iOS 8 devices that
we cannot access as a result of Apple's decision in late 2014. And over that year­and­a­half time period, there are now 175 phones that we cannot access out of a universe of
670 phones that our cyber lab has evaluated. So it's about a quarter of the phones wehaven't been able to get into. And...
MARTIN: And what does that mean for those cases? I mean, have you been able tocircumvent this in the case and find other ways to prosecute?
VANCE: It varies. In some cases, we can't move at all. We can't establish liability or
responsibility because we can't access the phone. In others, it's affecting our ability togather all the evidence that's needed to make sure that we are making the rightjudgments. And I think it's very important for people to understand that a prosecutor's
job is to investigate, get all the information and then make the right judgment as towhether or not we can go forward. It's also our responsibility to make sure that we areprosecuting the right people. And when we don't have access to digital devices, wedon't have all the information that we need to make the best judgment as to how thecase should be handled.
MARTIN: So how would this look in practice? I mean, what ideally do you want Apple
to do? I mean...
VANCE: What I want to do is something very simple. At the end of 2014, Applerequired warrants issued by judges to access evidence on phones that it manufactured.
It was not a problem at the time. I honestly don't think it is a problem today. And I
think Apple should be directed to be able to unlock its phones when there is a court
order by an independent judge proving and demonstrating that there's relevant
evidence on that phone necessary for an individual case. Secondly, I think that theUnited States Congress is going to have to step in here. The importance of accessing
digital evidence in criminal cases, from terrorism to sex crimes, is very significant. I

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-22 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:327

think also, Rachel, that from my perspective, this is also very much about corporate
responsibility. Apple and Google are huge companies who own 96.7 percent of theworldwide smartphone market. We know communications exist on these phones, arebeing used by the criminals to perpetrate the crimes. And that's a fact. Given that thatis a fact, I believe these companies have to acknowledge that and strike a balance
between public safety and privacy that is not on one extreme or the other. Right now,
they have independently struck a balance between privacy and public safety at thatpoint on the spectrum where it coincides perfectly with their economic interests. We
need to look at this with independent eyes. And I believe Congress ultimately is goingto have to make the judgment call of where we draw that line.
MARTIN: Cyrus Vance Jr., Manhattan district attorney. Thanks so much for talking
with us.
VANCE: Rachel, thank you very much.
Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for
further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This
text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative
record of NPR’s programming is the audio.

© 2016 npr

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:328

Exhibit V

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:329
țħě ẄĦİȚĚ ĦǾŲȘĚ

Břįěfįňģ ŘǿǿmYour Weekly Address
Speeches & Remarks
Press Briefings
Statements & Releases
White House SchedulePresidential Actions
Executive Orders
Presidential Memoranda
Proclamations
Legislation
Pending Legislation
Signed Legislation
Vetoed Legislation
Nominations & Appointments
Disclosures

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

January 16, 2015Řěmǻřķș bỳ Přěșįđěňț Ǿbǻmǻ ǻňđPřįmě Mįňįșțěř Čǻměřǿň ǿf țħě Ųňįțěđ

SHARE
THIS:





Ķįňģđǿm įň Jǿįňț Přěșș Čǿňfěřěňčě

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:330Ķįňģđǿm įň Jǿįňț Přěșș Čǿňfěřěňčě

Ěǻșț Řǿǿm
12:37 P.M. ĚȘȚPŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Ģǿǿđ ǻfțěřňǿǿň, ěvěřỳbǿđỳ. Țħįș mǿňțħ mǻřķș ǻňǿțǻbŀě ǻňňįvěřșǻřỳ -- 200 ỳěǻřș șįňčě țħě Bǻțțŀě ǿf Ňěẅ Ǿřŀěǻňș. Ħěřě įňǺměřįčǻ, ẅě čǻŀŀ įț ǻ ģřěǻț vįčțǿřỳ ǿvěř ǻ mįģħțỳ Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm. ǾųřBřįțįșħ fřįěňđș čǻŀŀ įț ǻ țěčħňįčǻŀįțỳ. Țħě țřěǻțỳ ěňđįňģ țħě ẅǻř ẅǻș șįģňěđ
ẅěěķș běfǿřě.
Ěįțħěř ẅǻỳ, ẅě’vě ŀǿňģ șįňčě mǻđě ųp. Ǿň țħįș 200țħ ǻňňįvěřșǻřỳ ǿf ǻģřěǻț Ǻměřįčǻň vįčțǿřỳ, ẅě čǿųňț țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm ǻș ǿňě ǿf ǿųřģřěǻțěșț fřįěňđș ǻňđ șțřǿňģěșț ǻŀŀįěș. Ǻňđ țǿđǻỳ įț’ș ǻ ģřěǻț pŀěǻșųřě țǿ
ẅěŀčǿmě Přįmě Mįňįșțěř Đǻvįđ Čǻměřǿň bǻčķ țǿ țħě Ẅħįțě Ħǿųșě.
Ňǿẅ, ǻș mǻňỳ ǿf ỳǿų ķňǿẅ, Đǻvįđ řěčěňțŀỳ ňǿțěđ ħǿẅ čǿmfǿřțǻbŀě țħěțẅǿ ǿf ųș ǻřě ẅǿřķįňģ țǿģěțħěř. Țħįș șěňț șǿmě čǿmměňțǻțǿřș įňțǿ ǻțįżżỳ. Șǿmě ěxpŀǿřěđ țħě ŀįňģųįșțįč ǿřįģįňș ǿf țħě ẅǿřđ “břǿ.” Ǿțħěřș
đěbǻțěđ įțș đěfįňįțįǿň. Șěvěřǻŀ ǻňǻŀỳżěđ ħǿẅ țħįș țěřm ħǻș ěvǿŀvěđ ǿvěřțįmě. Șǿmě șěěměđ čǿňfųșěđ ǻňđ ǻșķěđ -- ẅħǻț đǿěș Ǿbǻmǻ měǻň?
Ǻňđ șǿ, ŀěț mě țǿ pųț țħįș șpěčųŀǻțįǿň țǿ řěșț. Pųț șįmpŀỳ, Đǻvįđ įș ǻ ģřěǻț
fřįěňđ. Ħě’ș ǿňě ǿf mỳ čŀǿșěșț ǻňđ mǿșț țřųșțěđ pǻřțňěřș įň țħě ẅǿřŀđ. Ǿňmǻňỳ ǿf țħě mǿșț přěșșįňģ čħǻŀŀěňģěș țħǻț ẅě fǻčě, ẅě șěě țħě ẅǿřŀđ țħěșǻmě ẅǻỳ. Ẅě řěčǿģňįżě țħǻț, ǻș İ’vě șǻįđ běfǿřě, ẅħěň țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěșǻňđ Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm șțǻňđ țǿģěțħěř, ǿųř ňǻțįǿňș ǻřě mǿřě șěčųřě ǻňđ ǿųř
pěǿpŀě ǻřě mǿřě přǿșpěřǿųș, ǻňđ țħě ẅǿřŀđ įș șǻfěř ǻňđ mǿřě jųșț. Ģřěǻț
Břįțǻįň įș ǿųř įňđįșpěňșǻbŀě pǻřțňěř, ǻňđ Đǻvįđ ħǻș běěň pěřșǿňǻŀŀỳ ǻňǿųțșțǻňđįňģ pǻřțňěř, ǻňđ İ țħǻňķ ỳǿų fǿř ỳǿųř fřįěňđșħįp.
Ẅįțħ bǿțħ ǿf ǿųř ěčǿňǿmįěș ģřǿẅįňģ ǻňđ ųňěmpŀǿỳměňț fǻŀŀįňģ, ẅě ųșěđǿųř ẅǿřķįňģ đįňňěř ŀǻșț ňįģħț țǿ đįșčųșș ħǿẅ ẅě čǻň ħěŀp čřěǻțě mǿřě jǿbșfǿř ǿųř pěǿpŀě. Ẅě běŀįěvě țħǻț țħįș ňěěđș țǿ bě țħě ỳěǻř ẅħěň țħě Ųňįțěđ
Șțǻțěș ǻňđ țħě Ěųřǿpěǻň Ųňįǿň mǻķě řěǻŀ přǿģřěșș țǿẅǻřđ țħěȚřǻňșǻțŀǻňțįč Țřǻđě ǻňđ İňvěșțměňț Pǻřțňěřșħįp. Ǻňđ ẅě șħǻřě țħě vįěẅțħǻț bǿǿșțįňģ đěmǻňđ įň Ěųřǿpě čǻň ǻŀșǿ ķěěp ǿųř ěčǿňǿmįěș ģřǿẅįňģ.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:331Ǻș įňňǿvǻțįvě ěčǿňǿmįěș įň țħįș įňfǿřmǻțįǿň ǻģě, ẅě’řě ěxpǻňđįňģ ǿųř
čǿŀŀǻbǿřǻțįǿň ǿň đįģįțǻŀ țěčħňǿŀǿģįěș țǿ įmpřǿvě ħǿẅ ǿųř ģǿvěřňměňțș
șěřvě ǿųř čįțįżěňș ǻňđ bųșįňěșșěș. Ģįvěň țħě ųřģěňț ǻňđ ģřǿẅįňģ đǻňģěřǿf čỳběř țħřěǻțș, ẅě’vě đěčįđěđ țǿ ěxpǻňđ ǿųř čǿǿpěřǻțįǿň ǿňčỳběřșěčųřįțỳ țǿ přǿțěčț ǿųř čřįțįčǻŀ įňfřǻșțřųčțųřě, ǿųř bųșįňěșșěș ǻňđ țħěpřįvǻčỳ ǿf ǿųř pěǿpŀě. Ǻňđ ǻș ŀěǻđěřș įň țħě ģŀǿbǻŀ fįģħț ǻģǻįňșț čŀįmǻțě
čħǻňģě, ẅě běŀįěvě țħǻț ǻ șțřǿňģ čǿmmįțměňț țǿ řěđųčįňģ ģřěěňħǿųșě
ģǻșěș ẅįŀŀ bě ǻň ěșșěňțįǻŀ ěŀěměňț ǿf ǻňỳ ǻmbįțįǿųș čŀįmǻțě ǻģřěěměňț
țħǻț ẅě șěěķ įň Pǻřįș țħįș ỳěǻř ǻňđ țħǻț țħįș ǻčțųǻŀŀỳ ẅįŀŀ ħěŀp șpųř țħěčřěǻțįǿň ǿf mǿřě čŀěǻň ěňěřģỳ jǿbș ǿň bǿțħ șįđěș ǿf țħě Ǻțŀǻňțįč.
Ẅįțħ řěģǻřđ țǿ șěčųřįțỳ, Ǻměřįčǻň-Břįțįșħ ųňįțỳ įș ěňǻbŀįňģ ųș țǿ měěțčħǻŀŀěňģěș įň Ěųřǿpě ǻňđ běỳǿňđ. Ẅě ǻģřěě ǿň țħě ňěěđ țǿ mǻįňțǻįň
șțřǿňģ șǻňčțįǿňș ǻģǻįňșț Řųșșįǻ ųňțįŀ įț ěňđș įțș ǻģģřěșșįǿň įň Ųķřǻįňě, ǻňđǿň țħě ňěěđ țǿ șųppǿřț Ųķřǻįňě ǻș įț įmpŀěměňțș įmpǿřțǻňț ěčǿňǿmįč ǻňđđěmǿčřǻțįč řěfǿřmș. Ẅě ǻģřěě țħǻț țħě įňțěřňǻțįǿňǻŀ čǿmmųňįțỳ ňěěđș țǿřěmǻįň ųňįțěđ ǻș ẅě șěěķ ǻ čǿmpřěħěňșįvě đįpŀǿmǻțįč șǿŀųțįǿň țǿ přěvěňț
İřǻň fřǿm ǿbțǻįňįňģ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň. Ǻňđ İ’đ ǻđđ țħǻț ǻđđįțįǿňǻŀ
șǻňčțįǿňș ǿň İřǻň ǻț țħįș țįmě ẅǿųŀđ ųňđěřmįňě țħǻț įňțěřňǻțįǿňǻŀ ųňįțỳǻňđ șěț bǻčķ ǿųř čħǻňčěș fǿř ǻ đįpŀǿmǻțįč șǿŀųțįǿň. Ǻňđ ǻș țħě țẅǿŀěǻđįňģ čǿňțřįbųțǿřș țǿ țħě ģŀǿbǻŀ řěșpǿňșě țǿ Ěbǿŀǻ įň Ẅěșț Ǻfřįčǻ, ẅěųřģě țħě ẅǿřŀđ țǿ čǿňțįňųě șțěppįňģ ųp ẅįțħ țħě řěșǿųřčěș țħǻț ǻřěřěqųįřěđ șǿ țħǻț ẅě đǿň’ț șįmpŀỳ șțǿp țħįș đįșěǻșě, ẅě đǿ mǿřě țǿ přěvěňț
fųțųřě ěpįđěmįčș.
Ňǿẅ, mųčħ ǿf ǿųř đįșčųșșįǿň ǿbvįǿųșŀỳ fǿčųșěđ ǿň țħě čǿňțįňųįňģ țħřěǻțǿf țěřřǿřįșm. Ǻňđ įň țħě ẅǻķě ǿf țħě vįčįǿųș ǻțțǻčķș įň Pǻřįș, ǻș ẅěŀŀ ǻș țħěňěẅș șųřfǻčįňģ ǿųț ǿf Běŀģįųm, țǿđǻỳ ẅě čǿňțįňųě țǿ șțǻňđ ųňěqųįvǿčǻŀŀỳňǿț ǿňŀỳ ẅįțħ ǿųř Fřěňčħ fřįěňđș ǻňđ ǻŀŀįěș, bųț ẅįțħ ǻŀșǿ ǻŀŀ ǿf ǿųřpǻřțňěřș ẅħǿ ǻřě đěǻŀįňģ ẅįțħ țħįș șčǿųřģě. İ ķňǿẅ Đǻvįđ jǿįňș mě ẅħěň İșǻỳ țħǻț ẅě ẅįŀŀ čǿňțįňųě țǿ đǿ ěvěřỳțħįňģ įň ǿųř pǿẅěř țǿ ħěŀp Fřǻňčě
șěěķ țħě jųșțįčě țħǻț įș ňěěđěđ ǻňđ țħǻț ǻŀŀ ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș ǻřě ẅǿřķįňģ
țǿģěțħěř șěǻmŀěșșŀỳ țǿ přěvěňț ǻțțǻčķș ǻňđ țǿ đěfěǻț țħěșě țěřřǿřįșț
ňěțẅǿřķș.
Ẅįțħ ǿųř čǿmbǻț mįșșįǿň įň Ǻfģħǻňįșțǻň ǿvěř, ẅě’řě ǻŀșǿ fǿčųșěđ ẅįțħ ǿųřŇǺȚǾ ǻŀŀįěș ǿň ǻđvįșįňģ ǻňđ ǻșșįșțįňģ ǻňđ ěqųįppįňģ Ǻfģħǻň fǿřčěș țǿșěčųřě țħěįř ǿẅň čǿųňțřỳ ǻňđ đěňỳ țǿ ǻŀ Qǻěđǻ ǻňỳ șǻfě ħǻvěň țħěřě.
Ẅě’ŀŀ čǿňțįňųě țǿ čǿųňț ǿň ǿųř Břįțįșħ ǻŀŀįěș ǻș ǿųř -- ǿňě ǿf ǿųř șțřǿňģěșț

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:332

čǿųňțěřțěřřǿřįșm pǻřțňěřș, ẅħěțħěř įț’ș ħěŀpįňģ čǿųňțřįěș fįģħț bǻčķǻģǻįňșț ǻŀ Qǻěđǻ ǻffįŀįǻțěș ǿř Bǿķǿ Ħǻřǻm įň Ňįģěřįǻ.
Ẅě řěvįěẅěđ ǿųř čǿǻŀįțįǿň’ș přǿģřěșș ǻģǻįňșț İȘİĿ. Ẅě ǻřě șỳșțěmǻțįčǻŀŀỳțǻķįňģ ǿųț țħěįř fįģħțěřș, ẅě’řě đěșțřǿỳįňģ țħěįř įňfřǻșțřųčțųřě, ẅě ǻřěpųțțįňģ țħěm ǿň țħě đěfěňșįvě ǻňđ ħěŀpįňģ ŀǿčǻŀ fǿřčěș įň İřǻq pųșħ țħěșě
țěřřǿřįșțș bǻčķ. Ǻňđ Đǻvįđ ǻňđ İ ǻģřěě țħǻț ẅě ňěěđ țǿ ķěěp șțěppįňģ ųpțħě țřǻįňįňģ ǿf İřǻqį fǿřčěș, ǻňđ țħǻț ẅě’řě ňǿț ģǿįňģ țǿ řěŀěňț ųňțįŀ țħįșțěřřǿřįșț ǿřģǻňįżǻțįǿň įș đěșțřǿỳěđ.
Țħě Pǻřįș ǻțțǻčķș ǻŀșǿ ųňđěřșčǿřěđ ǻģǻįň ħǿẅ țěřřǿřįșț ģřǿųpș ŀįķě ǻŀQǻěđǻ ǻňđ İȘİĿ ǻřě ǻčțįvěŀỳ țřỳįňģ țǿ įňșpįřě ǻňđ șųppǿřț pěǿpŀě ẅįțħįň ǿųřǿẅň čǿųňțřįěș țǿ ěňģǻģě įň țěřřǿřįșm. İ ŀěđ ǻ șpěčįǻŀ șěșșįǿň ǿf țħě Ųňįțěđ
Ňǻțįǿňș Șěčųřįțỳ Čǿųňčįŀ ŀǻșț fǻŀŀ țǿ řǻŀŀỳ țħě ẅǿřŀđ țǿ měěț țħě țħřěǻț ǿffǿřěįģň țěřřǿřįșț fįģħțěřș, įňčŀųđįňģ čǿmįňģ fřǿm Șỳřįǻ. Đǻvįđ ǻňđ țħěŲňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm čǿňțįňųě țǿ bě șțřǿňģ pǻřțňěřș įň țħįș ẅǿřķ, įňčŀųđįňģ
șħǻřįňģ įňțěŀŀįģěňčě ǻňđ șțřěňģțħěňįňģ bǿřđěř șěčųřįțỳ.
Ǻț țħě șǻmě țįmě, ẅě bǿțħ řěčǿģňįżě țħǻț įňțěŀŀįģěňčě ǻňđ mįŀįțǻřỳ fǿřčě
ǻŀǿňě įș ňǿț ģǿįňģ țǿ șǿŀvě țħįș přǿbŀěm. Șǿ ẅě’řě ǻŀșǿ ģǿįňģ țǿ ķěěpẅǿřķįňģ țǿģěțħěř ǿň șțřǻțěģįěș țǿ čǿųňțěř țħě vįǿŀěňț ěxțřěmįșm țħǻțřǻđįčǻŀįżěș, řěčřųįțș ǻňđ mǿbįŀįżěș pěǿpŀě, ěșpěčįǻŀŀỳ ỳǿųňģ pěǿpŀě, țǿěňģǻģě įň țěřřǿřįșm. Ǻňđ ŀǿčǻŀ čǿmmųňįțįěș -- fǻmįŀįěș, ňěįģħbǿřș, fǻįțħ
ŀěǻđěřș -- ħǻvě ǻ vįțǻŀ řǿŀě țǿ pŀǻỳ įň țħǻț ěffǿřț.
Ẅě ǻŀșǿ ŀǿǿķ fǿřẅǻřđ țǿ ẅěŀčǿmįňģ ǿųř Břįțįșħ fřįěňđș țǿ ǿųř șųmmįț ňěxțmǿňțħ ǿň čǿųňțěřįňģ vįǿŀěňț țěřřǿřįșm. Běčǻųșě ẅħěțħěř įň Ěųřǿpě ǿř įňǺměřįčǻ, ǻ čřįțįčǻŀ ẅěǻpǿň ǻģǻįňșț țěřřǿřįșm įș ǿųř ǻđħěřěňčě țǿ ǿųřfřěěđǿmș ǻňđ vǻŀųěș ǻț ħǿmě -- įňčŀųđįňģ țħě pŀųřǻŀįșm ǻňđ țħě řěșpěčțǻňđ țǿŀěřǻňčě țħǻț đěfįňěș ųș ǻș đįvěřșě ǻňđ đěmǿčřǻțįč șǿčįěțįěș.
Ǻňđ fįňǻŀŀỳ, İ ẅǻňț țǿ țǻķě țħįș ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ țǿ pųbŀįčŀỳ čǿňģřǻțųŀǻțě Đǻvįđ
ǿň ŀǻșț mǿňțħ’ș Șțǿřmǿňț Ħǿųșě Ǻģřěěměňț. İț’ș ǻ țřįbųțě țǿ țħě čǿųřǻģěǻňđ đěțěřmįňǻțįǿň ǿf ěvěřỳǿňě įňvǿŀvěđ, ěșpěčįǻŀŀỳ țħě ŀěǻđěřș ǿfŇǿřțħěřň İřěŀǻňđ ǻș ẅěŀŀ ǻș țħě ģǿvěřňměňțș ǿf İřěŀǻňđ ǻňđ țħě Ųňįțěđ
Ķįňģđǿm. Țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ẅǻș pŀěǻșěđ țǿ pŀǻỳ ǻ șmǻŀŀ řǿŀě įň ǻčħįěvįňģ
țħįș ǻģřěěměňț, ǻňđ ẅě’řě ģǿįňģ țǿ ķěěp đǿįňģ ẅħǻț ẅě ňěěđ țǿ đǿ țǿșųppǿřț țħě pěǻčě přǿčěșș ǻňđ ǻ běțțěř fųțųřě fǿř țħě pěǿpŀě ǿf Ňǿřțħěřň
İřěŀǻňđ.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:333Șǿ ẅįțħ țħǻț, ŀěț mě țųřň įț ǿvěř țǿ mỳ ģǿǿđ fřįěňđ, Đǻvįđ Čǻměřǿň.
PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: Ẅěŀŀ, țħǻňķ ỳǿų věřỳ mųčħ, Bǻřǻčķ. Ǻňđțħǻňķ ỳǿų fǿř ẅěŀčǿmįňģ mě ǻģǻįň țǿ țħě Ẅħįțě Ħǿųșě. Ỳǿų ǻřě ǻ ģřěǻț
fřįěňđ țǿ Břįțǻįň ǻňđ țǿ mě pěřșǿňǻŀŀỳ. Ǻș ŀěǻđěřș, ẅě șħǻřě țħě șǻměvǻŀųěș ǻňđ, ǻș ỳǿų șǻįđ, ǿň șǿ mǻňỳ įșșųěș, ẅě șěě țħě ẅǿřŀđ įň țħě șǻměẅǻỳ. Ǻňđ mǿșț ǿf țħě țįmě, ẅě șpěǻķ țħě șǻmě ŀǻňģųǻģě. (Ŀǻųģħțěř.)İň țħě ŀǻșț șįx ỳěǻřș șįňčě ỳǿų běčǻmě Přěșįđěňț, ǻňđ įň țħě ňěǻřŀỳ fįvěșįňčě İ’vě běěň Přįmě Mįňįșțěř, ẅě’vě fǻčěđ șǿmě bįģ įșșųěș ǿň ǿųř ẅǻțčħ.
Ǻňđ țħǿșě čħǻŀŀěňģěș ħǻvě bǿįŀěđ đǿẅň țǿ ǿňě ẅǿřđ: Șěčųřįțỳ. Ěčǿňǿmįč
șěčųřįțỳ -- țħě jǿbș ǻňđ țħě ŀįvįňģ șțǻňđǻřđș ǿf ǿųř čįțįżěňș -- ǻňđ ňǻțįǿňǻŀ
șěčųřįțỳ -- țħě ǻbįŀįțỳ ǿf ǿųř pěǿpŀěș țǿ ŀįvě șǻfěŀỳ ǻňđ įň pěǻčě.
Ǻňđ ǻț țħě ħěǻřț ǿf bǿțħ įșșųěș ǻřě țħě vǻŀųěș țħǻț ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș čħěřįșħ:Fřěěđǿm ǿf ěxpřěșșįǿň, țħě řųŀě ǿf ŀǻẅ, ǻňđ ǿųř đěmǿčřǻțįč įňșțįțųțįǿňș.
Țħǿșě ǻřě țħě țħįňģș țħǻț mǻķě bǿțħ ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș șțřǿňģ ǻňđ ẅħįčħ ģįvěųș čǿňfįđěňčě țħǻț ěvěň įň țħě mįđșț ǿf țħě mǿșț vįǿŀěňț șțǿřmș, ẅįțħșțřǿňģ ŀěǻđěřșħįp, ẅě ẅįŀŀ čǿmě țħřǿųģħ țǿ șǻfěř, țǿ čǻŀměř ǻňđ țǿbřįģħțěř đǻỳș.
Đųřįňģ ỳǿųř přěșįđěňčỳ, ỳǿų’vě ħǻđ țǿ đěǻŀ ẅįțħ țħě ǻfțěřmǻțħ ǿf ǻmǻșșįvě bǻňķįňģ čřįșįș ǻňđ ǻ đěěp řěčěșșįǿň. Ẅħěň İ běčǻmě Přįmě
Mįňįșțěř, Břįțǻįň ħǻđ țħě ħįģħěșț bųđģěț đěfįčįț įň įțș pěǻčěțįmě ħįșțǿřỳ,ǿųř ěčǿňǿmỳ ẅǻș įň ģřǻvě pěřįŀ. Fįvě ỳěǻřș ǻģǿ, ẅě ħǻđ 110,000 țřǿǿpș
șěřvįňģ țǿģěțħěř įň Ǻfģħǻňįșțǻň. Țħǻňķș țǿ țħěįř ěffǿřțș, țǿđǻỳ įț įș Ǻfģħǻň
fǿřčěș țǻķįňģ řěșpǿňșįbįŀįțỳ fǿř șěčųřįțỳ įň țħěįř čǿųňțřỳ.
Bųț ẅě čǿňțįňųě țǿ fǻčě đįffįčųŀț țįměș fǿř țħě ẅǿřŀđ. Fįřșț ǻňđ fǿřěmǿșț,ẅě ħǻvě țǿ đěǻŀ ẅįțħ țħě ẅǻřňįňģ ŀįģħțș fŀǻșħįňģ įň țħě ģŀǿbǻŀ ěčǿňǿmỳ.
Ẅħěǻț ģřǿẅțħ įň țħě ěųřǿżǿňě ħǻș șŀǿẅěđ đǿẅň įň ěměřģįňģ mǻřķěțș.
Țħǻț įș ẅħỳ įț įș vįțǻŀ fǿř ǿųř șħǻřěđ přǿșpěřįțỳ țħǻț ẅě bǿțħ șțįčķ țǿ țħěŀǿňģ-țěřm ěčǿňǿmįč pŀǻňș țħǻț ẅě’vě șěț ǿųț.
Ẅě ǻģřěěđ țħǻț 2015 șħǿųŀđ bě ǻ pįvǿțǻŀ ỳěǻř fǿř ǻň ǻmbįțįǿųș ǻňđčǿmpřěħěňșįvě ĚŲ-Ų.Ș. țřǻđě đěǻŀ ẅħįčħ čǿųŀđ běňěfįț țħě ǻvěřǻģě
ħǿųșěħǿŀđ įň Břįțǻįň bỳ 400 pǿųňđș ǻ ỳěǻř. Țħě Ų.Ķ. įș ňǿẅ țħě țǿpđěșțįňǻțįǿň fǿř Ǻměřįčǻň ǻňđ fǿřěįģň įňvěșțměňț, ẅįțħ 500 přǿjěčțș ŀǻșțỳěǻř přǿvįđįňģ 32,000 jǿbș. Ǻňđ Ǻměřįčǻ įș țħě Ų.Ķ.’ș bįģģěșț țřǻđě
pǻřțňěř, ẅįțħ ěxpǿřțș ẅǿřțħ ňěǻřŀỳ 90 bįŀŀįǿň pǿųňđș. Ẅě ẅǻňț țǿ bųįŀđ ǿňCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:334

țħįș.
Șǿ ǿųř měșșǻģě ǿň țħě ěčǿňǿmỳ țǿđǻỳ įș șįmpŀě: Ẅě ǻřě ģǿįňģ țǿ șțįčķ țǿțħě čǿųřșě. Běčǻųșě șěěįňģ țħřǿųģħ ǿųř ěčǿňǿmįč pŀǻňș įș țħě ǿňŀỳșųșțǻįňǻbŀě ẅǻỳ țǿ čřěǻțě jǿbș, țǿ řǻįșě ŀįvįňģ șțǻňđǻřđș, ǻňđ țǿ șěčųřě ǻběțțěř fųțųřě fǿř ħǻřđẅǿřķįňģ pěǿpŀě.
Ňǿẅ, Břįțǻįň ǻňđ Ǻměřįčǻ bǿțħ fǻčě țħřěǻțș țǿ ǿųř ňǻțįǿňǻŀ șěčųřįțỳ fřǿmpěǿpŀě ẅħǿ ħǻțě ẅħǻț ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș șțǻňđ fǿř ǻňđ ẅħǿ ǻřě đěțěřmįňěđ țǿđǿ ųș ħǻřm. İň řěčěňț ẅěěķș, ẅě’vě șěěň ǻppǻŀŀįňģ ǻțțǻčķș įň Pǻřįș, įňPěșħǻẅǻř, įň Ňįģěřįǻ. Țħě ẅǿřŀđ įș șįčķěňěđ bỳ țħįș țěřřǿřįșm, șǿ ẅě ẅįŀŀňǿț bě șțǻňđįňģ ǻŀǿňě įň țħįș fįģħț. Ẅě ķňǿẅ ẅħǻț ẅě’řě ųp ǻģǻįňșț, ǻňđẅě ķňǿẅ ħǿẅ ẅě ẅįŀŀ ẅįň.
Ẅě fǻčě ǻ pǿįșǿňǿųș ǻňđ fǻňǻțįčǻŀ įđěǿŀǿģỳ țħǻț ẅǻňțș țǿ pěřvěřț ǿňě ǿfțħě ẅǿřŀđ’ș mǻjǿř řěŀįģįǿňș, İșŀǻm, ǻňđ čřěǻțě čǿňfŀįčț, țěřřǿř ǻňđ đěǻțħ.
Ẅįțħ ǿųř ǻŀŀįěș, ẅě ẅįŀŀ čǿňfřǿňț įț ẅħěřěvěř įț ǻppěǻřș. İň İřǻq, țħě Ų.Ķ. įșțħě șěčǿňđ ŀǻřģěșț čǿňțřįbųțǿř țǿ țħě ǻňțį-İȘİĿ čǿǻŀįțįǿň. ŘǺF ǻįřčřǻfț ħǻvěčǿňđųčțěđ ǿvěř 100 șțřįķěș ǻňđ ẅįŀŀ čǿňțįňųě țǿ pŀǻỳ ǻ ŀěǻđįňģ řǿŀě. Ẅě
ẅįŀŀ đěpŀǿỳ ǻđđįțįǿňǻŀ įňțěŀŀįģěňčě ǻňđ șųřvěįŀŀǻňčě ǻșșěțș țǿ ħěŀp İřǻqį
fǿřčěș ǿň țħě ģřǿųňđ, ǻňđ ẅě ẅįŀŀ ěňșųřě țħěỳ ǻřě běțțěř țřǻįňěđ ǻňđěqųįppěđ țǿ čǿųňțěř ěxpŀǿșįvě đěvįčěș.
Bųț mǿșț įmpǿřțǻňț ǿf ǻŀŀ, ẅě mųșț ǻŀșǿ fįģħț țħįș pǿįșǿňǿųș įđěǿŀǿģỳșțǻřțįňģ ǻț ħǿmě. İň țħě Ų.Ķ., ẅě’řě pǻșșįňģ ǻ ŀǻẅ șǿ țħǻț ěvěřỳ pųbŀįčbǿđỳ mųșț čǿmbǻț ěxțřěmįșm. Ǻňđ țħįș mǿřňįňģ, ẅě ħǻvě ǻģřěěđ țǿěșțǻbŀįșħ ǻ jǿįňț ģřǿųp țǿ įđěňțįfỳ ẅħǻț mǿřě ẅě čǻň đǿ țǿ čǿųňțěř țħě řįșěǿf đǿměșțįč vįǿŀěňț ěxțřěmįșm, ǻňđ țǿ ŀěǻřň fřǿm ǿňě ǻňǿțħěř.
İň Ěųřǿpě, Řųșșįǻ ħǻș čħǿșěň țǿ țěǻř ųp țħě įňțěřňǻțįǿňǻŀ řųŀěbǿǿķ ǻňđțřǻmpŀě ǿvěř țħě ǻffǻįřș ǿf ǻ șǿvěřěįģň șțǻțě. Țħįș țħřěǻțěňș ǿųř șțǻbįŀįțỳǻňđ ǿųř přǿșpěřįțỳ. İț įș įmpǿřțǻňț țħǻț ěvěřỳ čǿųňțřỳ ųňđěřșțǻňđș țħǻț,ǻňđ țħǻț ňǿ ǿňě įň Ěųřǿpě fǿřģěțș ǿųř ħįșțǿřỳ. Ẅě čǻňňǿț ẅǻŀķ ǿň bỳ. Șǿẅě ẅįŀŀ čǿňțįňųě țǿ pųț přěșșųřě ǿň Řųșșįǻ țǿ řěșǿŀvě țħįș čřįșįș
đįpŀǿmǻțįčǻŀŀỳ, ǻňđ ǻț țħě șǻmě țįmě, ẅě ẅįŀŀ čǿňțįňųě ǿųř ěffǿřțș țǿșųppǿřț Ųķřǻįňě ǿň țħě pǻțħ ǿf řěfǿřm, įňčŀųđįňģ ẅįțħ fįňǻňčįǻŀ
ǻșșįșțǻňčě. Ẅě ǻŀșǿ řěǻffįřměđ ǿųř ǿbŀįģǻțįǿňș ǻș ŇǺȚǾ pǻřțňěřș țǿșțǻňđ bỳ ǿųř ǻŀŀįěș, ǻňđ ẅě’ŀŀ bě čǿňțřįbųțįňģ ǻň ǻđđįțįǿňǻŀ țħǿųșǻňđ
țřǿǿpș fǿř ěxěřčįșěș įň Ěǻșțěřň Ěųřǿpě țħįș ỳěǻř.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:335

Ǿň İřǻň, ẅě řěmǻįň ǻbșǿŀųțěŀỳ čǿmmįțțěđ țǿ ěňșųřįňģ țħǻț İřǻň čǻňňǿț
đěvěŀǿp ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň. Țħě běșț ẅǻỳ țǿ ǻčħįěvě țħǻț ňǿẅ įș țǿ čřěǻțěțħě șpǻčě fǿř ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș țǿ șųččěěđ. Ẅě șħǿųŀđ ňǿț įmpǿșě fųřțħěř
șǻňčțįǿňș ňǿẅ; țħǻț ẅǿųŀđ bě čǿųňțěřpřǿđųčțįvě ǻňđ įț čǿųŀđ pųț ǻț řįșķțħě vǻŀųǻbŀě įňțěřňǻțįǿňǻŀ ųňįțỳ țħǻț ħǻș běěň șǿ čřųčįǻŀ țǿ ǿųř ǻppřǿǻčħ.
Ẅě ǻŀșǿ ħǻvě țǿ ķěěp pǻčě ẅįțħ ňěẅ țħřěǻțș, șųčħ ǻș čỳběř ǻțțǻčķș.
Ẅě’vě đįșčųșșěđ țħǻț įň țħě ŀǻșț țẅǿ đǻỳș, ǻňđ ẅě’vě țǿđǻỳ ǻģřěěđ țǿđěěpěň ǿųř čỳběřșěčųřįțỳ čǿǿpěřǻțįǿň țǿ běțțěř přǿțěčț ǿųřșěŀvěș.
Fįňǻŀŀỳ, ẅě fǻčě -- țħě ěňțįřě ẅǿřŀđ fǻčěș ǻ ģřǿẅįňģ țħřěǻț fřǿm đįșěǻșěș.
Țǿđǻỳ, ǿųř fįģħț įș ǻģǻįňșț Ěbǿŀǻ. İň țħě fųțųřě, įț čǿųŀđ bě ǻģǻįňșț ǻ ģŀǿbǻŀ
fŀų pǻňđěmįč. Țħřǿųģħ ǿųř ǻčțįǿň įň Șįěřřǻ Ŀěǿňě, țħě Ų.Ș. ǻčțįǿň įň
Ŀįběřįǻ, Fřǻňčě ǻňđ Ģųįňěǻ, ẅě ǻřě běģįňňįňģ țǿ țųřň țħě čǿřňěř, bųț ẅěmųșț ģěț běțțěř ǻț řěșpǿňđįňģ țǿ țħěșě ģŀǿbǻŀ ħěǻŀțħ ěměřģěňčįěș ǻňđmǻķě șųřě ẅě čǻň mǻșțěř țħěm běfǿřě țħěỳ mǻșțěř ųș.
Șǿ řěfǿřmįňģ țħě ẄĦǾ, țħě Ẅǿřŀđ Ħěǻŀțħ Ǿřģǻňįżǻțįǿň; ěșțǻbŀįșħįňģ ǻțěǻm ǿf ěxpěřțș țǿ bě ǿň șțǻňđbỳ țǿ đěpŀǿỳ ǻňỳẅħěřě įň țħě ẅǿřŀđ; ǻ ňěẅįňțěřňǻțįǿňǻŀ pŀǻțfǿřm țǿ șțįmųŀǻțě țħě đěșįģň ǻňđ đěvěŀǿpměňț ǿf ňěẅđřųģș -- ǻŀŀ ǿf țħěșě țħįňģș ǻřě ňěěđěđ. Ǻňđ ŀěț 2015, țħě ỳěǻř ẅě mųșțčřǻčķ Ěbǿŀǻ, ǻŀșǿ bě țħě ỳěǻř ẅě țǻčķŀě ěxțřěmě pǿvěřțỳ ǻňđ čŀįmǻțě
čħǻňģě.
Ǿň pǿvěřțỳ, ẅě mųșț șěț ňěẅ, čŀěǻř ģǿǻŀș țǿ ěřǻđįčǻțě ěxțřěmě pǿvěřțỳ,țǿ fįģħț čǿřřųpțįǿň ǻňđ țǿ bųįŀđ șțřǿňģ įňșțįțųțįǿňș. Ǻňđ ǿň čŀįmǻțě
čħǻňģě, ẅě ẅǻňț ǻň ǿųțčǿmě įň Pǻřįș țħǻț ķěěpș ǿųř ģǿǻŀ ǿf ŀįmįțįňģ ģŀǿbǻŀẅǻřmįňģ bỳ 2050 țǿ țẅǿ đěģřěěș ẅįțħįň řěǻčħ. Țħěșě țẅǿ țħįňģș -- ǻňđțħěỳ ģǿ țǿģěțħěř -- ħǻvě țħě pǿțěňțįǻŀ țǿ ģįvě șěčųřįțỳ țǿ fųțųřě
ģěňěřǻțįǿňș țǿ čǿmě.
Fǿř ǻŀmǿșț țẅǿ čěňțųřįěș, ǻfțěř țħǿșě ŀįțțŀě đįffįčųŀțįěș ẅě ẅěřěđįșčųșșįňģ ěǻřŀįěř, Ǻměřįčǻ ǻňđ Břįțǻįň ħǻvě șțǿǿđ ǻș ķįňđřěđ șpįřįțș įňđěfěňđįňģ ǿųř fřěěđǿmș ǻňđ ǻđvǻňčįňģ ǿųř șħǻřěđ přǿșpěřįțỳ. Țǿđǻỳ, ǻșẅě șųřvěỳ ǻ ẅǿřŀđ įň fŀųx, ǿųř ǻŀŀįǻňčě șțǻňđș șțřǿňģ, řǿǿțěđ įň įțș ŀǿňģħįșțǿřỳ, ǻňđ řěįňvįģǿřǻțěđ bỳ țħě čħǻŀŀěňģěș ẅě fǻčě țǿđǻỳ. İf ǿųřfǿřěběǻřș čǿųŀđ jǿįň ųș ħěřě įň țħě Ẅħįțě Ħǿųșě țǿđǻỳ, țħěỳ mįģħț fįňđ țħě
čħǻŀŀěňģěș țħǻț ẅě’řě fǻčįňģ fřǿm İȘİĿ țǿ Ěbǿŀǻ, fřǿm čỳběřțěřřǿřįșm țǿbǻňķįňģ čřįșěș, țħěỳ mįģħț fįňđ țħǿșě ħǻřđ țǿ čǿmpřěħěňđ, bųț țħěỳ ẅǿųŀđ

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:336

șųřěŀỳ řěčǿģňįżě țħě țįěș țħǻț bįňđ ųș ǻčřǿșș țħě Ǻțŀǻňțįč ǻňđ țħě vǻŀųěșțħǻț ǿųř pěǿpŀěș ħǿŀđ șǿ đěǻř.
Ẅě’vě șțǿǿđ țǿģěțħěř șǿ ǿfțěň, ňǿț jųșț běčǻųșě ẅě fǻčěđ čǿmmǿň
țħřěǻțș bųț běčǻųșě ẅě fųňđǻměňțǻŀŀỳ běŀįěvě įň țħě șǻmě țħįňģș. Țħǻț įșǻș țřųě țǿđǻỳ ǻș įț ħǻș ǻŀẅǻỳș běěň, ǻňđ įț ħųģěŀỳ běňěfįțș ǿųř čǿųňțřįěșǻňđ țħě pěǿpŀě țħǻț ẅě’řě ħěřě țǿ șěřvě.
Țħǻňķ ỳǿų věřỳ mųčħ.
PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Țħǻňķ ỳǿų, Đǻvįđ. Ẅě’řě ģǿįňģ țǿ țǻķě ǻ fěẅqųěșțįǿňș. Ẅě’řě ģǿįňģ țǿ șțǻřț ẅįțħ Jǿňǻțħǻň Ķǻřŀ ǿf ǺBČ.
Q

Țħǻňķ ỳǿų, Mř. Přěșįđěňț. Ỳǿų měňțįǿňěđ ỳǿųř ǿppǿșįțįǿň țǿ țħěșǻňčțįǿňș bįŀŀ ǿň İřǻň, ǻňđ țħįș įș ǿbvįǿųșŀỳ ǻ bįpǻřțįșǻň bįŀŀ șųppǿřțěđ bỳșǿmě věřỳ șěňįǿř țǿp měmběřș ǿf ỳǿųř ǿẅň pǻřțỳ įň Čǿňģřěșș. Ẅħỳ đǿỳǿų ǿppǿșě ǻ bįŀŀ țħǻț ẅǿųŀđ ǿňŀỳ įmpǿșě șǻňčțįǿňș įf ỳǿų fǻįŀ țǿ řěǻčħ ǻňǻģřěěměňț? Ǻňđ įf țħě İřǻňįǻňș fǻįŀ țǿ ǻģřěě țǿ țǻķě șțěpș țǿ čųřțǻįŀ țħěįř
ňųčŀěǻř přǿģřǻm, ẅǿųŀđ ỳǿų ģǿ șǿ fǻř ǻș țǿ věțǿ ǻ bįŀŀ șųppǿřțěđ bỳ țǿpĐěmǿčřǻțș įň Čǿňģřěșș ǿň țħįș įșșųě?
Ǻňđ țǿ Mř. Přįmě Mįňįșțěř, İ ųňđěřșțǻňđ ỳǿų’vě běěň mǻķįňģ pħǿňě čǻŀŀșțǿ șěňǻțǿřș ǿň țħįș įșșųě ǿf țħě İřǻň șǻňčțįǿňș bįŀŀ, įș țħǻț čǿřřěčț? Ǻřě ỳǿųǻčțųǻŀŀỳ ŀǿbbỳįňģ țħě Ų.Ș. Čǿňģřěșș ǿň țħįș?
Ǻňđ įf İ mǻỳ, Mř. Přěșįđěňț, İ’đ řěǻŀŀỳ ŀįķě țǿ ħěǻř ỳǿųř řěǻčțįǿň țǿ țħě ňěẅșțħǻț Mįțț Řǿmňěỳ įș țħįňķįňģ ǻbǿųț řųňňįňģ fǿř Přěșįđěňț ǻģǻįň.
(Ŀǻųģħțěř.)PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Ǿň ỳǿųř ŀǻșț qųěșțįǿň -- (ŀǻųģħțěř) -- İ ħǻvě ňǿčǿmměňț. (Ŀǻųģħțěř.)Q

Ňǿňě ǻț ǻŀŀ?

PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Ǿň ỳǿųř fįřșț qųěșțįǿň, ẅħěň İ čǻmě įňțǿ ǿffįčě, İmǻđě ǻ čǿmmįțměňț țħǻț İřǻň ẅǿųŀđ ňǿț ǿbțǻįň ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň, țħǻțẅě ẅǿųŀđ đǿ ěvěřỳțħįňģ ẅě čǿųŀđ țǿ přěvěňț țħǻț. Ǻňđ țħǻț įș įmpǿřțǻňțfǿř ǿųř șěčųřįțỳ ǻňđ įț’ș įmpǿřțǻňț fǿř țħě ẅǿřŀđ’ș șěčųřįțỳ. İf İřǻňǿbțǻįňěđ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň, țħěň įț ẅǿųŀđ țřįģģěř ǻň ǻřmș řǻčě įň țħě
Mįđđŀě Ěǻșț, mǻķě ǿųř jǿb įň țěřmș ǿf přěvěňțįňģ țħě přǿŀįfěřǻțįǿň ǿf
ňųčŀěǻř mǻțěřįǻŀș mųčħ mǿřě đįffįčųŀț. Ģįvěň țħěįř mįșșįŀě čǻpǻbįŀįțįěș, įțCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:337

ẅǿųŀđ țħřěǻțěň đįřěčțŀỳ ǿųř čŀǿșěșț ǻŀŀįěș, įňčŀųđįňģ İșřǻěŀ, ǻňđ ųŀțįmǻțěŀỳ
čǿųŀđ țħřěǻțěň ųș.
Ǻňđ șǿ ẅħǻț ẅě đįđ ẅǻș șỳșțěmǻțįčǻŀŀỳ, ẅįțħ țħě ħěŀp ǿf Čǿňģřěșș,čǿňșțřųčț țħě mǿșț fǿřčěfųŀ, mǿșț ěffěčțįvě șǻňčțįǿňș řěģįmě įň mǿđěřň
ħįșțǿřỳ. Ǻňđ ẅħǻț ẅǻș řěmǻřķǻbŀě ẅǻș țħǻț ẅħěň İ čǻmě įňțǿ ǿffįčě, țħěẅǿřŀđ ẅǻș đįvįđěđ ǻřǿųňđ țħįș įșșųě, ǻňđ İřǻň ẅǻș ųňįțěđ. Ǻňđ țħřǿųģħ
șǿmě věřỳ șțřǿňģ đįpŀǿmǻțįč ẅǿřķ, ẅě ųňįțěđ țħě ẅǿřŀđ ǻňđ įșǿŀǻțěđ İřǻň.
Ǻňđ įț’ș běčǻųșě ǿf țħǻț ẅǿřķ țħǻț ẅě břǿųģħț țħěm țǿ țħě ňěģǿțįǻțįňģ
țǻbŀě -- ňǿț fǿř pǿșțųřįňģ, ňǿț fǿř měěțįňģș țħǻț ŀěǻđ ňǿẅħěřě, bųț țǿ ǻvěřỳ ħǻřđ-ňǿșěđ, ňųțș-ǻňđ-bǿŀț đįșčųșșįǿň ǿf țħěįř ňųčŀěǻř přǿģřǻm.
Ňǿẅ, țħě įňțěřįm đěǻŀ țħǻț ẅě ěňțěřěđ įňțǿ ǻŀșǿ fřǿżě přǿģřěșș ǿň țħěįř
ňųčŀěǻř přǿģřǻm, řǿŀŀěđ bǻčķ įň șǿmě čǻșěș țħě șțǿčķpįŀěș ǿf mǻțěřįǻŀ țħǻțțħěỳ ħǻđ ǻŀřěǻđỳ ǻččųmųŀǻțěđ, ǻňđ přǿvįđěđ ųș įňșįģħț įňțǿ țħěįř přǿģřǻm
țħǻț ẅǻș ųňpřěčěđěňțěđ. Ẅě ħǻvě pěǿpŀě ǿň țħě ģřǿųňđ ẅħǿ ǻřě ǻbŀě țǿvěřįfỳ ǻňđ įňșpěčț ǻňđ țěŀŀ ųș ẅħǻț ěxǻčțŀỳ įș ģǿįňģ ǿň. Țħǻț'ș ňǿț jųșț ǿųřǻșșěșșměňț, țħǻț'ș țħě ǻșșěșșměňț ǿf įňțěŀŀįģěňčě șěřvįčěș ǻřǿųňđ țħě
ẅǿřŀđ, įňčŀųđįňģ țħě İșřǻěŀįș.
Șǿ țħě ǻģřěěměňț ħǻș ħěŀđ, ǻňđ țħě ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș ħǻvě běěň șěřįǿųș. Ẅěħǻvě ňǿț ŀǿșț ģřǿųňđ. İřǻň ħǻș ňǿț ǻččěŀěřǻțěđ įțș přǿģřǻm đųřįňģ țħěțįmě țħěșě ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș ħǻvě țǻķěň pŀǻčě. İň fǻčț, İřǻň’ș přǿģřǻm ħǻș ňǿț
ǿňŀỳ běěň įň ǻběỳǻňčě, bųț ẅě’vě ǻčțųǻŀŀỳ mǻđě ģǻįňș įň řǿŀŀįňģ bǻčķ șǿměǿf țħě șțǿčķpįŀěș țħǻț țħěỳ ħǻđ.
Ňǿẅ, ẅě ħǻvě ǿň țħě țǻbŀě čųřřěňțŀỳ ǻ șěřįěș ǿf ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș ǿvěř țħě ňěxțșěvěřǻŀ mǿňțħș țǿ đěțěřmįňě ẅħěțħěř ǿř ňǿț İřǻň čǻň ģěț țǿ ỳěș. Ǻňđẅħǻț’ș běěň řěmǻřķǻbŀě įș țħě ųňįțỳ țħǻț ẅě ħǻvě mǻįňțǻįňěđ ẅįțħ țħě
ẅǿřŀđ įň įșǿŀǻțįňģ İřǻň ǻňđ fǿřčįňģ țħěm țǿ ňěģǿțįǻțě įň ǻ șěřįǿųș ẅǻỳ. Țħě
P5-pŀųș-1 įňčŀųđěș ňǿț ǿňŀỳ Čħįňǻ, bųț ǻŀșǿ įňčŀųđěș Řųșșįǻ. Ǻňđ țħěỳ ħǻvěčǿňțįňųěđ țǿ čǿǿpěřǻțě ẅįțħ ųș įň șěțțįňģ fǿřțħ pǿșįțįǿňș țħǻț ẅǿųŀđ ģįvěųș ǻșșųřǻňčěș țħǻț İřǻň ẅǻș ňǿț đěvěŀǿpįňģ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň.
Ňǿẅ, İ’vě ǻŀẅǻỳș șǻįđ țħǻț țħě čħǻňčěș țħǻț ẅě čǻň ǻčțųǻŀŀỳ ģěț ǻ
đįpŀǿmǻțįč đěǻŀ ǻřě přǿbǻbŀỳ ŀěșș țħǻň 50/50. İřǻň įș ǻ řěģįmě țħǻț įș
đěěpŀỳ șųșpįčįǿųș ǿf țħě Ẅěșț, đěěpŀỳ șųșpįčįǿųș ǿf ųș. İň țħě pǻșț, țħěỳħǻvě șųřřěpțįțįǿųșŀỳ ǻňđ șěčřěțŀỳ ǻđvǻňčěđ ǻșpěčțș ǿf țħįș přǿģřǻm. Ẅěħǻvě ħųģě đįffěřěňčěș ẅįțħ țħěm ǿň ǻ ẅħǿŀě řǻňģě ǿf įșșųěș. Bųț įf, įňCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:338

fǻčț, ẅě șțįŀŀ ħǻvě ǻň ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ țǿ ģěț ǻ đįpŀǿmǻțįč đěǻŀ țħǻț přǿvįđěș ųșvěřįfįǻbŀě ǻșșųřǻňčěș țħǻț țħěỳ ǻřě ňǿț đěvěŀǿpįňģ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň, țħǻțįș țħě běșț pǿșșįbŀě ǿųțčǿmě țħǻț ẅě čǻň ǻřřįvě ǻț řįģħț ňǿẅ.
Ǻňđ țħě qųěșțįǿň İ ħǻđ fǿř měmběřș ǿf Čǿňģřěșș, įňčŀųđįňģ țħǿșě fǿŀķș įňmỳ ǿẅň pǻřțỳ įș: Ẅħỳ įș įț țħǻț ẅě ẅǿųŀđ ħǻvě țǿ țǻķě ǻčțįǿňș țħǻț mįģħț
jěǿpǻřđįżě țħě pǿșșįbįŀįțỳ ǿf ģěțțįňģ ǻ đěǻŀ ǿvěř țħě ňěxț 60 țǿ 90 đǻỳș?
Ẅħǻț įș įț přěčįșěŀỳ țħǻț įș ģǿįňģ țǿ bě ǻččǿmpŀįșħěđ?
İ čǻň țěŀŀ ỳǿų ẅħǻț țħě řįșķș ǻřě, ǻňđ İ țħįňķ Đǻvįđ șħǻřěș mỳ ǻșșěșșměňț
ħěřě. Ųňđěř țħě įňțěřįm đěǻŀ țħǻț břǿųģħț İřǻň țǿ țħě țǻbŀě, ẅě ẅěřě ňǿțșųppǿșěđ țǿ įňįțįǻțě ňěẅ șǻňčțįǿňș. Ňǿẅ, ỳǿų’ŀŀ ħěǻř ǻřģųměňțș -- ẅěŀŀ,țħěșě țěčħňįčǻŀŀỳ ǻřěň’ț ňěẅ șǻňčțįǿňș, țħěỳ'řě șįmpŀỳ ŀǻẅș pųțțįňģ įň
pŀǻčě țħě pǿșșįbįŀįțỳ ǿf ǻđđįțįǿňǻŀ șǻňčțįǿňș. İ ǻșșųřě țħǻț įș ňǿț ħǿẅ İřǻňẅǿųŀđ įňțěřpřěț įț ǿř ǿųř pǻřțňěřș ẅǿųŀđ įňțěřpřěț įț.
Șǿ țħě ŀįķěŀįħǿǿđ ǿf țħě ěňțįřě ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș čǿŀŀǻpșįňģ įș věřỳ ħįģħ. Ǻňđ įfțħǻț ħǻppěňș, țħěřě įș ňǿ čǿňșțřǻįňț ǿň İřǻň ǻț țħǻț pǿįňț ģǿįňģ bǻčķ ǻňđđǿįňģ ěxǻčțŀỳ ẅħǻț įț ħǻđ běěň đǿįňģ běfǿřě țħěỳ čǻmě țǿ țħě țǻbŀě:Đěvěŀǿpįňģ ǻ ħěǻvỳ ẅǻțěř řěǻčțǿř țħǻț, ǿňčě bųįŀț, įș ěxțřǻǿřđįňǻřįŀỳđįffįčųŀț țǿ đįșmǻňțŀě ǻňđ věřỳ đįffįčųŀț țǿ ħįț mįŀįțǻřỳ; ģǿįňģ bǻčķ ǻțųňđěřģřǿųňđ fǻčįŀįțįěș țħǻț ǻřě věřỳ ħǻřđ țǿ řěǻčħ mįŀįțǻřįŀỳ; ǻččěŀěřǻțįňģ
ǻđvǻňčěđ čěňțřįfųģěș țħǻț șħǿřțěň țħě țįmě șpǻň įň ẅħįčħ țħěỳ čǻňǻčħįěvě břěǻķǿųț čǻpǻčįțỳ.
Ǻňđ țħěỳ ẅǿųŀđ bě ǻbŀě țǿ mǻįňțǻįň țħǻț țħě řěǻșǿň țħǻț țħěỳ ěňđěđ
ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș ẅǻș běčǻųșě țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ẅǻș ǿpěřǻțįňģ įň bǻđ fǻįțħ
ǻňđ bŀěẅ ųp țħě đěǻŀ, ǻňđ țħěřě ẅǿųŀđ bě șǿmě șỳmpǻțħỳ țǿ țħǻț vįěẅǻřǿųňđ țħě ẅǿřŀđ -- ẅħįčħ měǻňș țħǻț țħě șǻňčțįǿňș țħǻț ẅě ħǻvě įň pŀǻčěňǿẅ ẅǿųŀđ pǿțěňțįǻŀŀỳ fřǻỳ, běčǻųșě įmpǿșįňģ țħěșě șǻňčțįǿňș ǻřě ǻħǻřđșħįp ǿň ǻ ňųmběř ǿf čǿųňțřįěș ǻřǿųňđ țħě ẅǿřŀđ. Țħěỳ ẅǿųŀđ ŀǿvě țǿbě ǻbŀě țǿ bųỳ İřǻňįǻň ǿįŀ. Ǻňđ țħě řěǻșǿň țħǻț țħěỳ’vě ħųňģ įň țħěřě,đěșpįțě įț běįňģ ǻģǻįňșț țħěįř ěčǿňǿmįč įňțěřěșț, įș běčǻųșě ẅě ħǻvěșħǿẅň țħǻț ẅě ǻřě čřěđįbŀỳ țřỳįňģ țǿ șǿŀvě țħįș přǿbŀěm ǻňđ ǻvěřț șǿměșǿřț ǿf mįŀįțǻřỳ șħǿẅđǿẅň.

Ňǿẅ, įň țħǻț čǿňțěxț, țħěřě įș ňǿ ģǿǿđ ǻřģųměňț fǿř ųș țǿ țřỳ țǿųňđěřčųț, ųňđěřmįňě țħě ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș ųňțįŀ țħěỳ’vě pŀǻỳěđ țħěmșěŀvěș

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:339

ǿųț. Ňǿẅ, įf İřǻň ěňđș ųp ųŀțįmǻțěŀỳ ňǿț běįňģ ǻbŀě țǿ șǻỳ ỳěș, įf țħěỳčǻňňǿț přǿvįđě ųș țħě ķįňđ ǿf ǻșșųřǻňčěș țħǻț ẅǿųŀđ ŀěǻđ mỳșěŀf ǻňđĐǻvįđ Čǻměřǿň ǻňđ ǿțħěřș țǿ čǿňčŀųđě țħǻț țħěỳ ǻřě ňǿț ǿbțǻįňįňģ ǻ
ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň, țħěň ẅě’řě ģǿįňģ țǿ ħǻvě țǿ ěxpŀǿřě ǿțħěř ǿpțįǿňș. Ǻňđ İ
ẅįŀŀ bě țħě fįřșț ǿňě țǿ čǿmě țǿ Čǿňģřěșș ǻňđ șǻỳ ẅě ňěěđ țǿ țįģħțěň țħěșčřěẅș.
Ǻňđ, bỳ țħě ẅǻỳ, țħǻț’ș ňǿț țħě ǿňŀỳ ǿpțįǿňș țħǻț ǻřě ģǿįňģ țǿ bě ǻvǻįŀǻbŀě.
İ’vě čǿňșįșțěňțŀỳ șǻįđ ẅě ŀěǻvě ǻŀŀ ǿpțįǿňș ǿň țħě țǻbŀě. Bųț Čǿňģřěșș
șħǿųŀđ bě ǻẅǻřě țħǻț įf țħįș đįpŀǿmǻțįč șǿŀųțįǿň fǻįŀș, țħěň țħě řįșķș ǻňđ
ŀįķěŀįħǿǿđ țħǻț țħįș ěňđș ųp běįňģ ǻț șǿmě pǿįňț ǻ mįŀįțǻřỳ čǿňfřǿňțǻțįǿň įșħěįģħțěňěđ, ǻňđ Čǿňģřěșș ẅįŀŀ ħǻvě țǿ ǿẅň țħǻț ǻș ẅěŀŀ, ǻňđ țħǻț ẅįŀŀ ħǻvěțǿ bě đěbǻțěđ bỳ țħě Ǻměřįčǻň pěǿpŀě. Ǻňđ ẅě mǻỳ ňǿț bě ǻbŀě țǿ řěbųįŀđțħě ķįňđ ǿf čǿǻŀįțįǿň ẅě ňěěđ įň țħǻț čǿňțěxț įf țħě ẅǿřŀđ běŀįěvěș țħǻț ẅěẅěřě ňǿț șěřįǿųș ǻbǿųț ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș.
Șǿ İ țǻķě țħįș věřỳ șěřįǿųșŀỳ. Ǻňđ İ đǿň’ț qųěșțįǿň țħě ģǿǿđ fǻįțħ ǿf șǿměfǿŀķș ẅħǿ țħįňķ țħįș mįģħț bě ħěŀpfųŀ. Bųț įț’ș mỳ țěǻm țħǻț’ș ǻț țħě țǻbŀě.
Ẅě ǻřě șțěěpěđ įň țħįș șțųff đǻỳ įň, đǻỳ ǿųț. Ẅě đǿň’ț mǻķě țħěșě
jųđģměňțș bŀįňđŀỳ. Ẅě ħǻvě běěň ẅǿřķįňģ ǿň țħįș fǿř fįvě, șįx, șěvěň
ỳěǻřș. Ẅě čǿňșųŀț čŀǿșěŀỳ ẅįțħ ǻŀŀįěș ŀįķě țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm įň mǻķįňģ
țħěșě ǻșșěșșměňțș. Ǻňđ İ ǻm ǻșķįňģ Čǿňģřěșș țǿ ħǿŀđ ǿff, běčǻųșě ǿųřňěģǿțįǻțǿřș, ǿųř pǻřțňěřș, țħǿșě ẅħǿ ǻřě mǿșț įňțįmǻțěŀỳ įňvǿŀvěđ įň țħįș,ǻșșěșș țħǻț įț ẅįŀŀ jěǿpǻřđįżě țħě pǿșșįbįŀįțỳ ǿf řěșǿŀvįňģ -- přǿvįđįňģ ǻ
đįpŀǿmǻțįč șǿŀųțįǿň țǿ ǿňě ǿf țħě mǿșț đįffįčųŀț ǻňđ ŀǿňģ-ŀǻșțįňģ ňǻțįǿňǻŀ
șěčųřįțỳ přǿbŀěmș țħǻț ẅě’vě fǻčěđ įň ǻ věřỳ ŀǿňģ țįmě. Ǻňđ Čǿňģřěșș
ňěěđș țǿ șħǿẅ pǻțįěňčě.
Șǿ ẅįțħ řěșpěčț țǿ țħě věțǿ, İ șǻįđ țǿ mỳ Đěmǿčřǻțįč čǻųčųș čǿŀŀěǻģųěș
ỳěșțěřđǻỳ țħǻț İ ẅįŀŀ věțǿ ǻ bįŀŀ țħǻț čǿměș țǿ mỳ đěșķ, ǻňđ İ ẅįŀŀ mǻķě țħįșǻřģųměňț țǿ țħě Ǻměřįčǻň pěǿpŀě ǻș țǿ ẅħỳ İ’m đǿįňģ șǿ. Ǻňđ İřěșpěčțfųŀŀỳ řěqųěșț țħěm țǿ ħǿŀđ ǿff fǿř ǻ fěẅ mǿňțħș țǿ șěě įf ẅě ħǻvěțħě pǿșșįbįŀįțỳ ǿf șǿŀvįňģ ǻ bįģ přǿbŀěm ẅįțħǿųț řěșǿřțįňģ pǿțěňțįǻŀŀỳ țǿẅǻř. Ǻňđ İ țħįňķ țħǻț’ș ẅǿřțħ đǿįňģ. Ẅě’ŀŀ șěě ħǿẅ pěřșųǻșįvě İ ǻm, bųț įf
İ’m ňǿț pěřșųǻđįňģ Čǿňģřěșș, İ přǿmįșě ỳǿų İ’m ģǿįňģ țǿ bě țǻķįňģ mỳčǻșě țǿ țħě Ǻměřįčǻň pěǿpŀě ǿň țħįș.
PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: İ țħįňķ țħě bįģ pįčțųřě įș věřỳ čŀěǻř. Țħěșǻňčțįǿňș țħǻț Ǻměřįčǻ ǻňđ țħě Ěųřǿpěǻň Ųňįǿň pųț įň pŀǻčě ħǻvě ħǻđ ǻňCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:340ěffěčț. Țħǻț ħǻș ŀěđ țǿ přěșșųřě. Țħǻț přěșșųřě ħǻș ŀěđ țǿ țǻŀķș. Ǻňđțħǿșě țǻŀķș ǻț ŀěǻșț ħǻvě ǻ přǿșpěčț ǿf șųččěșș. Ǻňđ İ ẅǿųŀđ ǻřģųě ẅįțħțħě Přěșįđěňț, ħǿẅ mųčħ běțțěř įș țħǻț țħǻň țħě ǿțħěř pǿțěňțįǻŀ
ǿųțčǿměș? Ǻňđ țħǻț įș ẅħǻț ẅě șħǿųŀđ bě fǿčųșįňģ ǿň.
Bųț țǿ ǻňșẅěř ỳǿų věřỳ đįřěčțŀỳ, ỳěș, İ ħǻvě čǿňțǻčțěđ ǻ čǿųpŀě ǿf șěňǻțǿřș
țħįș mǿřňįňģ ǻňđ İ mǻỳ șpěǻķ țǿ ǿňě ǿř țẅǿ mǿřě țħįș ǻfțěřňǿǿň -- ňǿț įňǻňỳ ẅǻỳ ǻș Břįțįșħ Přįmě Mįňįșțěř țǿ țěŀŀ țħě Ǻměřįčǻň Șěňǻțě ẅħǻț įț
șħǿųŀđ ǿř șħǿųŀđň’ț đǿ; țħǻț ẅǿųŀđň’ț bě řįģħț -- bųț șįmpŀỳ țǿ mǻķě țħěpǿįňț ǻș ǻ čǿųňțřỳ țħǻț șțǻňđș ǻŀǿňģșįđě Ǻměřįčǻ įň țħěșě vįțǻŀ
ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș, țħǻț įț’ș țħě ǿpįňįǿň ǿf țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm țħǻț fųřțħěř
șǻňčțįǿňș ǿř fųřțħěř țħřěǻț ǿf șǻňčțįǿňș ǻț țħįș pǿįňț ẅǿň’ț ǻčțųǻŀŀỳ ħěŀp țǿbřįňģ țħě țǻŀķș țǿ ǻ șųččěșșfųŀ čǿňčŀųșįǿň ǻňđ țħěỳ čǿųŀđ fřǻčțųřě țħěįňțěřňǻțįǿňǻŀ ųňįțỳ țħǻț țħěřě’ș běěň, ẅħįčħ ħǻș běěň șǿ vǻŀųǻbŀě įňpřěșěňțįňģ ǻ ųňįțěđ fřǿňț țǿ İřǻň.
Ǻňđ İ șǻỳ țħįș ǻș șǿměǿňě ẅħǿ pŀǻỳěđ qųįțě, İ țħįňķ, ǻ șțřǿňģ řǿŀě įňģěțțįňģ Ěųřǿpě țǿ șįģň ųp țǿ țħě věřỳ țǿųģħ șǻňčțįǿňș, įňčŀųđįňģ ǿįŀșǻňčțįǿňș, įň țħě fįřșț pŀǻčě. Ǻňđ İ ẅǿųŀđ jųșț șįmpŀỳ mǻķě țħįș pǿįňț:Țħǿșě șǻňčțįǿňș ħǻvě ħǻđ ǻň ěffěčț. Ǻňđ țǿ țħǿșě ẅħǿ șǻįđ, įf ỳǿų đǿ ǻňįňțěřįm đěǻŀ, įf ỳǿų ěvěň șțǻřț đįșčųșșįňģ ẅįțħ țħě İřǻňįǻňș ǻňỳ ǿf țħěșě
țħįňģș, țħě șǻňčțįǿňș ẅįŀŀ fǻŀŀ ǻpǻřț, țħě přěșșųřě ẅįŀŀ đįșșįpǻțě, ňǿ ǿňě ẅįŀŀbě ǻbŀě țǿ șțįčķ ǻț įț. Țħǻț ħǻș đěmǿňșțřǻbŀỳ běěň șħǿẅň ňǿț țǿ bě țřųě.
Șǿ țħě přěșșųřě įș șțįŀŀ țħěřě. Ǻňđ ǻș țħě Přěșįđěňț șǻỳș, įf țħě İřǻňįǻňș șǻỳňǿ ǻňđ țħěřě įș ňǿ đěǻŀ, țħěň bỳ ǻŀŀ měǻňș ŀěț’ș șįț đǿẅň ǻňđ ẅǿřķ ǿųțẅħǻț ěxțřǻ șǻňčțįǿňș țǿ pųț įň pŀǻčě. Běčǻųșě İ țħįňķ ẅě’řě ǻbșǿŀųțěŀỳųňįțěđ įň ǻ șįmpŀě țħǿųģħț, ẅħįčħ įș ǻ đěǻŀ țħǻț țǻķěș İřǻň ǻẅǻỳ fřǿm ǻ
ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň įș běțțěř țħǻň ěįțħěř İřǻň ħǻvįňģ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň ǿř
mįŀįțǻřỳ ǻčțįǿň țǿ přěvěňț įț. İň țħě ěňđ, įț čǿměș đǿẅň țǿ țħǻț șįmpŀěčħǿįčě. Ǻňđ șǿ ẅįŀŀ İ đǿ ẅħǻț İ čǻň țǿ ħěŀp ǻș ǿňě ǿf țħě čǿųňțřỳ’șňěģǿțįǻțįňģ? Șųřě İ ẅįŀŀ.
QĐǿ ỳǿų ǻčķňǿẅŀěđģě ǻ ŀěșș țħǻň 50/50 --PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: İ țħįňķ țħě ẅǻỳ țħě Přěșįđěňț pųț įț, İẅǿųŀđň’ț đįșǻģřěě ẅįțħ. İț’ș věřỳ ħǻřđ țǿ ķňǿẅ ẅħǻț țħě İřǻňįǻň țħįňķįňģ įșǻbǿųț țħįș. İ’m țħě fįřșț Břįțįșħ Přįmě Mįňįșțěř įň 35 ỳěǻřș İ țħįňķ țǿ měěțẅįțħ ǻň İřǻňįǻň Přěșįđěňț, ǻňđ įț’ș věřỳ ħǻřđ țǿ ķňǿẅ ẅħǻț țħěįř țħįňķįňģ

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:341

įș.
Bųț țħěřě įș ǻ věřỳ čŀěǻř ǿffěř țħěřě, ẅħįčħ įș țǿ țǻķě İřǻň ǻẅǻỳ fřǿm ǻ
ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň ǻňđ țǿ čǿňčŀųđě ǻň ǻģřěěměňț ẅįțħ țħěm ẅħįčħ ẅǿųŀđ běmųțųǻŀŀỳ běňěfįčįǻŀ. Țħǻț’ș ẅħǻț șħǿųŀđ ħǻppěň.
İ țħįňķ ẅě’vě ģǿț ǻ qųěșțįǿň fřǿm Ňįčķ Řǿbįňșǿň ǻț țħě BBČ.
Q

Mř. Ňįčķ Řǿbįňșǿň, BBČ Ňěẅș. Přįmě Mįňįșțěř, ẅįțħ ěxțřǻ șěčųřįțỳ

běįňģ pųț įň pŀǻčě țǿđǻỳ fǿř țħě Jěẅįșħ čǿmmųňįțỳ ǻňđ ǻŀșǿ fǿř pǿŀįčěǿffįčěřș, ẅǿųŀđ pěǿpŀě bě řįģħț țǿ čǿňčŀųđě țħǻț țħě țħřěǻț ǿf ǻň ǻțțǻčķ ǿňțħě șțřěěțș ǿf Břįțǻįň įș ňǿẅ ǻŀŀ bųț įmmįňěňț?
Ǻňđ, Mř. Přěșįđěňț, ỳǿų’vě șpǿķěň ǿf țħě țħřěǻț pǿșěđ bỳ fįģħțěřș čǿmįňģ
bǻčķ fřǿm Șỳřįǻ. Đǿ ỳǿų ěvěř ẅǿřřỳ țħǻț țħįș įș ǻ ŀěģǻčỳ ǿf țħě đěčįșįǿň ǿfțħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ǻňđ țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm țǿ įň ěffěčț șțǻňđ ǿň țħě
șįđěŀįňěș đųřįňģ Șỳřįǻ’ș bŀǿǿđỳ čįvįŀ ẅǻř?
Ǻňđ įf İ mǻỳ břįěfŀỳ, įf ỳǿų’ŀŀ fǿřģįvě mě, ǿň țħě ěčǿňǿmỳ, ỳǿų șǻįđ ỳǿųǻģřěě. İș ħě řįģħț? İș įț țįmě țǿ șțįčķ țǿ țħě pŀǻň?
PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: Ẅěŀŀ, fįřșț ǿf ǻŀŀ, ŀǿǿķ, ẅě đǿ fǻčě ǻ věřỳșěřįǿųș İșŀǻmįșț ěxțřěmįșț țěřřǿřįșț țħřěǻț įň Ěųřǿpě, įň Ǻměřįčǻ, ǻčřǿșșțħě ẅǿřŀđ. Ǻňđ ẅě ħǻvě țǿ bě įňčřěđįbŀỳ vįģįŀǻňț įň țěřmș ǿf țħǻț țħřěǻț.
Ẅě’vě ģǿț țǿ șțřěňģțħěň ǿųř pǿŀįčě ǻňđ șěčųřįțỳ. Ẅě ǿųģħț țǿ mǻķě șųřěẅě đǿ ěvěřỳțħįňģ ẅě čǻň țǿ ķěěp ǿųř čǿųňțřỳ șǻfě. Ǻňđ țħǻț įňvǿŀvěș ǻňįňčřěđįbŀỳ ŀǿňģ-țěřm, pǻțįěňț, đįșčįpŀįňěđ ǻppřǿǻčħ.
Țħěřě įș ňǿ șįňģŀě, șįmpŀě țħįňģ țħǻț ňěěđș țǿ bě đǿňě. İț měǻňș čŀǿșįňģ
đǿẅň țħě ųňģǿvěřňěđ șpǻčěș țħǻț țħě țěřřǿřįșțș ǿpěřǻțě įň. İț měǻňș
ẅǿřķįňģ ǻģǻįňșț İȘİĿ įň İřǻq ǻňđ Șỳřįǻ. İț měǻňș čǿųňțěřįňģ țħįș pǿįșǿňǿųș,fǻňǻțįčǻŀ đěǻțħ čųŀț ǿf ǻ ňǻřřǻțįvě țħǻț įș pěřvěřțįňģ țħě řěŀįģįǿň ǿf İșŀǻm.
İț měǻňș ẅǿřķįňģ țǿģěțħěř ẅįțħ ǿųř ǿŀđěșț ǻňđ běșț pǻřțňěřș șǿ țħǻț ẅěșħǻřě įňțěŀŀįģěňčě ǻňđ șěčųřįțỳ ǻňđ ẅě țřỳ ǻňđ přěvěňț țěřřǿřįșț ǻțřǿčįțįěș
fřǿm țǻķįňģ pŀǻčě. İț měǻňș ǻŀŀ ǿf țħěșě țħįňģș, ǻňđ įț įș ģǿįňģ țǿ bě ǻ ŀǿňģ,pǻțįěňț ǻňđ ħǻřđ șțřųģģŀě.
İ’m qųįțě čǿňvįňčěđ ẅě ẅįŀŀ čǿmě țħřǿųģħ įț ǻňđ ẅě ẅįŀŀ ǿvěřčǿmě įț,běčǻųșě įň țħě ěňđ, țħě vǻŀųěș țħǻț ẅě ħǿŀđ țǿ ǿf fřěěđǿm, ǿf đěmǿčřǻčỳ,ǿf ħǻvįňģ ǿpěň ǻňđ țǿŀěřǻňț șǿčįěțįěș -- țħěșě ǻřě țħě șțřǿňģěșț vǻŀųěș

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:342țħěřě čǻň bě. Ǻňđ įň țħě ěňđ, ẅě ẅįŀŀ čǿmě țħřǿųģħ. Bųț ŀįķě șǿmě ǿf țħě
čħǻŀŀěňģěș ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș ħǻvě fǻčěđ țǿģěțħěř įň țħě pǻșț, įț ẅįŀŀ țǻķě ģřěǻț
đįșčįpŀįňě, ģřěǻț pǻțįěňčě, ģřěǻț, ħǻřđ ẅǿřķ.
Ỳǿų ǻșķěđ șpěčįfįčǻŀŀỳ țħě qųěșțįǿň ǻbǿųț įmmįňěňčě. Ẅě ħǻvě ǻ șỳșțěmįň țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm ẅħěřě țħřěǻț ŀěvěŀș ǻřě șěț bỳ țħě Jǿįňț Țěřřǿřįșm
Ǻșșěșșměňț Čěňțřě. Țħěỳ’řě ňǿț șěț bỳ pǿŀįțįčįǻňș. Țħěỳ ħǻvě jųđģěđ țħǻțțħě țħřěǻț ẅě fǻčě įș șěvěřě. Țħǻț měǻňș, įň țħěįř ẅǿřđș, țħǻț ǻň ǻțțǻčķ įș
ħįģħŀỳ ŀįķěŀỳ. İf ěvěř țħěřě įș ǻň įmmįňěňț țħřěǻț ǿf ǻțțǻčķ, įț ģǿěș țǿ țħěňěxț ŀěvěŀ ųp, ẅħįčħ įș čřįțįčǻŀ. Bųț įț’ș țħěįř đěčįșįǿň, ňǿț mįňě. Mỳřěșpǿňșįbįŀįțỳ įș țǿ mǻķě șųřě ẅě mǻřșħǻŀ ěvěřỳțħįňģ ẅě ħǻvě ǻș ǻ čǿųňțřỳįň ǿřđěř țǿ đěfěǻț țħě țħřěǻț.
QǾň țħě Jěẅįșħ čǿmmųňįțỳ?

PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: Ǻňđ ǿň țħě Jěẅįșħ čǿmmųňįțỳ, İ țħįňķ įț’șģǿǿđ țħǻț țħě měțřǿpǿŀįțǻň pǿŀįčě ħǻvě ǻňňǿųňčěđ țħǻț țħěỳ’ŀŀ bě șțěppįňģųp ǿň pǻțřǿŀș. İ měț ẅįțħ țħě Jěẅįșħ Ŀěǻđěřșħįp Čǿųňčįŀ ěǻřŀįěř țħįș ẅěěķ.
Ẅě ǻŀřěǻđỳ přǿvįđě țħřǿųģħ țħěįř șěčųřįțỳ ǿřģǻňįżǻțįǿň, țħě Čǿmmųňįțỳ
Șěčųřįțỳ Țřųșț, ẅě ǻŀřěǻđỳ přǿvįđě ģǿvěřňměňț mǿňěỳ țǿ ħěŀp přǿțěčț
Jěẅįșħ șčħǿǿŀș. Bųț İ țħįňķ țħįș įș -- ẅě ħǻvě țǿ řěčǿģňįżě įň fįģħțįňģ
țěřřǿřįșm, ǻș ẅě fǿųňđ įň Břįțǻįň běfǿřě, ỳǿų čǻňňǿț șįmpŀỳ řěŀỳ ǿň
pǿŀįčįňģ ǻňđ șěčųřįțỳ. Țħįș įș ǻ jǿb fǿř ěvěřỳǿňě. Țħįș įș ǻ řǿŀě țħǻț ẅě’řě
ǻŀŀ ģǿįňģ țǿ ħǻvě țǿ pŀǻỳ įň țħě vįģįŀǻňčě ǻňđ įň mǻķįňģ șųřě țħǻț ẅě ķěěpǿųř čǿmmųňįțỳ șǻfě.
PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Ẅįțħ řěșpěčț țǿ Șỳřįǻ ǻňđ țħě čǿňňěčțįǿň țǿfǿřěįģň fįģħțěřș, țħěřě įș ňǿ đǿųbț țħǻț įň țħě čħǻǿș ǻňđ țħě vǻčųųm țħǻț’șběěň čřěǻțěđ įň bįģ čħųňķș ǿf Șỳřįǻ, țħǻț țħǻț’ș ģįvěň ǻň ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ fǿřfǿřěįģň fįģħțěřș țǿ bǿțħ čǿmě įň ǻňđ čǿmě bǻčķ ǿųț. Ǻňđ İ čħǻįřěđ ǻ Ų.Ň.
Șěčųřįțỳ Čǿųňčįŀ měěțįňģ, ǻňđ ẅě ǻřě ňǿẅ bųșỳ ẅǿřķįňģ ẅįțħ ǿųř pǻřțňěřșțǿ įmpŀěměňț ǻ șěřįěș ǿf ǻčțįǿňș țǿ įđěňțįfỳ ẅħǿ mǻỳ bě țřǻvěŀįňģ țǿ Șỳřįǻįň ǿřđěř țǿ ģěț țřǻįňěđ, țǿ fįģħț, ǿř țǿ ħǻțčħ pŀǿțș țħǻț ẅǿųŀđ bě ǻčțįvǻțěđ
ųpǿň řěțųřň țǿ țħěįř ħǿmě čǿųňțřįěș. Șǿ įț'ș ǻ věřỳ șěřįǿųș přǿbŀěm.
Țħě ňǿțįǿň țħǻț țħįș įș ǿččųřřįňģ běčǻųșě țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ǿř Ģřěǻț
Břįțǻįň ǿř ǿțħěř čǿųňțřįěș șțǿǿđ ǿň țħě șįđěŀįňěș İ țħįňķ įș -- fįřșț ǿf ǻŀŀ,mįșčħǻřǻčțěřįżěș ǿųř pǿșįțįǿň. Ẅě ħǻvěň’ț běěň șțǻňđįňģ ǿň țħě
șįđěŀįňěș; įț'ș țřųě ẅě đįđ ňǿț įňvǻđě Șỳřįǻ. İf țħě ǻșșěřțįǿň įș, įș țħǻț ħǻđCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:343

ẅě įňvǻđěđ Șỳřįǻ ẅě ẅǿųŀđ bě ŀěșș přǿňě țǿ țěřřǿřįșț ǻțțǻčķș, İ’ŀŀ ŀěǻvě įț țǿỳǿų țǿ pŀǻỳ ǿųț țħǻț șčěňǻřįǿ ǻňđ ẅħěțħěř țħǻț șǿųňđș ǻččųřǻțě.
Ẅě’vě běěň věřỳ ǻčțįvě įň țřỳįňģ țǿ řěșǿŀvě ǻ țřǻģįč șįțųǻțįǿň įň Șỳřįǻ -đįpŀǿmǻțįčǻŀŀỳ; țħřǿųģħ ħųmǻňįțǻřįǻň ěffǿřțș; țħřǿųģħ țħě řěmǿvǻŀ ǿfčħěmįčǻŀ ẅěǻpǿňș fřǿm Șỳřįǻ țħǻț ħǻđ běěň șǿ đěǻđŀỳ. Ǻňđ ňǿẅ ǻș İȘİĿħǻș mǿvěđ fǿřẅǻřđ, ẅě’vě běěň věřỳ ǻčțįvě įň đěģřǻđįňģ țħěįř čǻpǻbįŀįțįěș
įňșįđě ǿf Șỳřįǻ, ěvěň ǻș ẅě’řě ẅǿřķįňģ ẅįțħ pǻřțňěřș țǿ mǻķě șųřě țħǻț țħěfǿřěįģň fįģħțěř șįțųǻțįǿň įș řěșǿŀvěđ.
Bųț İ țħįňķ Đǻvįđ’ș pǿįňț įș țħě ķěỳ ǿňě. Țħįș pħěňǿměňǿň ǿf vįǿŀěňțěxțřěmįșm -- țħě įđěǿŀǿģỳ, țħě ňěțẅǿřķș, țħě čǻpǻčįțỳ țǿ řěčřųįț ỳǿųňģ
pěǿpŀě -- țħįș ħǻș měțǻșțǻșįżěđ ǻňđ įț įș ẅįđěșpřěǻđ, ǻňđ įț ħǻșpěňěțřǻțěđ čǿmmųňįțįěș ǻřǿųňđ țħě ẅǿřŀđ.
İ đǿ ňǿț čǿňșįđěř įț ǻň ěxįșțěňțįǻŀ țħřěǻț. Ǻș Đǻvįđ șǻįđ, țħįș įș ǿňě țħǻțẅě ẅįŀŀ șǿŀvě. Ẅě ǻřě șțřǿňģěř, ẅě ǻřě řěpřěșěňțįňģ vǻŀųěș țħǻț țħě vǻșțmǻjǿřįțỳ ǿf Mųșŀįmș běŀįěvě įň -- įň țǿŀěřǻňčě ǻňđ įň ẅǿřķįňģ țǿģěțħěř țǿ
bųįŀđ řǻțħěř țħǻň țǿ đěșțřǿỳ. Ǻňđ șǿ țħįș įș ǻ přǿbŀěm țħǻț čǻųșěș ģřěǻț
ħěǻřțǻčħě ǻňđ țřǻģěđỳ ǻňđ đěșțřųčțįǿň, bųț įț įș ǿňě țħǻț ųŀțįmǻțěŀỳ ẅě’řěģǿįňģ țǿ đěfěǻț. Bųț ẅě čǻň’ț jųșț đěfěǻț įț țħřǿųģħ ẅěǻpǿňș.
Ǿňě ǿf țħě țħįňģș țħǻț ẅě șpǿķě ǻbǿųț įș ħǿẅ đǿ ẅě ŀįfț ųp țħǿșě vǿįčěș
țħǻț řěpřěșěňț țħě vǻșț mǻjǿřįțỳ ǿf țħě Mųșŀįm ẅǿřŀđ șǿ țħǻț țħǻț čǿųňțěřňǻřřǻțįvě ǻģǻįňșț țħįș ňįħįŀįșm įș pųț ǿųț țħěřě ǻș ǻģģřěșșįvěŀỳ ǻňđ ǻș
ňįmbŀỳ ǻș țħě měșșǻģěș čǿmįňģ ǿųț fřǿm țħěșě fǻňǻțįčș. Ħǿẅ đǿ ẅěmǻķě șųřě țħǻț ẅě ǻřě ẅǿřķįňģ ẅįțħ ŀǿčǻŀ čǿmmųňįțįěș ǻňđ fǻįțħ ŀěǻđěřș
ǻňđ fǻmįŀįěș -- ẅħěțħěř įň ǻ ňěįģħbǿřħǿǿđ įň Ŀǿňđǿň ǿř ǻ ňěįģħbǿřħǿǿđ įňĐěțřǿįț, Mįčħįģǻň -- șǿ țħǻț ẅě ǻřě įňǿčųŀǻțįňģ ǿųřșěŀvěș ǻģǻįňșț țħįș ķįňđǿf įđěǿŀǿģỳ. Ǻňđ țħǻț'ș ģǿįňģ țǿ bě șŀǿẅ, pŀǿđđįňģ, șỳșțěmǻțįč ẅǿřķ, bųțįț’ș ẅǿřķ țħǻț İ’m čǿňfįđěňț ẅě'řě ģǿįňģ țǿ bě ǻbŀě țǿ ǻččǿmpŀįșħ,pǻřțįčųŀǻřŀỳ ẅħěň ẅě’vě ģǿț șțřǿňģ pǻřțňěřș ŀįķě țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm
đǿįňģ įț.
QǾň țħě ěčǿňǿmỳ --PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Ǿň țħě ěčǿňǿmỳ, İ ẅǿųŀđ ňǿțě țħǻț Ģřěǻț Břįțǻįňǻňđ țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ǻřě țẅǿ ěčǿňǿmįěș țħǻț ǻřě șțǻňđįňģ ǿųț ǻț ǻ țįměẅħěň ǻ ŀǿț ǿf ǿțħěř čǿųňțřįěș ǻřě ħǻvįňģ přǿbŀěmș, șǿ ẅě mųșț bě đǿįňģ
șǿměțħįňģ řįģħț.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 17 of 26 Page ID #:344Mǻjǿř Ģǻřřěțț.
Q

Țħǻňķ ỳǿų, Mř. Přěșįđěňț. Ģǿǿđ ǻfțěřňǿǿň, Mř. Přįmě Mįňįșțěř.

Ģǿǿđ ǻfțěřňǿǿň țǿ ỳǿų, șįř.
Qųěșțįǿňș fǿř ǻŀŀ -- fǿř bǿțħ ǿf ỳǿų. İ ẅǻňț țǿ mǻķě șųřě ẅě ħěǻřđ ẅħǻțỳǿų ẅěřě țřỳįňģ țǿ șǻỳ. Ỳǿų čŀěǻřŀỳ ǻřě đįřěčțįňģ ǻ měșșǻģě țǿ Čǿňģřěșșįň țħě čǿňțěxț ǿf İřǻňįǻň ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș. Ẅěřě ỳǿų ǻŀșǿ șěňđįňģ ǻ měșșǻģě - bǿțħ ǿf ỳǿų -- țǿ İřǻň țħǻț įf țħě șǻňčțįǿňș țǻŀķș fǻįŀ, țħǻț ẅǻř fǿǿțįňģ įșțħě ňěxț mǿșț ŀįķěŀỳ ǻŀțěřňǻțįvě fǿř țħįș čǿųňțřỳ ǻňđ țħǿșě ẅħǿ ǻřě ǻŀŀįěđẅįțħ ųș įň țħįș čǿmmǿň pųřșųįț?
Ǻňđ ǻțřǿčįțįěș įň Pǻřįș, řǻįđș ǻňđ țħřěǻțș ěįțħěř įň Běŀģįųm ǻňđŇěțħěřŀǻňđș, İ’đ ŀįķě țǿ ǻșķ ỳǿų bǿțħ: Đǿ ỳǿų běŀįěvě Ěųřǿpě įș ǻț ǻ țųřňįňģ
pǿįňț ňǿẅ įň įțș řěčǿģňįțįǿň ǿf ẅħǻț įțș țħřěǻțș ǻřě ǻňđ įțș ǿẅň
mǿbįŀįżǻțįǿň įň țěřmș ǿf ňěẅ ŀǻẅș, șěčųřįțỳ fǿǿțįňģ, ŀǻřģěř bųđģěțș? Ǻňđỳǿų bǿțħ țǻŀķěđ ǻbǿųț čỳběřșěčųřįțỳ. Țħěřě įș ǻ čřųčįǻŀ įșșųě fǿř bǿțħčǿųňțřįěș -- bǻčķđǿǿřș įň ěňčřỳpțįǿň țǿ přǿțěčț pěǿpŀě ǻňđ ǻŀșǿ přįvǻčỳ.
İ’đ ŀįķě ỳǿųř čǿmměňțș ǿň țħǻț. Țħǻňķ ỳǿų.
PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: İ ǻm ňǿț -- řěpěǻț, ňǿț -- șųģģěșțįňģ țħǻț ẅě ǻřě įňįmměđįǻțě ẅǻř fǿǿțįňģ șħǿųŀđ ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș ẅįțħ İřǻň fǻįŀ. Bųț ǻș Đǻvįđ pųțįț věřỳ șįmpŀỳ -- įf, įň fǻčț, ǿųř vįěẅ įș țħǻț ẅě ħǻvě țǿ přěvěňț İřǻň fřǿmģěțțįňģ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň, țħěň ẅě ħǻvě țǿ řěčǿģňįżě țħě pǿșșįbįŀįțỳ țħǻțșħǿųŀđ đįpŀǿmǻčỳ fǻįŀ, ẅě ħǻvě țǿ ŀǿǿķ ǻț ǿțħěř ǿpțįǿňș țǿ ǻčħįěvě țħǻțģǿǻŀ.
Ǻňđ įf ỳǿų ŀįșțěň șǿměțįměș țǿ țħě řħěțǿřįč șųřřǿųňđįňģ țħįș įșșųě, İ țħįňķ
țħěřě įș șǿměțįměș țħě vįěẅ țħǻț țħįș řěģįmě čǻňňǿț bě țřųșțěđ; țħǻț,ěffěčțįvěŀỳ, ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș ẅįțħ İřǻň ǻřě pǿįňțŀěșș. Ǻňđ șįňčě țħěșě čŀǻįmșǻřě běįňģ mǻđě bỳ įňđįvįđųǻŀș ẅħǿ șěě İřǻň ǻș ǻ mǿřțǻŀ țħřěǻț ǻňđ ẅǻňț ǻș
bǻđŀỳ ǻș ẅě đǿ țǿ přěvěňț țħěm fřǿm ģěțțįňģ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň, țħěqųěșțįǿň țħěň běčǿměș: Ẅěŀŀ, ẅħǻț ǿțħěř ǻŀțěřňǻțįvěș ěxǻčțŀỳ ǻřě
ǻvǻįŀǻbŀě?
Țħǻț įș pǻřț ǿf ẅħǻț ẅě ħǻvě țǿ čǿňșįđěř ǻș țǿ ẅħỳ įț’ș șǿ įmpǿřțǻňț fǿř ųșțǿ pųřșųě ěvěřỳ pǿșșįbŀě ǻvěňųě țǿ șěě įf ẅě čǻň ģěț ǻ đěǻŀ. Ňǿẅ, įț’ș ģǿțțǿ bě ģǿǿđ đěǻŀ, ňǿț ǻ bǻđ đěǻŀ. İ’vě ǻŀřěǻđỳ șħǿẅň mỳșěŀf ẅįŀŀįňģ țǿ ẅǻŀķǻẅǻỳ fřǿm ǻ bǻđ đěǻŀ. Ǻňđ țħě P5-pŀųș-1 ẅǻŀķěđ ǻẅǻỳ ẅįțħ ųș. Ǻňđ șǿňǿbǿđỳ įș įňțěřěșțěđ įň șǿmě đǿčųměňț țħǻț ųňđěřmįňěș ǿųř șǻňčțįǿňș

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 18 of 26 Page ID #:345

ǻňđ ģįvěș İřǻň țħě pǿșșįbįŀįțỳ ǿf, ẅħěțħěř čǿvěřțŀỳ ǿř ģřǻđųǻŀŀỳ, bųįŀđįňģ ųpįțș ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿňș čǻpǻčįțỳ. Ẅě'řě ňǿț ģǿįňģ țǿ ǻŀŀǿẅ țħǻț. Ǻňđǻňỳțħįňģ țħǻț ẅě đǿ, ǻňỳ đěǻŀ țħǻț ẅě ǻřřįvě ǻț -- įf ẅě ẅěřě țǿ ǻřřįvě ǻțǿňě -- ẅǿųŀđ bě șųbjěčț țǿ șčřųțįňỳ ǻčřǿșș țħě bǿǻřđ, ňǿț jųșț bỳ měmběřșǿf Čǿňģřěșș, bųț mǿřě įmpǿřțǻňțŀỳ, bỳ pěǿpŀě ẅħǿ ǻčțųǻŀŀỳ ķňǿẅ ħǿẅ țħěțěčħňįčǻŀ ǻșpěčțș ǿf ňųčŀěǻř přǿģřǻmș čǻň ǻđvǻňčě ǻňđ ħǿẅ ẅě čǻňěffěčțįvěŀỳ věřįfỳ įň țħě mǿșț řįģǿřǿųș ẅǻỳ pǿșșįbŀě țħǻț țħě țěřmș ǿf țħěđěǻŀ ǻřě běįňģ měț.
Șǿ țħě bǿțțǿm ŀįňě įș țħįș: Ẅě mǻỳ ňǿț ģěț țħěřě, bųț ẅě ħǻvě ǻ čħǻňčě țǿ
řěșǿŀvě țħě ňųčŀěǻř įșșųě pěǻčěfųŀŀỳ. Ǻňđ İ șħǿųŀđ pǿįňț ǿųț ǻŀșǿ, bỳ țħěẅǻỳ, țħǻț įf -- ěvěň įf ẅě ģěț ǻ ňųčŀěǻř đěǻŀ ǻňđ ẅě ǻřě ǻșșųřěđ țħǻț İřǻňđǿěșň’ț pǿșșěșș ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿňș, ẅě’vě șțįŀŀ ģǿț ǻ ẅħǿŀě bųňčħ ǿf
přǿbŀěmș ẅįțħ İřǻň ǿň șțǻțě-șpǿňșǿřěđ țěřřǿřįșm, țħěįř řħěțǿřįč țǿẅǻřđș
İșřǻěŀ, țħěįř fįňǻňčįňģ ǿf Ħěżbǿŀŀǻħ. Ẅě’vě ģǿț đįffěřěňčěș ẅįțħ řěșpěčț țǿȘỳřįǻ. İț’ș ňǿț ǻș įf șųđđěňŀỳ ẅě’vě ģǿț ǻ ģřěǻț řěŀǻțįǿňșħįp ẅįțħ İřǻň. İț
șǿŀvěș ǿňě pǻřțįčųŀǻř přǿbŀěm țħǻț įș ųřģěňț, ǻňđ įț șǿŀvěș įț běțțěř țħǻňțħě ǿțħěř ǻŀțěřňǻțįvěș țħǻț mįģħț přěșěňț țħěmșěŀvěș.
Șǿ mỳ mǻįň měșșǻģě țǿ Čǿňģřěșș ǻț țħįș pǿįňț įș, jųșț ħǿŀđ ỳǿųř fįřě.
Ňǿbǿđỳ ǻřǿųňđ țħě ẅǿřŀđ, ŀěǻșț ǿf ǻŀŀ țħě İřǻňįǻňș, đǿųbț mỳ ǻbįŀįțỳ țǿ ģěțșǿmě ǻđđįțįǿňǻŀ șǻňčțįǿňș pǻșșěđ șħǿųŀđ țħěșě ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș fǻįŀ. Țħǻț’șňǿț ǻ ħǻřđ vǿțě fǿř mě țǿ ģěț țħřǿųģħ Čǿňģřěșș. Ǻňđ șǿ țħě ňǿțįǿň țħǻțẅě ňěěđ țǿ ħǻvě ǻđđįțįǿňǻŀ șǻňčțįǿňș, ǿř ěvěň țħě pǿșșįbįŀįțỳ ǿf șǻňčțįǿňș
ħǻňģįňģ ǿvěř țħěįř ħěǻđ țǿ fǿřčě țħěm țǿ ǻ běțțěř đěǻŀ, İ țħįňķ țħě İřǻňįǻňș
ķňǿẅ țħǻț țħǻț įș čěřțǻįňŀỳ įň ǿųř bǻčķ pǿčķěț įf țħě ňěģǿțįǻțįǿňș fǻįŀ.
Ẅįțħ řěșpěčț țǿ vįǿŀěňț ěxțřěmįșm, mỳ įmpřěșșįǿň įș țħǻț Ěųřǿpě ħǻșčǿňșįșțěňțŀỳ țǻķěň țħįș șěřįǿųșŀỳ. Đųřįňģ țħě čǿųřșě ǿf mỳ přěșįđěňčỳ, ẅěħǻvě ẅǿřķěđ čǿŀŀǻbǿřǻțįvěŀỳ ǻňđ ẅįțħ ģřěǻț ųřģěňčỳ ǻňđ ǻ řěčǿģňįțįǿň
țħǻț ňǿț ǿňŀỳ đǿ ỳǿų ħǻvě fǿřěįģňěřș ẅħǿ mǻỳ bě țřỳįňģ țǿ ħǻțčħ pŀǿțș įňĚųřǿpě, bųț țħǻț, ģįvěň ŀǻřģě įmmįģřǻňț pǿpųŀǻțįǿňș, įț’ș įmpǿřțǻňț țǿřěǻčħ ǿųț țǿ ǻňđ ẅǿřķ ẅįțħ ŀǿčǻŀ čǿmmųňįțįěș ǻňđ țǿ ħǻvě ǻ věřỳ ěffěčțįvě
įňțěŀŀįģěňčě ǻňđ čǿųňțěřțěřřǿřįșm čǿǿpěřǻțįǿň běțẅěěň čǿųňțřįěș ǻňđběțẅěěň țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ǻňđ Ěųřǿpě.
Țħěřě’ș ňǿ đǿųbț țħǻț țħě mǿșț řěčěňț ěvěňțș ħǻș ǻmpŀįfįěđ țħǿșě
čǿňčěřňș. İ țħįňķ ǿňě ǿf țħě țħįňģș țħǻț İ’vě ŀěǻřňěđ ǿvěř țħě ŀǻșț șįx ỳěǻřșįș țħǻț țħěřě’ș ǻŀẅǻỳș mǿřě țħǻț ẅě čǻň đǿ. Ẅě čǻň ǻŀẅǻỳș đǿ įț běțțěř.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 19 of 26 Page ID #:346

Ẅě ŀěǻřň fřǿm mįșțǻķěș. Ěǻčħ įňčįđěňț țħǻț ǿččųřș țěǻčħěș ǿųřpřǿfěșșįǿňǻŀș ħǿẅ ẅě mįģħț bě ǻbŀě țǿ přěvěňț țħěșě țħě ňěxț țįmě.
Ǻňđ İ’m čǿňfįđěňț țħǻț țħě věřỳ șțřǿňģ čǿǿpěřǻțįǿň țħǻț ǻŀřěǻđỳ ěxįșțș
ẅįțħ Ěųřǿpě ẅįŀŀ ģěț țħǻț mųčħ běțțěř įň țħě mǿňțħș ǻňđ ỳěǻřș țǿ čǿmě.
QĐǿ ỳǿų běŀįěvě țħǻț Ěųřǿpě ħǻș běěň ǻș șěňșįțįżěđ ǻș țħě Ųňįțěđ

Șțǻțěș ǻňđ Ģřěǻț Břįțǻįň ħǻș?
PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Ħěřě’ș ẅħěřě İ ǻčțųǻŀŀỳ țħįňķ țħǻț Ěųřǿpě ħǻș șǿměpǻřțįčųŀǻř čħǻŀŀěňģěș, ǻňđ İ șǻįđ țħįș țǿ Đǻvįđ. Țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ħǻș ǿňěbįģ ǻđvǻňțǻģě įň țħįș ẅħǿŀě přǿčěșș, ǻňđ įț’ș ňǿț țħǻț ǿųř ŀǻẅ ěňfǿřčěměňțǿř ǿųř įňțěŀŀįģěňčě șěřvįčěș, ěț čěțěřǻ, ǻřě șǿ mųčħ běțțěř -- ǻŀțħǿųģħ ǿųřșǻřě věřỳ, věřỳ ģǿǿđ, ǻňđ İ țħįňķ Ěųřǿpěǻňș ẅǿųŀđ řěčǿģňįżě țħǻț ẅě’vě ģǿțčǻpǻbįŀįțįěș ǿțħěřș đǿň’ț ħǻvě. Ǿųř bįģģěșț ǻđvǻňțǻģě, Mǻjǿř, įș țħǻț ǿųř
Mųșŀįm pǿpųŀǻțįǿňș, țħěỳ fěěŀ țħěmșěŀvěș țǿ bě Ǻměřįčǻňș. Ǻňđ țħěřě įșțħįș įňčřěđįbŀě přǿčěșș ǿf įmmįģřǻțįǿň ǻňđ ǻșșįmįŀǻțįǿň țħǻț įș pǻřț ǿf ǿųřțřǻđįțįǿň țħǻț įș přǿbǻbŀỳ ǿųř ģřěǻțěșț șțřěňģțħ. Ňǿẅ, įț đǿěșň’ț měǻň țħǻțẅě ǻřěň’ț șųbjěčț țǿ țħě ķįňđș ǿf țřǻģěđįěș țħǻț ẅě șǻẅ ǻț țħě Bǿșțǿň
Mǻřǻțħǿň. Bųț țħǻț, İ țħįňķ, ħǻș běěň ħěŀpfųŀ.
Țħěřě ǻřě pǻřțș ǿf Ěųřǿpě įň ẅħįčħ țħǻț’ș ňǿț țħě čǻșě, ǻňđ țħǻț’ș přǿbǻbŀỳțħě ģřěǻțěșț đǻňģěř țħǻț Ěųřǿpě fǻčěș -- ẅħįčħ įș ẅħỳ, ǻș țħěỳ řěșpǿňđ, ǻșțħěỳ ẅǿřķ ẅįțħ ųș țǿ řěșpǿňđ țǿ țħěșě čįřčųmșțǻňčěș, įț’ș įmpǿřțǻňț fǿřĚųřǿpě ňǿț țǿ șįmpŀỳ řěșpǿňđ ẅįțħ ǻ ħǻmměř ǻňđ ŀǻẅ ěňfǿřčěměňț ǻňđ
mįŀįțǻřỳ ǻppřǿǻčħěș țǿ țħěșě přǿbŀěmș, bųț țħěřě ǻŀșǿ ħǻș țǿ bě ǻřěčǿģňįțįǿň țħǻț țħě șțřǿňģěř țħě țįěș ǿf ǻ Ňǿřțħ Ǻfřįčǻň -- ǿř ǻ Fřěňčħmǻňǿf Ňǿřțħ Ǻfřįčǻň đěșčěňț țǿ Fřěňčħ vǻŀųěș, Fřěňčħ Řěpųbŀįč, ǻ șěňșě ǿfǿppǿřțųňįțỳ -- țħǻț’ș ģǿįňģ țǿ bě ǻș įmpǿřțǻňț, įf ňǿț mǿřě įmpǿřțǻňț, įňǿvěř țįmě șǿŀvįňģ țħįș přǿbŀěm. Ǻňđ İ țħįňķ țħěřě’ș ǻ řěčǿģňįțįǿň ǿf țħǻțǻčřǿșș Ěųřǿpě, ǻňđ įț’ș įmpǿřțǻňț țħǻț ẅě đǿň’ț ŀǿșě țħǻț.
Țħě ŀǻșț pǿįňț İ’ŀŀ mǻķě, ǻňđ țħěň İ’ŀŀ țųřň įț ǿvěř țǿ Đǻvįđ, įș ẅįțħ řěșpěčțțǿ țħě įșșųě ǿf įňțěŀŀįģěňčě-ģǻțħěřįňģ, șįģňǻŀ įňțěŀŀįģěňčě, ěňčřỳpțįǿňș, țħįșįș ǻ čħǻŀŀěňģě țħǻț ẅě ħǻvě běěň ẅǿřķįňģ ǿň șįňčě İ’vě běěň Přěșįđěňț.
Ǿbvįǿųșŀỳ, įț ẅǻș ǻmpŀįfįěđ ẅħěň Mř. Șňǿẅđěň đįđ ẅħǻț ħě đįđ. İț’ș ģǿňěǿff țħě pǻģěș ǿf -- țħě fřǿňț pǻģěș ǿf țħě ňěẅș, bųț ẅě ħǻvěň’ț șțǿppěđ
ẅǿřķįňģ ǿň įț. Ǻňđ ẅě’vě běěň įň đįǻŀǿģųě ẅįțħ čǿmpǻňįěș ǻňđ ħǻvěșỳșțěmǻțįčǻŀŀỳ ẅǿřķěđ țħřǿųģħ ẅǻỳș įň ẅħįčħ ẅě čǻň měěț ŀěģįțįmǻțě

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:347přįvǻčỳ čǿňčěřňș, bųț ǻŀșǿ měěț țħě věřỳ řěǻŀ čǿňčěřňș țħǻț Đǻvįđ ħǻșįđěňțįfįěđ ǻňđ mỳ FBİ Đįřěčțǿř, Jįm Čǿměỳ, įđěňțįfįěđ.
Șǿčįǻŀ měđįǻ ǻňđ țħě İňțěřňěț įș țħě přįmǻřỳ ẅǻỳ įň ẅħįčħ țħěșě țěřřǿřįșm
ǿřģǻňįżǻțįǿňș ǻřě čǿmmųňįčǻțįňģ. Ňǿẅ, țħǻț’ș ňǿ đįffěřěňț țħǻň ǻňỳbǿđỳ
ěŀșě, bųț țħěỳ’řě ģǿǿđ ǻț įț. Ǻňđ ẅħěň ẅě ħǻvě țħě ǻbįŀįțỳ țǿ țřǻčķ țħǻț įň ǻẅǻỳ țħǻț įș ŀěģǻŀ, čǿňfǿřmș ẅįțħ đųě přǿčěșș, řųŀě ǿf ŀǻẅ, ǻňđ přěșěňțș
ǿvěřșįģħț, țħěň țħǻț’ș țħě čǻpǻbįŀįțỳ țħǻț ẅě ħǻvě țǿ přěșěřvě.
Ǻňđ țħě bįģģěșț đǻmǻģě țħǻț ẅǻș đǿňě ǻș ǻ čǿňșěqųěňčě ǿf țħě Șňǿẅđěň
đįșčŀǿșųřěș ẅǻș İ țħįňķ, įň șǿmě čǻșěș, ǻ čǿmpŀěțě ųňđěřmįňįňģ ǿf țřųșț.
Șǿmě ẅǿųŀđ șǻỳ țħǻț ẅǻș jųșțįfįěđ. İ ẅǿųŀđ ǻřģųě țħǻț ǻŀțħǿųģħ țħěřě ǻřěșǿmě ŀěģįțįmǻțě čǿňčěřňș țħěřě, ǿvěřǻŀŀ, țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ģǿvěřňměňț
ǻňđ, fřǿm ẅħǻț İ’vě șěěň, țħě Břįțįșħ ģǿvěřňměňț, ħǻvě ǿpěřǻțěđ įň ǻșčřųpųŀǿųș ǻňđ ŀǻẅfųŀ ẅǻỳ țǿ țřỳ țǿ bǻŀǻňčě țħěșě șěčųřįțỳ ǻňđ přįvǻčỳ
čǿňčěřňș. Ǻňđ ẅě čǻň đǿ běțțěř, ǻňđ țħǻț’ș ẅħǻț ẅě’řě đǿįňģ.
Bųț ẅě’řě șțįŀŀ ģǿįňģ țǿ ħǻvě țǿ fįňđ ẅǻỳș țǿ mǻķě șųřě țħǻț įf ǻň ǻŀ Qǻěđǻ
ǻffįŀįǻțě įș ǿpěřǻțįňģ įň Ģřěǻț Břįțǻįň ǿř įň țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș, țħǻț ẅě čǻňțřỳ țǿ přěvěňț řěǻŀ țřǻģěđỳ. Ǻňđ İ țħįňķ țħě čǿmpǻňįěș ẅǻňț țǿ șěě țħǻț ǻș
ẅěŀŀ. Țħěỳ’řě pǻțřįǿțș. Țħěỳ ħǻvě fǻmįŀįěș țħǻț țħěỳ ẅǻňț țǿ șěěpřǿțěčțěđ. Ẅě jųșț ħǻvě țǿ ẅǿřķ țħřǿųģħ įň mǻňỳ čǻșěș ẅħǻț ǻřěțěčħňįčǻŀ įșșųěș. Șǿ įț’ș ňǿț șǿ mųčħ țħǻț țħěřě’ș ǻ đįffěřěňčě įň įňțěňț,bųț ħǿẅ țǿ șqųǻřě țħě čįřčŀě ǿň țħěșě įșșųěș įș đįffįčųŀț. Ǻňđ ẅě’řěẅǿřķįňģ ẅįțħ pǻřțňěřș ŀįķě Ģřěǻț Břįțǻįň ǻňđ țħě Ųňįțěđ Ķįňģđǿm, bųțẅě’řě ǻŀșǿ ģǿįňģ țǿ bě įň đįǻŀǿģųě ẅįțħ țħě čǿmpǻňįěș țǿ țřỳ țǿ mǻķě țħǻțẅǿřķ.
PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: Ǿň țħě İřǻňįǻň įșșųě, İ ẅǿň’ț ǻđđ mųčħ țǿẅħǻț țħě Přěșįđěňț șǻįđ. İ’đ jųșț mǻķě țħįș pǿįňț, țħǻț İ đǿň’ț țħįňķ ỳǿų čǻňčħǻřǻčțěřįżě įț ǻș, įf țħěřě'ș ǻ đěǻŀ țħěň țħě přěșșųřě įș ǿff İřǻň, ǻňđ įf țħěřě
įșň’ț ǻ đěǻŀ, ňěẅ přěșșųřě ħǻș țǿ bě ǻppŀįěđ țǿ İřǻň. İ měǻň, ěvěň įf țħěřěįș ǻ đěǻŀ, țħě ķěỳ țǿ țħǻț đěǻŀ ẅįŀŀ bě țřǻňșpǻřěňčỳ ǻňđ věřįfįčǻțįǿň ǻňđmǻķįňģ șųřě țħǻț țħįș čǿųňțřỳ įșň’ț đěvěŀǿpįňģ ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň. Ǻňđțħǻț ẅįŀŀ měǻň řěpěǻțěđ přěșșųřě, ěvěň ǻfțěř ǻ đěǻŀ įș đǿňě. İ țħįňķ țħǻț’șvěřỳ įmpǿřțǻňț.
Ǻňđ İ ẅǿųŀđ ǻbșǿŀųțěŀỳ bǻčķ ųp ẅħǻț Bǻřǻčķ șǻỳș ǻbǿųț řěčǿģňįżįňģ țħǻțįň șǿ mǻňỳ ǿțħěř ẅǻỳș, ẅě ħǻvě șǿmě mǻjǿř đįșǻģřěěměňțș ẅįțħ ẅħǻț țħěCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 21 of 26 Page ID #:348

İřǻňįǻňș ħǻvě běěň đǿįňģ. İ měǻň, Břįțǻįň ħǻș șųffěřěđ pǻřțįčųŀǻřŀỳ fřǿmțħě ǻppǻŀŀįňģ ẅǻỳ țħǻț ǿųř ěmbǻșșỳ ǻňđ ǿųř șțǻff ẅěřě țřěǻțěđ įň țħǻțčǿųňțřỳ. Șǿ ẅě ǻppřǿǻčħ țħįș ẅįțħ ǻ ħųģě ǻmǿųňț ǿf șķěpțįčįșm ǻňđčǿňčěřň. Bųț țħě ģǿǻŀ ǿf ǻň İřǻň ẅįțħǿųț ǻ ňųčŀěǻř ẅěǻpǿň mǻķěș țħěșě
țǻŀķș ẅǿřțħẅħįŀě.
Ǿň țħě įșșųě -- ỳǿųř qųěșțįǿň, ħǻș -- įș țħįș ǻ țųřňįňģ pǿįňț fǿř Ěųřǿpě įňțěřmș ǿf țěřřǿřįșm, İ ẅǿųŀđ ǻřģųě țħǻț ẅě țųřňěđ șǿmě țįmě ǻģǿ. Mǻỳbě
Břįțǻįň įň pǻřțįčųŀǻř běčǻųșě ǿf țħě ǻppǻŀŀįňģ ǻțțǻčķș țħǻț țǿǿķ pŀǻčě įň
2005, bųț țħěřě ħǻvě běěň ǻțțǻčķș ěŀșěẅħěřě įň Ěųřǿpě. İ měǻň, șįňčě İ’věběěň Přįmě Mįňįșțěř, țħěřě’ș přǿbǻbŀỳ běěň ǻț ŀěǻșț ǿňě mǻjǿř pŀǿț ěvěřỳ
ỳěǻř ǿf qųįțě ǻ șįģňįfįčǻňț ňǻțųřě țħǻț ẅě ħǻvě mǻňǻģěđ țǿ įňțěřčěpț, șțǿpǻňđ přěvěňț. Șǿ țħě ǻẅǻřěňěșș ǿf țħě șčǻŀě ǿf țħě čħǻŀŀěňģě ẅě fǻčě įș
ǻbșǿŀųțěŀỳ țħěřě ǻčřǿșș ģǿvěřňměňț, ǻčřǿșș pǻřŀįǻměňț, ǻčřǿșș țħěđįffěřěňț pǿŀįțįčǻŀ pǻřțįěș įň țħě pǿŀįčě ǻňđ įňțěŀŀįģěňčě șěřvįčěș.
İ țħįňķ țħěřě įș ǻň ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ fǿř čǿųňțřįěș įň Ěųřǿpě, ẅħǿ pěřħǻpș ųpțǿ ňǿẅ ħǻvě běěň ŀěșș ǻffěčțěđ, țǿ ẅǿřķ ẅįțħ țħěm ǻňđ mǻķě șųřě țħǻț ẅěșħǻřě ķňǿẅŀěđģě ǻňđ șķįŀŀș. Běčǻųșě ẅħěň ỳǿų șǻỳ, ħǻvě ỳǿų -- țħěțųřňįňģ pǿįňț įș mǻķįňģ șųřě ỳǿųř ŀěģįșŀǻțįǿň įș ųp țǿ đǻțě, mǻķįňģ șųřěỳǿųř pǿŀįčě ǻňđ șěčųřįțỳ șěřvįčěș ħǻvě țħě čǻpǻbįŀįțįěș țħěỳ ňěěđ, mǻķįňģ
șųřě ỳǿų'vě ģǿț přǿģřǻmș țħǻț čǻň čħǻňňěŀ ěxțřěmįșțș ǻẅǻỳ ǻňđ đěřǻđįčǻŀįżě țħěm, mǻķįňģ șųřě țħǻț ỳǿų'řě běțțěř įňțěģřǻțįňģ ỳǿųřčǿmmųňįțįěș. İț měǻňș đǿįňģ ǻŀŀ ǿf țħǿșě țħįňģș.
İ věřỳ mųčħ ǻģřěě ẅįțħ ẅħǻț Bǻřǻčķ șǻỳș ǻbǿųț țħě įmpǿřțǻňčě ǿf
bųįŀđįňģ șțřǿňģ ǻňđ įňțěģřǻțěđ șǿčįěțįěș. İ mǻđě ǻ șpěěčħ ǻbǿųț țħįș ǻțMųňįčħ ǻ čǿųpŀě ǿf ỳěǻřș ǻģǿ, șǻỳįňģ țħǻț įț ħǻđ běěň ǻ mįșțǻķě įň țħěpǻșț ẅħěň șǿmě čǿųňțřįěș ħǻđ țřěǻțěđ đįffěřěňț ģřǿųpș ǻňđ đįffěřěňț
řěŀįģįǿųș ģřǿųpș ǻș șǿřț ǿf șěpǻřǻțě bŀǿčķș řǻțħěř țħǻň țřỳįňģ țǿ bųįŀđ ǻșțřǿňģ, čǿmmǿň ħǿmě țǿģěțħěř. Țħǻț įș ẅħǻț ẅě șħǿųŀđ bě đǿįňģ, ǻňđțħǻț įș ẅħǻț ǿųř pǿŀįčỳ įș đįřěčțěđ țǿ.
Ǻňđ, ǿf čǿųřșě, ỳǿų ňěěđ țǿ ħǻvě -- ǻș İ běŀįěvě ẅě ǻřě -- ǻ mųŀțįřǻčįǻŀ,mųŀțįěțħňįč șǿčįěțỳ ǿf ħųģě ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ ẅħěřě įň ǿňě ģěňěřǻțįǿň ǿř țẅǿģěňěřǻțįǿňș ỳǿų čǻň čǿmě țǿ ǿųř čǿųňțřỳ ǻňđ ỳǿų čǻň bě įň țħě Čǻbįňěț;ỳǿų čǻň șěřvě ǻț țħě ħįģħěșț ŀěvěŀ įň țħě ǻřměđ fǿřčěș; ỳǿų čǻň șįț ǿň țħěběňčħ ǻș ǻ jųđģě. İ’vě ģǿț įň mỳ Čǻbįňěț șǿměǿňě jųșț ŀįķě țħǻț, ẅħǿ įňțẅǿ ģěňěřǻțįǿňș ħįș fǻmįŀỳ ħǻș ģǿňě fřǿm ǻřřįvįňģ įň Břįțǻįň țǿ șįțțįňģ --Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 22 of 26 Page ID #:349

țħǻț'ș vįțǻŀŀỳ įmpǿřțǻňț, ǻș įș čǿmbǻțțįňģ ųňěmpŀǿỳměňț, čǿmbǻțțįňģ
pǿvěřțỳ.
Bųț ħěřě’ș İ țħįňķ țħě řěǻŀŀỳ đěțěřmįňįňģ pǿįňț: Ỳǿų čǻň ħǻvě, țřǻģįčǻŀŀỳ,
pěǿpŀě ẅħǿ ħǻvě ħǻđ ǻŀŀ țħě ǻđvǻňțǻģěș ǿf įňțěģřǻțįǿň, ẅħǿ ħǻvě ħǻđ ǻŀŀțħě ěčǿňǿmįč ǿppǿřțųňįțįěș țħǻț ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș čǻň ǿffěř, ẅħǿ șțįŀŀ ģěțșěđųčěđ bỳ țħįș pǿįșǿňǿųș, řǻđįčǻŀ đěǻțħ čųŀț ǿf ǻ ňǻřřǻțįvě. Ẅě’vě șěěňįň řěčěňț ẅěěķș pěǿpŀě ẅħǿ ħǻvě ģǿňě țǿ fįģħț įň Șỳřįǻ ǻňđ ẅħǿ mǻỳțħřěǻțěň ųș ħěřě bǻčķ ǻț ħǿmě ẅħǿ ħǻvě ħǻđ ěvěřỳ ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ ǻňđ ěvěřỳ
ǻđvǻňțǻģě įň ŀįfě įň țěřmș ǿf įňțěģřǻțįǿň. Șǿ ŀěț’ș ňěvěř ŀǿșě șįģħț ǿf țħěřěǻŀ ěňěmỳ ħěřě, ẅħįčħ įș țħě pǿįșǿňǿųș ňǻřřǻțįvě țħǻț'ș pěřvěřțįňģ İșŀǻm.
Țħǻț įș ẅħǻț ẅě ħǻvě țǿ fǿčųș ǿň, řěčǿģňįżįňģ țħǻț ǿf čǿųřșě ẅě ħěŀpǿųřșěŀvěș įň țħįș șțřųģģŀě įf ẅě čřěǻțě șǿčįěțįěș ǿf ģěňųįňě ǿppǿřțųňįțỳ, įfẅě čřěǻțě ģěňųįňě įňțěģřǻțįǿň běțẅěěň ǿųř čǿmmųňįțįěș. Bųț ŀěț’ș ňěvěř
ŀǿșě șįģħț ǿf țħě řěǻŀ -- țħě ħěǻřț ǿf țħě mǻțțěř.
Ǻș fǿř țħě įșșųě ǿň țħě țěčħňįqųěș ňěčěșșǻřỳ fǿř ǿųř įňțěŀŀįģěňčě
șěřvįčěș țǿ ħěŀp ķěěp ųș șǻfě, ǻŀŀ İ ẅǿųŀđ șǻỳ -- ǻňđ țħě Přěșįđěňț ǻňđ İ ħǻđǻ ģǿǿđ đįșčųșșįǿň ǻbǿųț țħįș ěǻřŀįěř -- İ đǿň'ț țħįňķ ěįțħěř ǿf ųș ǻřě țřỳįňģțǿ ǻňňųňčįǻțě șǿmě ňěẅ đǿčțřįňě. Țħě đǿčțřįňě țħǻț İ ǻppřǿǻčħ țħįș -ẅħǻț?
Q(Ǿff-mįč.)PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: Ẅěŀŀ, İ’m șǿřřỳ țǿ đįșǻppǿįňț ỳǿų, bųț İțǻķě ǻ věřỳ șįmpŀě ǻppřǿǻčħ țǿ țħįș, ẅħįčħ įș ěvěř șįňčě ẅě’vě běěňșěňđįňģ ŀěțțěřș țǿ ěǻčħ ǿțħěř ǿř mǻķįňģ țěŀěpħǿňě čǻŀŀș țǿ ěǻčħ ǿțħěř, ǿřmǿbįŀě pħǿňě čǻŀŀș țǿ ěǻčħ ǿțħěř, ǿř įňđěěđ čǿňțǻčțįňģ ěǻčħ ǿțħěř ǿň țħěİňțěřňěț, įț ħǻș běěň pǿșșįbŀě įň bǿțħ ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș, įň ěxțřěmįș -- įň mỳčǿųňțřỳ bỳ ǻ șįģňěđ ẅǻřřǻňț bỳ țħě Ħǿmě Șěčřěțǻřỳ -- țǿ pǿțěňțįǻŀŀỳ ŀįșțěňțǿ ǻ čǻŀŀ běțẅěěň țẅǿ țěřřǿřįșțș țǿ șțǿp țħěm įň țħěįř ǻčțįvįțỳ. İň ỳǿųřčǿųňțřỳ, ǻ jųđįčįǻŀ přǿčěșș. Ẅě’vě ħǻđ ǿųř ǿẅň -- ẅě'řě ňǿț ǻșķįňģ fǿřbǻčķđǿǿřș. Ẅě běŀįěvě įň věřỳ čŀěǻř fřǿňț đǿǿřș țħřǿųģħ ŀěģǻŀ přǿčěșșěș
țħǻț șħǿųŀđ ħěŀp țǿ ķěěp ǿųř čǿųňțřįěș șǻfě.
Ǻňđ mỳ ǿňŀỳ ǻřģųměňț įș țħǻț ǻș țěčħňǿŀǿģỳ đěvěŀǿpș, ǻș țħě ẅǿřŀđmǿvěș ǿň, ẅě șħǿųŀđ țřỳ țǿ ǻvǿįđ țħě șǻfě ħǻvěňș țħǻț čǻň ǿțħěřẅįșě běčřěǻțěđ fǿř țěřřǿřįșțș țǿ țǻŀķ țǿ ěǻčħ ǿțħěř. Țħǻț'ș țħě ģǿǻŀ țħǻț İ țħįňķ įșșǿ įmpǿřțǻňț, běčǻųșě İ’m įň ňǿ đǿųbț, ǻș ħǻvįňģ běěň Přįmě Mįňįșțěř fǿřCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 23 of 26 Page ID #:350fǿųř ǻňđ ǻ ħǻŀf ỳěǻřș, ħǻvįňģ șěěň ħǿẅ ǿųř įňțěŀŀįģěňčě șěřvįčěș ẅǿřķ, İķňǿẅ țħǻț șǿmě ǿf țħěșě pŀǿțș țħǻț ģěț přěvěňțěđ, țħě ŀįvěș țħǻț ģěț șǻvěđ,țħěřě įș ǻ věřỳ řěǻŀ čǿňňěčțįǿň běțẅěěň țħǻț ǻňđ țħě čǻpǻbįŀįțįěș țħǻț ǿųř
įňțěŀŀįģěňčě șěřvįčěș ẅįțħįň țħě ŀǻẅ ųșě țǿ đěfěňđ ǿųř pěǿpŀě.
İ țħįňķ țħě fįňǻŀ qųěșțįǿň įș fřǿm Řǿběřț Mǿǿřě fřǿm İȚŇ.
Q

Țħǻňķ ỳǿų. Ỳěș, Řǿběřț Mǿǿřě ẅįțħ țħě Břįțįșħ ňěțẅǿřķ, İȚV Ňěẅș.

Přįmě Mįňįșțěř, įț’ș čŀěǻř țħěřě įș ǻ șǿřț ǿf șěčųřįțỳ ǻŀěřț ųňđěřẅǻỳ ǻț țħěmǿměňț ǻřǿųňđ țħě Jěẅįșħ čǿmmųňįțỳ įň Břįțǻįň. Čǻň İ jųșț bě čŀěǻř, įșțħǻț bǻșěđ ǿň șpěčįfįč įňțěŀŀįģěňčě? Șħǿųŀđ pěǿpŀě bě čǿňčěřňěđ ǻbǿųț
đǿįňģ țħěįř đǻįŀỳ ǻčțįvįțįěș țħįș ẅěěķěňđ? Ǻňđ đǿ ỳǿų řěģǻřđ ǻ țěřřǿřįșț
ǻțțǻčķ ǿň Břįțįșħ șǿįŀ ǻș ǻŀmǿșț įňěvįțǻbŀě?
Ǻňđ, Mř. Přěșįđěňț, ỳǿų șǻỳ țħěřě įș ǻ đįǻŀǿģųě ųňđěřẅǻỳ ẅįțħ țħě bįģǺměřįčǻň țěčħ čǿmpǻňįěș, bųț đǿ ỳǿų șħǻřě țħě Přįmě Mįňįșțěř’ș vįěẅțħǻț țħě čųřřěňț țħřěǻț ěňvįřǿňměňț įș șǿ șěvěřě țħǻț țħěřě đǿěș ňěěđ țǿbě ǻ șẅįňģ ǿf țħě pěňđųŀųm ǻ ŀįțțŀě bįț, mǻỳbě fřǿm přįvǻčỳ țǿẅǻřđș
čǿųňțěřțěřřǿřįșm, ǻňđ țħǻț țħįș ǻřěǻ ǿf přįvǻțě ěňčřỳpțěđ čǿmmųňįčǻțįǿňșįș ǻ věřỳ đǻňģěřǿųș ǿňě, pǿțěňțįǻŀŀỳ įň țěřmș ǿf fǻčįŀįțǻțįňģ đįǻŀǿģųěběțẅěěň țěřřǿřįșț ģřǿųpș?
PŘİMĚ MİŇİȘȚĚŘ ČǺMĚŘǾŇ: Ǿň țħě įșșųě ǿf țħě țħřěǻț țħǻț ẅě fǻčě, ǻșİ șǻįđ, țħě ŀěvěŀ ħǻș běěň șěț ǻț șěvěřě. Țħǻț įș șěț bỳ ǻň įňđěpěňđěňț
ěxpěřț ǿřģǻňįżǻțįǿň, șǿ pěǿpŀě čǻň ħǻvě fųŀŀ čǿňfįđěňčě țħǻț țħěșě țħįňģș
ǻřěň’ț ěvěř đǿňě fǿř ǻňỳ ǿțħěř mǿțįvěș țħǻň ŀįțěřǻŀŀỳ țǿ ŀǿǿķ ǻț țħěěvįđěňčě țħǻț įș țħěřě ǻbǿųț țěřřǿřįșț țħřěǻțș ǻňđ țǿ șěț țħě ŀěvěŀǻččǿřđįňģŀỳ. Ẅħěň țħě ŀěvěŀ, ǻș įț įș ǻș țħě mǿměňț, įș șěț ǻț șěvěřě, țħǻțměǻňș țħǻț țħě ǻųțħǿřįțįěș běŀįěvě ǻň ǻțțǻčķ įș ħįģħŀỳ ŀįķěŀỳ. İf ẅě běŀįěvěđįț ẅǻș įmmįňěňț, țħěň ỳǿų ẅǿųŀđ mǿvě țǿ țħě ňěxț ŀěvěŀ, ẅħįčħ įș čřįțįčǻŀ.
Ǻňđ ẅě čŀěǻřŀỳ đǿ fǻčě ǻ věřỳ řěǻŀ țħřěǻț įň ǿųř čǿųňțřỳ. İ měǻň, įňřěčěňț mǿňțħș, ǻș İ ẅǻș đįșčųșșįňģ ẅįțħ țħě Přěșįđěňț, ẅě’vě ħǻđ ǻňųmběř ǿf pǿțěňțįǻŀ ǻțțǻčķș ǻvěřțěđ, fǿř įňșțǻňčě, ǿň Břįțįșħ pǿŀįčěǿffįčěřș. Șǿ țħǻț įș țħě țħřěǻț pįčțųřě. İț'ș řěģųŀǻřŀỳ řěvįěẅěđ, řěģųŀǻřŀỳųpđǻțěđ, bųț įț șħǿųŀđň’ț bě mǿvěđ ųňŀěșș țħěřě įș řěǻŀ ěvįđěňčě țǿ đǿ șǿ.
İň țěřmș ǿf țħě přǿțěčțįǿň țǿ țħě Jěẅįșħ čǿmmųňįțỳ ǻňđ įňđěěđ ǿțħěř
čǿmmųňįțįěș, ǻňđ įňđěěđ țǿ pǿŀįčě ǿffįčěřș țħěmșěŀvěș, țħįș įș bǻșěđ ǿňẅħǻț ħǻș ħǻppěňěđ įň Fřǻňčě, ǿň țħě ẅħǿŀě pįčțųřě țħǻț ẅě șěě. Ǻňđ įț įșCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 24 of 26 Page ID #:351

șěňșįbŀě, přěčǻųțįǿňǻřỳ měǻșųřěș țǿ mǻķě șųřě ẅě đǿ ẅħǻț ẅě čǻň țǿřěǻșșųřě țħǿșě čǿmmųňįțįěș -- čǿmmųňįțįěș ẅħǿ ǻřě ǻŀŀ țǿǿ ǻẅǻřě ǿf țħěțħřěǻț țħǻț țħěỳ fǻčě. Ǻňđ țħįș įș ǻ bįģģěř čħǻŀŀěňģě fǿř ųș.
İ țħįňķ ǿňě ǿf țħě mǿșț mǿvįňģ șįģħțș įň Pǻřįș ẅǻș țǿ șěě șǿ mǻňỳ pěǿpŀě
ħǿŀđįňģ ųp șįģňș șǻỳįňģ “Jě șųįș fŀįč,” İ'm ǻ čǿp; “Jě șųįș jųįf,” İ’m ǻ Jěẅ.
Ǻňđ İ țħǿųģħț țħǻț ẅǻș įňčřěđįbŀỳ mǿvįňģ, țħǻț pěǿpŀě ẅǻňțěđ țǿ șțǻňđ
țǿģěțħěř ẅįțħ ǿňě čǿmmųňįțỳ țħǻț ħǻđ běěň șįňģŀěđ ǿųț, ǻňđ șįňģŀěđ ǿųțňǿț běčǻųșě ǿf ǻňỳțħįňģ ǿțħěř țħǻň țħě fǻčț țħěỳ ẅěřě Jěẅįșħ. Șǿ İ țħįňķ
įț'ș věřỳ įmpǿřțǻňț țħǻț ẅě șpěǻķ ųp ǻňđ șțǻňđ ųp fǿř țħǿșě čǿmmųňįțįěșǻňđ ģįvě țħěm țħě přǿțěčțįǿň țħǻț țħěỳ đěșěřvě.
PŘĚȘİĐĚŇȚ ǾBǺMǺ: Ǿbvįǿųșŀỳ, įň țħě ẅǻķě ǿf Pǻřįș, ǿųř ǻțțěňțįǿň įșħěįģħțěňěđ. Bųț İ ħǻvě țǿ țěŀŀ ỳǿų, ǿvěř țħě ŀǻșț șįx ỳěǻřș țħřěǻț șțřěǻmș
ǻřě fǻįřŀỳ čǿňșțǻňț. Đǻvįđ đěǻŀș ẅįțħ țħěm ěvěřỳ đǻỳ, İ đěǻŀ ẅįțħ țħěměvěřỳ đǻỳ. Ǿųř ČȚ, ǿųř čǿųňțěřțěřřǿřįșm přǿfěșșįǿňǻŀș đěǻŀ ẅįțħ țħěměvěřỳ đǻỳ. Șǿ İ đǿň’ț țħįňķ țħěřě’ș ǻ șįțųǻțįǿň įň ẅħįčħ běčǻųșě țħįňģș ǻřěșǿ mųčħ mǿřě đǻňģěřǿųș, țħě pěňđųŀųm ňěěđș țǿ șẅįňģ. İ țħįňķ ẅħǻț ẅěħǻvě țǿ fįňđ įș ǻ čǿňșįșțěňț fřǻměẅǿřķ ẅħěřěbỳ ǿųř pųbŀįčș ħǻvěčǿňfįđěňčě țħǻț țħěįř ģǿvěřňměňț čǻň bǿțħ přǿțěčț țħěm, bųț ňǿț ǻbųșěǿųř čǻpǻčįțỳ țǿ ǿpěřǻțě įň čỳběřșpǻčě. Ǻňđ běčǻųșě țħįș įș ǻ ẅħǿŀě ňěẅ
ẅǿřŀđ, ǻș Đǻvįđ șǻįđ, țħě ŀǻẅș țħǻț mįģħț ħǻvě běěň đěșįģňěđ fǿř țħěțřǻđįțįǿňǻŀ ẅįřěțǻp ħǻvě țǿ bě ųpđǻțěđ.
Ħǿẅ ẅě đǿ țħǻț ňěěđș țǿ bě đěbǻțěđ, bǿțħ ħěřě įň țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěșǻňđ įň țħě Ų.Ķ. İ țħįňķ ẅě’řě ģěțțįňģ běțțěř ǻț įț. İ țħįňķ ẅě’řě șțřįķįňģ țħě
bǻŀǻňčě běțțěř. İ țħįňķ țħě čǿmpǻňįěș ħěřě įň țħě Ųňįțěđ Șțǻțěș ǻț ŀěǻșțřěčǿģňįżě țħǻț țħěỳ ħǻvě ǻ řěșpǿňșįbįŀįțỳ țǿ țħě pųbŀįč, bųț ǻŀșǿ ẅǻňț țǿmǻķě șųřě țħǻț țħěỳ’řě měěțįňģ țħěįř řěșpǿňșįbįŀįțįěș țǿ țħěįř čųșțǿměřș
țħǻț ǻřě ųșįňģ țħěįř přǿđųčțș. Ǻňđ șǿ țħě đįǻŀǿģųě țħǻț ẅě’řě ěňģǻģěđ įňįș đěșįģňěđ țǿ mǻķě șųřě țħǻț ǻŀŀ ǿf ųș fěěŀ čǿňfįđěňț țħǻț įf țħěřě įș ǻňǻčțųǻŀ țħřěǻț ǿųț țħěřě, ǿųř ŀǻẅ ěňfǿřčěměňț ǻňđ ǿųř įňțěŀŀįģěňčě ǿffįčěřșčǻň įđěňțįfỳ țħǻț țħřěǻț ǻňđ țřǻčķ țħǻț țħřěǻț ǻț țħě șǻmě țįmě țħǻț ǿųřģǿvěřňměňțș ǻřě ňǿț ģǿįňģ ǻřǿųňđ pħįșħįňģ įňțǿ ẅħǻțěvěř țěxț ỳǿų mįģħțbě șěňđįňģ ǿň ỳǿųř șmǻřțpħǿňě. Ǻňđ İ țħįňķ țħǻț’ș șǿměțħįňģ țħǻț čǻň běǻčħįěvěđ.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:352Țħěřě ǻřě ģǿįňģ țǿ bě șįțųǻțįǿňș ẅħěřě țħěřě ǻřě ħǻřđ čǻșěș. Bųț fǿřțħě mǿșț pǻřț, țħǿșě ẅħǿ ǻřě ẅǿřřįěđ ǻbǿųț Bįģ Břǿțħěř șǿměțįměș
ǿbșčųřě ǿř đěŀįběřǻțěŀỳ įģňǿřě ǻŀŀ țħě ŀěģǻŀ șǻfěģųǻřđș țħǻț ħǻvě běěň pųțįň pŀǻčě țǿ ǻșșųřě pěǿpŀě’ș přįvǻčỳ ǻňđ țǿ mǻķě șųřě țħǻț ģǿvěřňměňț įșňǿț ǻbųșįňģ țħěșě pǿẅěřș. Ǻňđ ǿň țħě ǿțħěř ħǻňđ, țħěřě ǻřě țįměș ẅħěřě
ŀǻẅ ěňfǿřčěměňț ǻňđ țħǿșě ǿf ųș ẅħǿșě jǿb įț įș țǿ přǿțěčț țħě pųbŀįč
ǻřěň’ț țħįňķįňģ ǻbǿųț țħǿșě přǿbŀěmș běčǻųșě ẅě’řě țřỳįňģ țǿ țřǻčķ ǻňđpřěvěňț ǻ pǻřțįčųŀǻř țěřřǿřįșț ěvěňț fřǿm ħǻppěňįňģ. Ǻňđ įț’ș ųșěfųŀ țǿħǻvě čįvįŀ ŀįběřțǻřįǻňș ǻňđ ǿțħěřș țǻppįňģ ųș ǿň țħě șħǿųŀđěř įň țħě mįđșțǿf țħįș přǿčěșș ǻňđ řěmįňđįňģ ųș țħǻț țħěřě ǻřě vǻŀųěș ǻț șțǻķě ǻș ẅěŀŀ.
Ǻňđ İ țħįňķ țħǻț Đǻvįđ ǻňđ İ ẅěŀčǿmě țħǻț ķįňđ ǿf đěbǻțě.

Țħě țěčħňǿŀǿģįěș ǻřě ěvǿŀvįňģ įň ẅǻỳș țħǻț pǿțěňțįǻŀŀỳ mǻķě țħįșțřįčķįěř. İf ẅě ģěț įňțǿ ǻ șįțųǻțįǿň įň ẅħįčħ țħě țěčħňǿŀǿģįěș đǿ ňǿț ǻŀŀǿẅųș ǻț ǻŀŀ țǿ țřǻčķ șǿměbǿđỳ țħǻț ẅě’řě čǿňfįđěňț įș ǻ țěřřǿřįșț; įf ẅě fįňđěvįđěňčě ǿf ǻ țěřřǿřįșț pŀǿț șǿměẅħěřě įň țħě Mįđđŀě Ěǻșț țħǻț țřǻčěș
đįřěčțŀỳ bǻčķ țǿ Ŀǿňđǿň ǿř Ňěẅ Ỳǿřķ, ẅě ħǻvě șpěčįfįč įňfǿřmǻțįǿň ǻňđ ẅěǻřě čǿňfįđěňț țħǻț țħįș įňđįvįđųǻŀ ǿř țħįș ňěțẅǿřķ įș ǻbǿųț țǿ ǻčțįvǻțě ǻ
pŀǿț, ǻňđ đěșpįțě ķňǿẅįňģ țħǻț įňfǿřmǻțįǿň, đěșpįțě ħǻvįňģ ǻ pħǿňě
ňųmběř, ǿř đěșpįțě ħǻvįňģ ǻ șǿčįǻŀ měđįǻ ǻđđřěșș ǿř ěmǻįŀ ǻđđřěșș -- țħǻțẅě čǻň’ț pěňěțřǻțě țħǻț, țħǻț’ș ǻ přǿbŀěm.
Ǻňđ șǿ țħǻț’ș țħě ķįňđ ǿf đįǻŀǿģųě țħǻț ẅě’řě ħǻvįňģ țǿ ħǻvě ẅįțħ țħěșě
čǿmpǻňįěș. Pǻřț ǿf įț įș ǻ ŀěģǻŀ įșșųě, pǻřț ǿf įț įș ǻ țěčħňįčǻŀ qųěșțįǿň. Bųțǿvěřǻŀŀ, İ’m ǻčțųǻŀŀỳ čǿňfįđěňț țħǻț ẅě čǻň bǻŀǻňčě țħěșě įmpěřǻțįvěș, ǻňđẅě șħǿųŀđň’ț fěěŀ ǻș įf běčǻųșě ẅě’vě jųșț șěěň șųčħ ǻ ħǿřřįfįč ǻțțǻčķ įňPǻřįș, țħǻț șųđđěňŀỳ ěvěřỳțħįňģ șħǿųŀđ bě ģǿįňģ bỳ țħě ẅǻỳșįđě.
Ųňfǿřțųňǻțěŀỳ, țħįș ħǻș běěň ǻ čǿňșțǻňț bǻčķđřǿp ǻňđ İ țħįňķ ẅįŀŀ čǿňțįňųěțǿ bě fǿř ǻňỳ Přįmě Mįňįșțěř ǿř Přěșįđěňț fǿř șǿmě țįmě țǿ čǿmě, ǻňđẅě’vě ģǿț țǿ mǻķě șųřě țħǻț ẅě đǿň’ț ǿvěřřěǻčț bųț țħǻț ẅě řěmǻįň
vįģįŀǻňț ǻňđ ǻřě șěřįǿųș ǻbǿųț ǿųř řěșpǿňșįbįŀįțįěș țħěřě.
Țħǻňķ ỳǿų věřỳ mųčħ, ěvěřỳbǿđỳ. Ǻppřěčįǻțě įț. Țħǻňķ ỳǿų.
ĚŇĐ

1:39 P.M. ĚȘȚCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-23 Filed 02/25/16 Page 26 of 26 Page ID #:353


HOME



BRIEFING ROOM

ISSUES

THE ADMINISTRATIONPARTICIPATE

1600 PENN
En Español

Accessibility

Copyright Information

Privacy Policy

USA.gov

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:354

Exhibit W

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:355

White House. Red Chair. Obama Meets Swisher.
President Barack Obama took his turn in the red hot seat last Friday for a one­on­one interview with
Re/code co­executive editor Kara Swisher*.
Obama was in Silicon Valley to speak at the White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer
Protection, and spoke with Swisher after addressing the audience at Stanford University.
The brisk conversation touched on an array of tech­focused topics, including cyber warfare, diversity intech hiring, the White House’s relationship with Silicon Valley — and the president’s own gadgets ofchoice.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
CaptionVjeran Pavic for Re/code
Watch the full interview in the video below:

Kara Swisher: Thank you for being here, Mr. President.
President Barack Obama: Great to be here.
Very excited to do an interview with Re/code. And we have a lot of topics to talk about in tech.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:356
Let’s go.
We’re going to go from cyber security, your relationship with Silicon Valley, privacy, STEM
education.
Got it all covered.
Got it all covered, all right.
Let’s go.
“Mr. Tech, okay. So let’s talk about cyber security first.” — Re/code co­executive editor Kara Swisher
Mr. Tech, okay. So let’s talk about cyber security first. This is a cyber security summit. You had
Tim Cook talking about it, all kinds of different leaders.
Right.
The dangers of what’s happening. Right now, there’s been a lot of instances of cyber security
breaches, Sony being the most famous.
Right.
The government said North Korea was behind this?
Yeah.
Are these acts of war?
I wouldn’t consider them acts of war. But I would consider them acts of property damage, commercial
theft, that are serious. And whenever a criminal act like that is state­sponsored, it’s a problem. I just hada terrific roundtable with CEOs and chief information officers from a whole bunch of different sectors of
the economy.
And one of the uniform things they said was state actors are in a different category because of thesophistication and the resources and the patience that they have. That’s an area where [the] private
sector’s going to have to get help immediately from the government in a much more aggressive way,
and a lot of what we’re doing in terms of information sharing, gathering data, getting it out, disseminating
it all throughout the economy much quicker — we’ve gotten better at that.
Then what you have is a bunch of non­state actors, hackers, criminals, etc., that are just flooding thesystem, constantly probing for weaknesses. And part of what this summit is about is both making surethat we have mechanisms for government/private sector cooperation, increased consumer awareness of
how they can reduce their vulnerabilities, how we can build better defenses, how we can respond betterand more resiliently. And one of the big conclusions is this is moving so fast that we’ve got to have amore nimble system. This isn’t a traditional setting where you can just set up a few standards or rules orregulations, and then just sit on our laurels. We have to constantly update all the time.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:357
But what does it have to be to become more serious? Shutting down New York? We’re very
vulnerable, as we become more digital.
We’re hugely vulnerable. We’ve started with critical infrastructure. That’s an area where heavy
involvement with those industries — whether it’s Wall Street and the financial sector, utilities, our air­traffic control system — all of that, increasingly, is dependent on the digital base that they’re working offof.
And so a lot of concentration there first. And one of the challenges is that a lot of this isprivate sector — the vast bulk of it is private sector. The government has to be able to not only work witheach individual company, we’ve got to be able to pull those companies together so they’re working
together more effectively. And one of the things that makes this such a challenging problem is, all you
need is one weak link. You can have nine companies … .
Well, in any defense.
Right. You can have nine companies that have great protocols, authentication systems, you name it. You
have one that’s not doing a good job, and that penetrates the entire system. So I think everybody
recognizes now the degree of seriousness.
The key is to coordinate more effectively the legislation that we’ve put before Congress that, forexample, provides companies with some selective liability protections so that when they share
information, they’re not vulnerable to future lawsuits. Those are the kinds of areas where I would like to
see us make a lot of progress this year.
We talk about North Korea being this bad actor … around “The Interview.”
Right.
We do our own hacking of other countries. There’s been lots of reports about the Iran nuclear
system and things like that. Can we make a good argument that we should be protected against
them, when we’re doing the same thing ourselves?
Obviously, I can’t talk about specifics and whether …
But please do. [Laugh]… whether confirming or denying whatever you discuss. I mentioned in the CEO roundtable — acomment that was made by one of my national security team. This is more like basketball than football,in the sense that there’s no clear line between offense and defense. Things are going back and forth all
the time.
We have great capabilities here. But there are other countries that have great capabilities, as well.
Eventually, what we’re going to need to do is to find some international protocols that, in the same way
we did with nuclear arms, set some clear limits and guidelines, understanding that everybody’svulnerable and everybody’s better off if we abide by certain behaviors. In the meantime, we have toCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:358
have sufficient capability to defend ourselves.
CaptionVjeran Pavic for Re/code“What we’re going to need to do is to find some international protocols that, in the same way we didwith nuclear arms, set some clear limits and guidelines, understanding that everybody’s vulnerable
and everybody’s better off if we abide by certain behaviors.” — President Barack Obama
Is that just defense? Or offense?
I won’t lie to you, this is a debate that we have internally. Because when you develop sufficient defenses,
the same sophistication you need for defenses means that potentially you can engage in offense. Now,
there are some things that we’re very clear about. For example, we just don’t do industrial espionage theway many other countries do, where their state­sponsored operations are going in and stealing
information commercially.
Most of the work that we do revolves around threats against us from non­state actors, and obviously
terrorism is a huge field. And increasingly, cyber terrorism is going to be something that we’re concerned
about. But we are going to have to build in a whole set of safeguards to make sure that we are
upholding high standards if we expect others to do the same.
I’m going to switch to something else in a second. But should there be a cyber army? Should
we — our government — have this dedicated, the way they do in North Korea or China?
Well, what we have is a separate cyber structure, a cyber command that coordinates a lot of this activity,
partly because our defense systems today, our armed forces, are dependent on the digital world in thesame way that it has penetrated everything else. So this separate cyber command monitors, defends,
focuses on protecting not only the Department of Defense and our armed forces, but also criticalinfrastructure, and is constantly monitoring what other state actors potentially could do. But — just to
give you a sense of how challenging this is — it’s not as if North Korea is particularly good at this.
They did … not bad.
But look how much damage they were able to do. Non­state actors can do a lot damage, as well. So
we’ve got to constantly upgrade our game, and that’s part of the purpose of this.
Are there any countries you’re worried about, comparatively? North Korea, not so good. Who’s
good?
Well — China and Russia are very good. Iran is good. And we’re constantly engaged in a dialogue withthese countries in the same way that we engage in a dialogue around nuclear arms, indicating to themthat it doesn’t serve anybody’s purpose for us to attack in ways that may end up eliciting responses, andeverybody’s worse off.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:359
Let’s talk about the relationship between you and Silicon Valley. Lots of discussion about who
wasn’t here, and tensions, and sort of, “can this marriage be saved?” How do you look at yourrelationship right now with Silicon Valley? They’re nervous about the NSA, they’re still hurting
about that. Visas, Zero­Day flaws, all kinds of things.
You know, look. It’s your job to generate some controversy, but…
Now, some controversy … [Laugh] Some of those quotes from the Google people are pretty
tough.
But I think it’s also fair to say that my relationship with Silicon Valley and the tech community hashistorically been really good. Many of these folks are my friends, and have been supporters, and weinteract all the time.
“I think it’s also fair to say that my relationship with Silicon Valley and the tech community hashistorically been really good.” — Barack Obama
Well, they’re still giving a lot of money to …
But what is true is that the Snowden disclosures were really harmful in terms of the trust between thegovernment and many of these companies, in part because it had an impact on their bottom lines. When
you look back at what we’ve done, I have constantly tried to update the laws and rules governing how
we operate in cyberspace with these new technologies.

In the case of the NSA, we’re probably a little slow. The truth is that what we did with respect to U.S.
persons, what we did in this country, was strictly circumscribed. And, generally speaking, I can say withalmost complete confidence that there haven’t been abuses on U.S. soil.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:360
But it’s a global Internet world.
And that’s the point.
And they’re businesses.
And that has been the challenge. What is true — and I’ve said this publicly, so I’m not saying anythingthat’s classified in any way — our capacities to scoop up information became so great, and traditionally
there haven’t been restraints on our intelligence community scooping up information from outside ourborders and non­U.S. persons.
So what ended up happening was that, in places like Germany, this had a huge impact — not just on
government­to­government relations, but suddenly all the Silicon Valley companies that are doing
business there find themselves challenged, in some cases not completely sincerely. Because some ofthose countries have their own companies who want to displace ours.
I say all this to make the point that I think we have made real progress in narrowing the differences
around the national security/privacy balance. There are still some issues like encryption that arechallenging.
Let’s talk about encryption. What’s wrong with what Google and Apple are doing? You haveencrypted email — shouldn’t everybody have encrypted email, or have their protections?
Everybody should. And I’m a strong believer in strong encryption. Where the tension has come up,
historically, what has happened, is that — let’s say you knew a particular person was involved in aterrorist plot. And the FBI is trying to figure out who else were they communicating with, in order toprevent the plot.
Traditionally, what has been able to happen is that the FBI gets a court order. They go to the company,
they request those records the same way that they’d go get a court order to request a wiretap. The
company technically can comply. The issue here is that — partly in response to customer demand, partly
in response to legitimate concerns about consumer privacy — the technologies may be built to a point
where, when the government goes to …
They can’t get the information.
The company says, “Sorry, we just can’t pull it. It’s so sealed and tight that, even though government hasa legitimate request, technologically we cannot do it.”CaptionVjeran Pavic for Re/code
Is what they’re doing wrong?
No, I think they are properly responding to a market demand. All of us are really concerned about
making sure our …

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:361
So what are you going to do?
Well, what we’re going to try to do is to see: Is there a way for us to narrow this gap? Ultimately,
everybody — and certainly this is true for me and my family — we all want to know that if we’re using asmartphone for transactions, sending messages, having private conversations, that we don’t have abunch of people compromising that process.
So there’s no scenario in which we don’t want really strong encryption. The narrow question is going tobe if there is a proper request for … this isn’t bulk collection, this isn’t sort of fishing expeditions bygovernment.
Where there is a situation in which we’re trying to get a specific case of a possible national security
threat — is there a way of accessing it? If it turns out it’s not, then we’re really gonna have to have apublic debate. And, you know, I think some in Silicon Valley would make the argument — which is a fairargument, and I get — that the harms done by having any kind of compromised encryption are far
greater …
That’s an argument you used to make.
Well …
You would have made. Has something changed with …
No, I still make it. It’s just that I am sympathetic to law enforcement.
Because years [ago], you were much stronger on civil liberty.
I’m as strong as I have been. I think the only concern is our law enforcement is expected to stop every
plot. Every attack. Any bomb on a plane. The first time that attack takes place in which it turns out that
we had a lead and we couldn’t follow up on it, the public’s going to demand answers.
And this is a public conversation that we should end up having. I lean probably further in the direction ofstrong encryption than some do inside of law enforcement. But I am sympathetic to law enforcement
because I know the kind of pressure they’re under to keep us safe. And it’s not as black­and­white as it’ssometimes portrayed.
Now, in fairness, I think the folks who are in favor of airtight encryption also want to be protected fromterrorists.
True.
One of the interesting things about being in this job is [that] it does give you a bird’s­eye view. You aresmack­dab in the middle of these tensions that exist. But I guess what I would say is, there are times
where folks who see this through a civil­liberties or privacy lens reject that there’s any trade­offs
involved, and in fact there are. And you’ve got to own the fact that it may be [that] we want to value
privacy and civil liberty far more than we do …

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:362
Safety.
The safety issues. But we can’t pretend that there are no trade­offs whatsoever.
Let’s go quickly into privacy. There’s a privacy bill you’ve all been trying to pass forever, withsome teeth in it.
Right.
Who owns their data? And, on the other side of the companies, have you all acquiesced too far
to the Facebooks and Googles of the world, when Europe is being much more stringent?
I think you own your data, I think I own my data. I think we own our health­care data, I think we own our
financial data.
Doesn’t feel like it.
CaptionVjeran Pavic for Re/code“This is an area where, ironically, sometimes I also have tensions with Silicon Valley — because folks
are quite keen on talking about government intrusion.” — Barack ObamaI think this is an area where, ironically, sometimes I also have tensions with Silicon Valley — because
folks are quite keen on talking about government intrusion. [Laugh] But some of the commercial models
that are set up obviously …
A little intrusive.
… are fairly intrusive, as well.
But they’re selling us things. So …
Yeah, exactly. So, I think part of the answer here is just people knowing ahead of time what’s going on.
People knowing how their data’s being used. Much greater transparency in terms of its potential for
migrating over into some sales­and­marketing scheme of somebody else’s.
And the more transparent we are, the more customers can make a choice. There are circumstances —I’ll give one specific example that I talked a while back, about … educational technologies being sold andput into schools. And then it turns out that some kid who’s going online to communicate with theirteacher — their data is going to some marketing company that then sells to the kid. I think that’s got to
be off­limits. So there are going to be some areas where we just say no, even if the consumer is awareof it ahead of time.
But does it have any teeth, really? I mean, Europe is very strong on these things, and doing a
lot of investigations into Google and Facebook and other companies.
In defense of Google and Facebook, sometimes the European response here is more commerciallyCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:363
driven than anything else. As I’ve said, there are some countries like Germany, given its history with theStasi, that are very sensitive to these issues. But sometimes their vendors — their service providers
who, you know, can’t compete with ours — are essentially trying to set up some roadblocks for ourcompanies to operate effectively there.
Interesting.
We have owned the Internet. Our companies have created it, expanded it, perfected it in ways that they
can’t compete. And oftentimes what is portrayed as high­minded positions on issues sometimes is justdesigned to carve out some of their commercial interests.
Let’s talk about owning it. We have invented the Internet, we have created the most important
technology companies. Losing that rapidly to other companies. Education, STEM, visas, allkinds of things, bringing the best talent here. Right now, diversity is another issue, especiallywomen.
Right.
How do you look at this? How do we change the equation here? Because many people feel that,even though we’ve got this strong industry, we’re losing on lots of ground.
First of all, we’re not losing it rapidly. But what is true is that our lead will erode if we don’t make somegood choices now. STEM education, huge priority. Homegrown — we’ve got to have our kids in mathand science, and it can’t just be a handful of kids. It’s got to be everybody. Everybody’s got to learn how
to code early.

I saw you were learning to code. Do you encourage your daughters to code?

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:364
I have, and I’ve said to …
Do they?
Well, not as much as I would probably like. Although I think they got started a little bit late. Part of what
you want to do is introduce this with the ABCs and the colors. And particularly, focusing on girls’
participation — math, science, technology — early is important. Underrepresented groups, African
Americans, Latinos. We’ve got to get those kids tapped in. That’s the largest­growing part of ourpopulation. If they don’t have basic digital literacy …
What’s the problem? I mean, because company after company, 70 percent white, 70 percent
male …
I think part of the problem is, just generally, our school systems aren’t doing as good of a job on this,period. Full stop. And then part of what’s happening is that we are not helping schools and teachers
teach it in an interesting way.
And what ends up happening is a certain portion of the population just drifts away. Girls, for example —we don’t lift up models of them being successful in STEM. Somebody has talked about the degree towhich we very rarely see portrayed on television — female engineers.
And don’t have any jobs, actually.
Right. So we just have to — we have to lift that stuff up. So that’s the long term, getting that whole poolof talent focused. More immediately, we’ve got an urgent need right now. Comprehensive immigration
reform would revise our system so that the best and the brightest from around the world come here, theones who are studying here aren’t forced to leave. We have been pushing this hard in Congress. So far,Congress has blocked it.
So what do you do?
Well, what I did with the executive action that I announced around immigration. There were some areas
where I could help to reduce some of the backlog, some of the bureaucracy, [to] make it somewhat
easier for talented foreign students to operate here. But we haven’t gone far enough, and the legislation
is what’s going yo be required. So we’ve got to keep on pushing on that. You know, overall, though, thegood news is that the ecosystem here is so far ahead of anywhere else. There’s so much talent, somuch brain power, so much financing …
It still leaves a lot of people out.
CaptionVjeran Pavic for Re/code“There’s a huge possibility for talent — not just homegrown — from around the world, continuing toconverge here in the United States. Look, what used to be primarily Silicon Valley, now it’s also Austin,Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:365
Texas.” — Barack Obama
But the point is is that there is so much more room to grow, I guess. It’s not as if this is a mature, finite
industry where it’s a zero­sum game in terms of how many people can be participating. There’s a huge
possibility for talent — not just homegrown — from around the world, continuing to converge here in the
United States. Look, what used to be primarily Silicon Valley, now it’s also Austin, Texas.
Well, they’re trying. Yeah.
Yeah. I mean, there are a bunch of other places around the country — in Utah and others — where
people are coalescing. I was at Boise State, and they’re doing all kinds of interesting stuff in the digitalspace, connecting universities with companies.
So this is something that we want to democratize and see spread all across the country. We are putting
together public/private partnerships around, for example, just getting more engineers. You know, we
partnered with Intel and a bunch of companies.
Are you worried that China and others are graduating more engineers?
Yes. Although our engineers are still better. But we don’t always need the absolute top MIT engineer.
Part of what we also need is the standard engineer who can help on a production facility.
Because, ironically, part of the reason that some tech production jobs have gone overseas is not somuch in search of low wages as it is that there are just more engineers at this production level that canreally help.
Wrapping up, I want to ask you something about your personal tech habits.
Go ahead.
I know you watch a lot of sports.
I do.Where are you watching things now? Are you watching it on your phone, or do you watch iton television?
You know, I’ll be honest with you …
When it comes to ballgames, I’m still usually watching it on TV — DVR. But when it comes to highlights,
I’m usually watching it on an iPad.
CaptionVjeran Pavic for Re/code“When it comes to ballgames, I’m still usually watching it on TV — DVR. But when it comes tohighlights, I’m usually watching it on an iPad.” — Barack ObamaCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-24 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:366
And you’re still with the BlackBerry, right?
I use a BlackBerry mainly because I’m so restricted in what I can do that it’s basically just messages, andit’s still easier for me to tap off the [BlackBerry]. But basically most of my non­work­related stuff, I’mworking off the iPad. And the girls all have iPhones, so I can get around an iPhone pretty good.
Do you wear any “wearable shirts” or health devices, or things like that?
Not yet. I think …
You missed the whole Google Glass thing, by the way.
Well, [laugh] no comment.
And what devices do you think you would use once you leave office? I know you like a selfie
stick.
Well, right. As BuzzFeed showed. Actually, the first time I used that was when we were in Hawaii forvacation. My photographer, Pete Souza, had a GoPro, and folks were starting to use selfie sticks.
But do you use any other technology? It’s just basically the iPad?
It’s basically the iPad, although … I don’t have a Fitbit yet, but I work out hard. Word is that these Apple
watches might be a good companion for my workout. So I’m going to see. I’m going to test it out. I don’t
want to give Tim Cook too big of a plug here …
Yeah. But you just did. [Laugh]… until I’ve actually seen the product. But he tells me it’s pretty good.
Kara Swisher: “If there was a hashtag for your administration, what would it be?”Barack Obama: “#YesWeCan.”
Absolutely. Last question: If there was a hashtag for your administration, what would it be?
#YesWeCan.
Naturally. Thank you so much.
Great to talk to you. Thank you so much.
* Kara Swisher is married to but separated from Megan Smith, chief technology officer for the Obamaadministration. See her ethics statement here.

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-25 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:367

Exhibit X

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-25 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:368

iCloud: Back up your iOS device to iCloud

Languages English

iCloud automatically backs up your iOS device information daily over Wi-Fi when your device is turned on, locked,
and connected to a power source.
Back up automatically
On your iOS 9 or iOS 8 device: Go to Settings > iCloud > Backup, then turn on iCloud Backup.
On your iOS 7 device: Go to Settings > iCloud > Storage & Backup, then turn on iCloud Backup.
Back up manually
On your iOS 9 or iOS 8 device: Go to Settings > iCloud > Backup, then tap Back Up Now.
On your iOS 7 device: Go to Settings > iCloud > Storage & Backup, then tap Back Up Now.
For information about messages that may appear while backing up, see the Apple Support article Get help backing
up your device in iCloud.
Important: If you don’t back up your iOS device to iCloud for 180 days or more, Apple reserves the right todelete your device’s iCloud backups. For information, see iCloud Terms and Conditions.
Last Modified: Feb 11, 2016

Helpful?

Yes

74% of people found this helpful.

No

Additional Product Support Information

iCloudContact Apple Support
Need more help? Save time by starting your support request online and we'll
connect you to an expert.
Get started   Support
Shop the Apple Online Store (1-800-MY-APPLE), visit an Apple Retail Store , or find a reseller .
Copyright © 2016 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use

Updated Privacy Policy

Use of Cookies

Apple Info

Site Map

Hot News

RSS Feeds

Contact Us

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-26 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:369

Exhibit Y

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-26 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:370

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-27 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:371

Exhibit Z2/23/2016

Smartphone Lies
Beyond theReachof a Judicial Search
Warrant
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP No
Document
16-27
Filed
02/25/16
Page
2 of 3 Page ID #:372

No Smartphone Lies Beyond the Reach of a Judicial
Search Warrant

Cyrus R. Vance Jr. is the Manhattan district attorney.
Updated February 18, 2016, 3:21 AM
iPhones are the first warrant­proof consumer products in American history. They compel law
enforcement to deploy extraordinarily creative prosecutorial strategies – and obtain state­of­the­art tools– to carry out even the most basic steps of a criminal investigation. I applaud our federal colleagues fortheir commitment to justice for the 14 killed in San Bernardino and their families.
The magistrate judge’s order rests firmly on centuries of jurisprudence holding that no item – not ahome, not a file cabinet and not a smartphone – lies beyond the reach of a judicial search warrant. It
affirms the principle that decisions about who can access key evidence in criminal investigations should
be made by courts and legislatures, not by Apple and Google. And it provides the highest­profile
example to date of how Silicon Valley’s decisions inhibit real investigations of real crimes, with real
victims and real consequences for public safety.
Decisions about who can access key evidence in criminal investigations should be made by courts
and legislatures, not by Apple and Google.
Our coalition – comprising local law enforcement, crime victims’ advocates and concerned community
leaders – will be watching with great interest.
But as the encryption debate zeroes in on the cowardly terrorist acts committed in San Bernardino, weshould also remember that Apple’s switch to default device encryption affects virtually all criminal
investigations, the overwhelming majority of which are handled by state and local law enforcement. Our
agencies do not have the same resources as the federal Justice Department, which is why a national,
legislative solution is so urgently needed.
The line between privacy and security in our society should not be drawn unilaterally by two of theworld’s most powerful companies – especially when that line coincides with their own economic interests.
It should be drawn by Congress and courts, as our Report on Smartphone Encryption and Public Safety
makes clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/02/18/crimes­iphones­and­encryption/no­smartphone­lies­beyond­the­reach­of­a­judicial­search­warrant

1/2

2/23/2016

Smartphone Lies
Beyond theReachof a Judicial Search
Warrant
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP No
Document
16-27
Filed
02/25/16
Page
3 of 3 Page ID #:373

Cyrus Vance Jr., Manhattan district attorney

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/02/18/crimes­iphones­and­encryption/no­smartphone­lies­beyond­the­reach­of­a­judicial­search­warrant

2/2Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-28 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:374

Exhibit AA

Privacy - Government Information Requests - Apple

1 of 3

http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-28 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:375

Privacy

Our Approach to Privacy

Manage Your Privacy

Government Information Requests

Our Privacy Policy

We believe security shouldn't come at
the expense of individual privacy.
We regularly receive requests for information about our customers and their Appledevices from law enforcement. We want to explain how we handle these requests.
When we receive information requests, we require that it be accompanied by theappropriate legal documents such as a subpoena or search warrant. We believe in being
as transparent as the law allows about what information is requested from us. We
carefully review any request to ensure that there's a valid legal basis for it. And we limit
our response to only the data law enforcement is legally entitled to for the
specific investigation.
Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a"backdoor"in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed any
government access to our servers. And we never will.

What we're most commonly asked forand how we respond.
The most common requests we receive for information from law enforcement are in relation to devices and/or accounts. Device
Requests generally seek information in relation to Apple devices, such as an iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Account Requests generally seek
information in regard to an Apple ID account and/or related Apple services or transactions. We also respond to emergency requests
worldwide where Apple believes in good faith that an emergency involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to
any person requires immediate disclosure.
All content requests require a search warrant. Only a small fraction of requests from law enforcement seek content such as email,photos, and other content stored on users' iCloud accounts. National security-related requests are not considered Device Requests
or Account Requests and are reported in a separate category.
On devices running iOS 8 and later versions, your personal data is placed under the protection of your passcode. For all devices

2/23/2016 6:28 PM

Privacy - Government Information Requests - Apple

2 of 3

http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-28 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:376
running iOS 8 and later versions, Apple will not perform iOS data extractions in response to government search warrants because
the files to be extracted are protected by an encryption key that is tied to the user's passcode, which Apple does not possess.

Device Requests
The vast majority of the requests Apple receives from law enforcement

Information Requests

come from an agency working on behalf of a customer who has requested
assistance locating a stolen device. We encourage any customer who
suspects their device is stolen to contact their respective law

Device Requests
Law enforcement seeking
a stolen device.

enforcement agency.
Account Requests
Responding to an Account Request most often involves providing
information about a customer's iCloud account. If we are legally compel led

Account Requests
Law enforcement seeking
personal information.

to divulge any information for an Account Request, we provide noticeto the customer when allowed and deliver the narrowest set of information
possible in response. Not only are a minuscule number of accounts actuallyaffected by information requests, but our stringent review meant Apple
only disclosed content in response to 27% of the total U.S. accountrequests we received during the period from July 1st, 2014 to June
30th,2015.

Less than

Read Apple's transparency reports>
Read Apple's guidelines for law enforcement requests
US >EMEIA >

Japan and APAC >0.00673%of customers have been affected bygovernment information requests.

National Security Orders fromthe U.S. government.
A tiny percentage of our millions of accounts is affected by national security-related requests. In the first six
months of 2015, we received between 750 and 999 of these requests. Though we would like to be more specific,
by law this is the most precise information we are currently allowed to disclose.

In its latest ·who Has Your Back?• report, once again the EFF
awarded Apple 5 out of 5 stars •commend[ing] Apple for its strong

from the Electronic Frontier Foundation

stance regarding user rights, transparency, and privacy.•

2/23/2016 6:28 PM

Privacy - Government Information Requests - Apple

3 of 3

http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-28 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:377

We're always working for greatertransparency and protections onbehalf of our customers.
We believe transparency and dialogue are the best ways for finding solutions to the overarching impact fromsurveillance laws and practices. We are continuing to engage with the White House, government regulators,
legislators, and courts around the world regarding the importance of protecting customer data and security.

•>

Privacy>

Government Information Requests

Shop and Lum

Apple StoreFor Edu<Btion

Account

About AppleMac

Find a StoreApple and Education

Manage Your Apple ID

Apple Info

Shop for College

Apple Store Account

Job Opportunities

il'cldGenius Bar

IPhoneWorkshops and Leaming

Watch

Youth Programs

For Buslnrss

TV

Apple Store App!Phone In BusinessApple V.lues

EventsMusic

Refurbishedll'cld In Business

Environment

Hot News

ITunesFinancing

Mac In BusinessSupplier Responslblllty

Legal

IPod

Reuse and Recycllng

Shop for Your Business

Accesslblllty

Contact Apple

Accessories

Order Status

Privacy

Gift Cards

Shopping Help

Inclusion and Diversity!Cloud.com

Press Info
Investors

Education
More~ to shop: Visit an Apple Store, call 1-aoe>-MY-APPLE, or find a reseller.

Copyright O 2016 Apple Im;. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Sales and Refunds

Site Map

United States

2/23/2016 6:28 PM

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-29 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:378

Exhibit BB2/24/2016

FBI Admits ItDocument
Urged Change Of
Apple ID Password
For Terrorist's Page
iPhone ­ BuzzFeed
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
16-29
Filed 02/25/16
2 of 6 News
Page ID #:379

News

PRO

MOT

Buzz

Life

QuizzesVideosMore

Get Our App!

EDFBI Admits It Urged Change Of AppleID Password For Terrorist’s iPhone
Apple executives face a court order to help create what the company calls a“backdoor” to the phone. [Update: San Bernardino County officials said the FBI had
requested the Apple ID password reset of Syed Farook’s phone, which the FBI
acknowledged Saturday night.]
Originally posted on Feb. 19, 2016, at 5:49 p.m.
Updated on Feb. 21, 2016, at 2:01 a.m.

John Paczkowski
Managing Editor, BuzzFeed San
Francisco

Chris Geidner
BuzzFeed News Reporter

In The News Today
Donald Trump is marching toward the
U.S. Republican presidential
nomination: He won last night's
Nevada caucuses ἟἟A small plane carrying 23 people has
crashed in Nepal due to bad weather.
There are no survivors, police say.
And do you want to give something
more than just a like? Facebook isrolling out five new reactions today inthe form of emojis ὠ

Get The News App

Security Guards At
German Refugee Camp
Accused Of Sexual
Assault
by Jina Moore
Connect With

USNewsAndrew Burton / Getty Images

Like Us On Facebook

The Apple ID password linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino
terrorists was changed soon after the government took possession of the device,Apple, San Bernardino County, and federal officials have acknowledged over the
past 48 hours. If that password change hadn’t happened, senior Apple executives
said on Friday afternoon, a backup of the information the government was seeking
may have been accessible.

Follow Us On Twitter

News moves fast. Keep up with
the BuzzFeed News daily email.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple­terrorists­appleid­passcode­changed­in­government­cust#.fdDER9K0dp

1/5

2/24/2016

FBI Admits ItDocument
Urged Change Of
Apple ID Password
For Terrorist's Page
iPhone ­ BuzzFeed
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
16-29
Filed 02/25/16
3 of 6 News
Page ID #:380

The dispute over retrieving the contents from Syed Rizwan Farook’s phone broke
into the open earlier this week, part of the government’s investigation into the Dec. 2,
2015, attacks that left 14 dead.
Now, the government, through a court
order, is demanding Apple build what
the company considers a special
backdoor way into the phone — an orderthat Apple is challenging. The
government argues Apple would not becreating a backdoor.
The Apple executives said the company
had been in regular discussions with thegovernment since early January, andthat it proposed four different ways torecover the information the governmentis interested in without building a
backdoor. One of those methods would
have involved connecting the iPhone toSyed Rizwan Farook FBI Handout / Getty Images
a known Wi-Fi network and triggering an
iCloud backup that might provide the FBI
with information stored to the device between the October 19th and the date of theincident.
Apple sent trusted engineers to attempt that method, the executives said, but they
were unable to do it. It was then that they discovered that the Apple ID password
associated with the iPhone had been changed sometime after the terrorist’s death —within 24 hours of the government taking possession of the phone. By changing the
password, the government foreclosed its ability to obtain a fresh copy of the mostrecent device data via this back-up-to-known-wifi method.

Your Email Address

Sign upMore News

Quinton Tellis Indicted For Capital
Murder In Burning Death Of Jessica
Chambers

Kalamazoo Shooting Suspect Admits
To Deadly Spree, Prosecutor Says

Arizona To Death Row Inmates: You
Don’t Have A Right To Go Viral

The FBI had claimed in a court filing on Friday that the password was changed bysomeone at the San Bernardino Health Department, writing, “[T]he owner, in an
attempt to gain access to some information in the hours after the attack, was able toreset the password remotely.”
On Friday night, however, the San Bernardino County’s official Twitter account stated,“The County was working cooperatively with the FBI when it reset the iCloud
password at the FBI’s request.”

CountyWire@CountyWire​

3 Dead, States Of Emergency Declared
As Tornadoes Sweep Southeast

Follow

The County was working cooperatively with the FBI when it reset
the iCloud password at the FBI's request.

Republicans Vow To Not Hold Hearings
On Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee

10:40 PM ­ 19 Feb 2016
308

210

County spokesman David Wert told BuzzFeed News on Saturday afternoon the tweet
was an authentic statement, but he had nothing further to add.
The Justice Department did not initially respond to repeated requests for comment.

Lark & Ro. Ava & Viv. Here's Why So
Many Fashion Labels Sound The Same

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple­terrorists­appleid­passcode­changed­in­government­cust#.fdDER9K0dp

2/5

2/24/2016

FBI Admits ItDocument
Urged Change Of
Apple ID Password
For Terrorist's Page
iPhone ­ BuzzFeed
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
16-29
Filed 02/25/16
4 of 6 News
Page ID #:381

Late Saturday night, more than 24 hours after Apple’s Friday briefing, the FBI
confirmed the county’s account in a statement. “The FBI worked with San Bernardino
County to reset the iCloud password on December 6th, as the county owned theaccount and was able to reset the password in order to provide immediate access tothe iCloud backup data,” the agency said in a statement.
The FBI downplayed the effect of the password reset, however, claiming that it“[does] not impact Apple’s ability to assist with the the court order under the All Writs
Act,” and adding that “the government’s objective was, and still is, to extract as muchevidence as possible from the phone.”
A senior Apple engineer countered the FBI’s assertions late Saturday night telling
BuzzFeed News that the agency’s explanation acknowledged that its changing of the
Farook’s Apple ID password prevented the auto backup and that such backups doindeed have value. As such, the engineer continued, the reset closed off an avenue
through which the FBI might have been able to gather information.
Had this password not been changed, Apple senior executives said Friday, thegovernment might not have needed to demand the company create a “backdoor” toaccess the iPhone used by Farook, who died in a shootout with law enforcement
after the attack. Following up on a court order that had been granted earlier in theweek, the Department of Justice filed a motion to compel Apple to create thebackdoor earlier Friday.
The Apple senior executives spoke with reporters on Friday afternoon to respond to
the government’s filing, noting that the government had opened the door to
discussion of Apple’s prior efforts in the case by disclosing those actions in its Friday
filing.
Creating backdoor access to Farook’s iPhone, the executives said, would put at risk
the privacy of millions of users. It would not only serve to unlock one specific phone,they said, but create a sort of master key that could be used to access any number ofdevices. The government says the access being sought could only be used on
Farook’s device, but Apple’s executives said that there is widespread interest in an
iPhone backdoor, noting that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said Thursdaythat his office has 175 Apple devices he’d like cracked. Apple’s executives also
claimed that no other government in the world — China included — has ever asked
the company for the sort of FBiOS the government is demanding that it build now.

Kesha’s Attorney Says Dr. Luke Is “OutTo Destroy Her”

This Woman Is Fighting Zika By
Dumping Mutant Mosquitoes Out Of A
Van

Utah Senate Committee, Led By
Republicans, Passes Bill To End The
Death Penalty
More News

Now Buzzing

21 Things Every Couple Who Really
Loves Food Will UnderstandAsked why the company is pushing back so hard against this particular FBI request
when it has assisted the agency in the past, Apple executives noted that the San
Bernadino case is fundamentally different from others in which it was involved. Apple
has never before been asked to build an entirely new version of its iOS operating
system designed to disable iPhone security measures.
The Apple senior executives also pushed back on the government’s arguments that
Apple’s actions were a marketing ploy, saying they were instead based on their love
for the country and desire not to see civil liberties tossed aside.

These Two Tests Will Reveal Your Sex
Strength And Weakness

The U.S. Department of Justice has not yet responded to a request for comment.

UPDATE
This story was updated on Saturday to include information regarding a statement
issued by San Bernardino County. Feb. 20, 2016, at 2:51 p.m.

25 Adorable Pairs Of Rain Boots That
You Could Wear All Day

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple­terrorists­appleid­passcode­changed­in­government­cust#.fdDER9K0dp

3/5

2/24/2016

FBI Admits ItDocument
Urged Change Of
Apple ID Password
For Terrorist's Page
iPhone ­ BuzzFeed
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
16-29
Filed 02/25/16
5 of 6 News
Page ID #:382

UPDATE
This story was updated early Sunday morning with news information provided by
the FBI and a response from an Apple official. Feb. 21, 2016, at 2:01 a.m.

This Skillet Mac And Cheese Is The
Ultimate Easy Meal
PRO

MOT

ED

11 Actually Interesting Selfie Facts
Everyone Should Know But Doesn’t

DOJ Calls Apple’s Refusal To Unlock iPhone A
Marketing Stuntbuzzfeed.com

Apple’s FBI Privacy Fight Is A Battle For Our Trust

21 Cheap And Easy Decorating Tricks
For Rentersbuzzfeed.com

PRO

Apple Helped The Government Extract Data Before.
Here’s Why Things Are Different Now

MOT

ED

buzzfeed.com

What Is Your Oscars® IQ?
John Paczkowski is the managing editor for BuzzFeed San Francisco. Formerly deputy
managing editor for Re/code and AllThingsD, he's been covering the intersection oftechnology and culture since 1997.
Contact John Paczkowski at John.Paczkowski@buzzfeed.com.
Chris Geidner is the legal editor for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, D.C. In
2014, Geidner won the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association award for journalistof the year.
Contact Chris Geidner at chris.geidner@buzzfeed.com.

Maximus The Police Dog Is The
Adorable Instagram Account You Need
To Follow

More ▾

NEXT ON BUZZFEED NEWS›

Let’s Not Get Carried Away With That
“Trump Won Latinos” Entrance Poll

Meet Blindy, The
Inspirational Blind
Penguin Who Is...

21 Of The Best Subscription Boxes For
Beauty And Health Addicts
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple­terrorists­appleid­passcode­changed­in­government­cust#.fdDER9K0dp

4/5

2/24/2016

FBI Admits ItDocument
Urged Change Of
Apple ID Password
For Terrorist's Page
iPhone ­ BuzzFeed
Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP
16-29
Filed 02/25/16
6 of 6 News
Page ID #:383

Which Awards Show Blunder Is
Basically You Always?
Celebrity faux pas are all of us...just in nicer
clothes. Make sure to stay on top of all the mustsee moments this awards season with DIRECTV.
PROMOTED BY

Facebook Rolls Out Reaction Buttons
Today

DIRECTV

MORE BUZZ

Date Set For Apple-FBI Court
Showdown Over Terrorist’s iPhone
Former Virginia Cab Driver Turned FBI Most-Wanted
Terrorist Reportedly Detained In Somalia
Boston Terrorist Suspect Says ISIS Is “Doing A Good
Thing”

23 Things Everyone Did On The School
Computers

Did The FBI Transform This Teenager Into A Terrorist
After Reading His Emails?

Tagged:apple, applefbi, fbi, syed farook

16 Adorable Pet Names Couples HaveFor Each Other
More Buzz

Advertise Jobs Mobile Newsletter

US Edition

About Press RSS Privacy User Terms Ad Choices Help Contact© 2016 BuzzFeed, Inc

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple­terrorists­appleid­passcode­changed­in­government­cust#.fdDER9K0dp

5/5

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-30 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:384

Exhibit CC

Document
16-30
Filed 02/25/16
Page- 2Theof 4Page ID#:385
FBICaseasked5:16-cm-00010-SP
San Bernardino to reset
the password
for shooter’sphone backup
Washin...
Page
1 of 3National Security

FBI asked San Bernardino to reset the password forshooter’s phone backup
By Ellen Nakashima and Mark Berman February 20

In the chaotic aftermath of the shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., in December, FBI investigators
seeking to recover data from the iPhone of one of the shooters asked a technician in the California county
to reset the phone’s iCloud password.
But that action foreclosed the possibility of an automatic backup to the Apple iCloud servers that might
have turned up more clues to the origins of the terrorist attack that killed 14 people.
“The county and the FBI were working together cooperatively to obtain data, and at the point when it
became clear the only way to accomplish the task at hand was to reset the iCloud password, the FBI asked
the county to do so, and the county complied,” David Wert, a spokesman for San Bernardino County, saidin an email.
The Justice Department disclosed the apparent misstep in a court filing Friday, which is part of a larger,
high-stakes battle over whether the government can use the courts to force Apple to create software tohelp it unlock a customer’s iPhone — in this case, one used by Syed Rizwan Farook. Farook, a county
health worker, and his wife were killed in a firefight with police hours after the Dec. 2 attack.
“This was happening hours after the worst terror attack since 9/11, and there were still credible reports ofa third shooter,” said a federal law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to
discuss an ongoing investigation. “It was a very dynamic time, and the number one priority was figuring
out what happened and if there were more attacks coming.”
According to senior Apple executives, the FBI’s first call to Apple for help came on Saturday, Dec. 5, at
2.46 a.m. With a subpoena, the bureau obtained subscriber data and other details. On Sunday, the FBI,
with a warrant, obtained data from Farook’s iPhone that had been backed up to iCloud. That backup
contained information only through Oct. 19, six weeks before the attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-asked-san-bernardino-to-rese... 2/23/2016

Document
16-30
Filed 02/25/16
Page- 3Theof 4Page ID#:386
FBICaseasked5:16-cm-00010-SP
San Bernardino to reset
the password
for shooter’sphone backup
Washin...
Page
2 of 3The same Sunday, the FBI asked the county for help in retrieving data from the phone, Wert said in aninterview. “So the county said we could get to the information on the cloud if we changed the password or
had Apple change the password,” he said. “The FBI asked us to do that, and we did.”
It is not clear why the FBI needed to reset the password if it was able to obtain the backed-up data fromApple.
Nonetheless, by resetting the password, the county, which owned Farook’s phone, and the FBI eliminatedthe possibility of seeing whether additional data beyond Oct. 19 might be recovered from the phonethrough the auto-backup feature, experts said.
The FBI in a court filing said Farook “may have disabled” the auto-backup. But, tech experts said, there
might be other reasons the phone did not back up: It was not near a WiFi network it was familiar with,such as his home or workplace, or it was not turned on long enough to back up. With the password
changed, it is impossible to know.
“Even though it has been reported that the iCloud backups were disabled, there still is data that may havebeen recoverable,” said security expert Dan Guido, chief executive of Trail of Bits. Depending on thephone’s settings, it might have synched notes, emails, address books — perhaps geolocation data — withthe company’s network.
In a statement Saturday night, an FBI spokesperson said the bureau’s goal “was, and still is,” to extract asmuch evidence as possible from the phone. Tests previously conducted by the FBI showed that “direct
data extraction” from Apple’s mobile devices often yields more data than an iCloud backup, thespokesperson said.
“Even if the password had not been changed and Apple could have turned on the auto-backup and loaded
it to the cloud, there might be information on the phone that would not be accessible” without Apple’s
help, the spokesperson said.
The showdown between Apple and the government arises out of the FBI’s inability to recover data from
Farook’s phone, especially for the weeks prior to the attack. The Justice Department on Tuesday got afederal judge to order Apple to build software to override an auto-wipe feature on the phone that deletes
data after 10 failed tries to enter a password. The FBI could then try to crack the phone’s password by“brute force,” making many attempts without risking the wiping of the data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-asked-san-bernardino-to-rese... 2/23/2016

Document
16-30
Filed 02/25/16
Page- 4Theof 4Page ID#:387
FBICaseasked5:16-cm-00010-SP
San Bernardino to reset
the password
for shooter’sphone backup
Washin...
Page
3 of 3
Apple chief executive Tim Cook said the firm would challenge the order, warning that it would set a“chilling” precedent that could lead to more invasive requests for data. On Friday, the Justice Department
fired back, charging that Apple’s stance was motivated by “marketing” concerns as it promotes itself as aprotector of consumer privacy.

Ellen Nakashima is a national security reporter for The Washington Post. She
focuses on issues relating to intelligence, technology and civil liberties.

Mark Berman covers national news for The Washington Post and anchors Post
Nation, a destination for breaking news and stories from around the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-asked-san-bernardino-to-rese... 2/23/2016

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 88 Page ID #:388

Exhibit DD

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 88 Page ID #:389

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 88 Page ID #:390

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 88 Page ID #:391

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 88 Page ID #:392

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 88 Page ID #:393

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 88 Page ID #:394

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 88 Page ID #:395

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 88 Page ID #:396

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 88 Page ID #:397

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 88 Page ID #:398

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 88 Page ID #:399

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 88 Page ID #:400

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 14 of 88 Page ID #:401

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 15 of 88 Page ID #:402

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 16 of 88 Page ID #:403

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 17 of 88 Page ID #:404

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 18 of 88 Page ID #:405

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 19 of 88 Page ID #:406

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 20 of 88 Page ID #:407

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 21 of 88 Page ID #:408

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 22 of 88 Page ID #:409

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 23 of 88 Page ID #:410

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 24 of 88 Page ID #:411

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 25 of 88 Page ID #:412

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 26 of 88 Page ID #:413

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 27 of 88 Page ID #:414

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 28 of 88 Page ID #:415

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 29 of 88 Page ID #:416

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 30 of 88 Page ID #:417

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 31 of 88 Page ID #:418

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 32 of 88 Page ID #:419

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 33 of 88 Page ID #:420

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 34 of 88 Page ID #:421

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 35 of 88 Page ID #:422

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 36 of 88 Page ID #:423

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 37 of 88 Page ID #:424

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 38 of 88 Page ID #:425

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 39 of 88 Page ID #:426

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 40 of 88 Page ID #:427

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 41 of 88 Page ID #:428

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 42 of 88 Page ID #:429

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 43 of 88 Page ID #:430

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 44 of 88 Page ID #:431

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 45 of 88 Page ID #:432

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 46 of 88 Page ID #:433

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 47 of 88 Page ID #:434

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 48 of 88 Page ID #:435

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 49 of 88 Page ID #:436

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 50 of 88 Page ID #:437

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 51 of 88 Page ID #:438

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 52 of 88 Page ID #:439

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 53 of 88 Page ID #:440

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 54 of 88 Page ID #:441

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 55 of 88 Page ID #:442

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 56 of 88 Page ID #:443

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 57 of 88 Page ID #:444

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 58 of 88 Page ID #:445

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 59 of 88 Page ID #:446

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 60 of 88 Page ID #:447

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 61 of 88 Page ID #:448

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 62 of 88 Page ID #:449

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 63 of 88 Page ID #:450

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 64 of 88 Page ID #:451

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 65 of 88 Page ID #:452

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 66 of 88 Page ID #:453

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 67 of 88 Page ID #:454

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 68 of 88 Page ID #:455

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 69 of 88 Page ID #:456

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 70 of 88 Page ID #:457

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 71 of 88 Page ID #:458

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 72 of 88 Page ID #:459

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 73 of 88 Page ID #:460

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 74 of 88 Page ID #:461

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 75 of 88 Page ID #:462

1
10th [2] - 27:10, 28:12
11201 [1] - 1:18
11:30 [1] - 1:12
15 [2] - 1:8, 2:10
15-CR-088 [1] - 72:5
1789 [3] - 19:10, 19:13, 53:17
1900 [1] - 1:23
1902 [2] - 1:8, 2:10
1946 [1] - 53:17
1949 [1] - 19:15
1968 [1] - 49:14
1970 [3] - 27:10, 49:4, 49:7

2
20036 [1] - 1:23
2008 [2] - 8:9, 8:21
2014 [2] - 5:15, 6:19
2015 [3] - 1:12, 3:12, 6:19
225 [1] - 2:1
26 [1] - 1:12
271 [1] - 1:18

330 [1] - 18:21
390 [1] - 58:18
3rd [1] - 3:13

4
41 [4] - 30:10, 69:16, 70:7
429 [1] - 27:10
434-to-1 [1] - 16:3
435 [2] - 16:7, 16:14
4S [1] - 63:6

5535 [1] - 15:16

6613-2538 [1] - 2:2
66 [1] - 27:10
6th [2] - 6:5, 7:6

7
7 [4] - 20:14, 20:16, 33:25, 58:15
7.0 [2] - 63:6, 63:13
70 [3] - 8:10, 58:7, 61:10
70-cases [1] - 24:19

718 [1] - 2:2

8
8 [4] - 20:25, 58:16, 63:1, 63:2
8.1.2 [3] - 4:17, 33:20, 63:8
8th [1] - 43:21

99 [3] - 3:12, 58:16, 63:3

A
a.m [1] - 1:12
ability [3] - 16:23, 63:12, 63:13
able [6] - 4:5, 17:2, 34:1, 46:13, 59:16,
66:4
abroad [1] - 43:13
absence [1] - 50:8
academic [1] - 36:15
accept [1] - 37:12
accepted [1] - 61:23
access [13] - 10:8, 10:9, 10:10, 13:6,
16:10, 21:2, 50:25, 53:20, 63:13, 63:20,
64:25, 70:12
accessed [2] - 4:10, 32:1
accessing [4] - 59:20, 59:21, 60:11,
60:12
accommodate [1] - 7:20
accompanied [1] - 22:3
accomplish [1] - 57:10
account [1] - 15:4
achieved [1] - 37:3
acknowledge [2] - 11:20, 21:6
act [4] - 14:22, 16:19, 26:3
Act [62] - 15:5, 15:13, 15:22, 16:17,
17:20, 18:14, 18:22, 19:4, 19:8, 19:9,
19:10, 20:24, 26:13, 26:17, 26:22,
27:14, 28:1, 28:5, 28:9, 29:17, 30:3,
30:7, 31:16, 31:18, 31:20, 34:14, 35:8,
36:14, 36:17, 36:21, 37:10, 39:3, 43:13,
43:19, 44:21, 45:11, 48:4, 48:11, 49:11,
49:18, 51:14, 53:12, 53:16, 53:22,
57:14, 57:17, 58:24, 60:21, 62:1, 64:4,
64:6, 65:7, 66:14, 66:18, 68:20, 69:7,
69:14, 69:15, 70:1, 70:8, 70:12
Act's [1] - 18:23
acted [1] - 49:14
action [7] - 14:19, 15:3, 32:25, 39:6,
40:9, 41:2, 57:5
actions [1] - 41:8
activated [1] - 72:13
active [1] - 42:14
activity [1] - 54:16
actor [2] - 47:22, 53:5
actual [8] - 14:19, 15:7, 28:23, 30:17,
38:21, 41:15, 68:20, 69:1

add [2] - 11:7, 68:15
additional [1] - 72:6
address [7] - 17:3, 21:17, 54:7, 54:13,
58:9, 61:13, 62:19
addressed [2] - 21:24, 46:17
addresses [2] - 38:17, 38:18
addressing [2] - 38:23, 47:4
administration [1] - 66:10
admissible [1] - 32:9
admittedly [1] - 67:21
advantageous [2] - 66:23, 66:24
advertisement [2] - 66:3, 67:3
advertising [1] - 63:12
advised [1] - 72:10
advocacy [1] - 72:25
affect [1] - 14:6
affects [1] - 20:1
affirmatively [1] - 40:6
afford [1] - 4:22
Affordable [2] - 18:22, 18:23
afforded [1] - 28:8
afraid [1] - 69:22
agencies [3] - 6:25, 7:12, 35:3
agency [1] - 35:10
agenda [2] - 18:13, 20:5
agent [3] - 33:15, 59:2, 71:25
agents [4] - 4:4, 5:10, 6:9, 51:12
ago [6] - 5:13, 6:3, 9:15, 23:9, 36:17,
60:3
agree [6] - 6:15, 9:24, 37:16, 52:5,
63:17, 64:16
agreeable [4] - 37:3, 37:4, 38:11
agreement [3] - 17:15, 42:6, 42:8
ahead [5] - 20:20, 53:6, 61:9, 64:21,
67:18
aid [1] - 70:2
aided [1] - 2:4
airplane [1] - 6:9
AL [1] - 1:7
alerted [1] - 3:8
Alito [1] - 43:5
allegation [1] - 40:5
allow [6] - 4:1, 16:2, 26:17, 33:22,
67:13, 70:11
allowing [1] - 37:15
allows [3] - 29:23, 33:12, 35:7
almost [2] - 48:23, 66:3
alone [2] - 32:2, 33:12
alternate [1] - 62:13
alternative [1] - 62:16
alternatives [2] - 7:9, 19:22
Ameet [1] - 2:17
AMEET [1] - 1:20
amended [1] - 53:17
amending [1] - 53:8
Amendment [1] - 43:21
amendments [1] - 53:8
American [4] - 9:20, 11:8, 47:19
Americans [5] - 11:16, 12:1, 12:2,

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 76 of 88 Page ID #:463

13:9, 13:17
amount [1] - 70:11
analogies [1] - 42:25
analogous [2] - 54:4, 71:19
analogy [1] - 44:6
analysis [9] - 14:5, 25:25, 26:3, 26:6,
27:17, 30:12, 42:20, 43:17, 44:6
analytic [1] - 31:1
analytically [3] - 26:15, 26:22, 49:5
anew [1] - 43:15
announce [1] - 12:20
announced [1] - 13:3
answer [6] - 5:5, 23:25, 27:4, 28:19,
39:11, 60:19
antiquated [1] - 19:10
anyway [3] - 6:3, 26:9, 29:4
apartment [1] - 51:7
apologize [2] - 24:6, 47:9
appeal [1] - 10:19
appearances [1] - 2:13
APPEARANCES [1] - 1:16
apple [1] - 28:24
APPLE [1] - 1:4
Apple [111] - 1:22, 2:10, 2:21, 6:20,
7:14, 7:15, 7:18, 7:20, 7:23, 8:9, 8:12,
8:20, 8:22, 9:3, 9:10, 9:13, 9:14, 9:15,
10:6, 10:14, 10:20, 10:21, 10:23, 11:3,
11:10, 11:17, 12:10, 12:13, 12:18, 13:6,
13:9, 13:12, 13:24, 17:24, 20:16, 21:16,
23:7, 23:11, 24:7, 24:8, 24:23, 25:18,
28:22, 29:17, 29:21, 30:1, 30:18, 30:22,
31:11, 32:13, 32:14, 32:21, 32:25, 33:8,
33:23, 35:25, 39:22, 40:6, 41:1, 41:9,
41:12, 41:13, 41:16, 42:11, 42:17,
47:23, 48:15, 50:13, 50:17, 50:18,
52:12, 54:19, 54:20, 55:10, 55:12,
55:14, 55:16, 55:21, 55:22, 56:24, 57:1,
57:2, 57:3, 58:5, 58:11, 58:14, 58:16,
58:18, 58:19, 58:23, 58:24, 59:15,
59:18, 60:3, 60:10, 60:11, 62:2, 62:3,
62:5, 62:10, 62:17, 63:2, 63:19, 64:9,
64:16, 66:20, 67:20
Apple's [13] - 7:13, 8:5, 9:16, 9:18,
24:21, 25:5, 25:6, 25:9, 25:16, 29:12,
42:21, 59:19, 69:2
applicability [6] - 14:22, 26:8, 26:16,
27:19, 28:10, 31:3
applicable [1] - 43:20
application [11] - 5:17, 5:21, 5:24, 6:2,
9:6, 13:4, 20:14, 28:5, 31:16, 49:6, 70:5
Application [1] - 69:5
applications [2] - 55:25, 56:12
applied [1] - 8:3
applies [1] - 26:4
apply [3] - 20:24, 26:3, 65:7
applying [1] - 7:16
appreciate [4] - 3:2, 12:10, 47:4, 48:24
approach [3] - 37:11, 37:13
appropriate [2] - 27:17, 70:2
area [3] - 30:25, 43:20, 61:18

argue [1] - 64:11
argued [2] - 69:18, 69:20
argument [11] - 2:9, 11:15, 13:17,
23:20, 39:16, 39:20, 42:21, 61:15,
64:23, 66:3, 67:22
ARGUMENT [1] - 1:14
arguments [6] - 42:5, 50:15, 53:25,
59:4, 60:16, 68:9
aside [1] - 10:19
assertion [1] - 3:16
ASSIST [1] - 1:5
assist [8] - 8:10, 26:25, 38:25, 41:24,
52:11, 65:3, 69:5, 70:14
Assist [1] - 2:11
assistance [26] - 6:20, 7:11, 7:13, 8:2,
9:12, 9:14, 9:16, 12:15, 14:13, 24:7,
26:23, 27:15, 27:16, 28:8, 36:1, 49:13,
49:15, 50:3, 65:14, 68:20, 68:25, 69:8,
69:10, 70:19, 72:1
assistant [2] - 16:22, 33:18
Assistant [3] - 1:21, 2:17, 72:5
assisting [1] - 10:8
assume [4] - 6:17, 12:17, 16:16, 20:9
assuming [3] - 20:6, 42:19, 66:14
AT&T [1] - 21:9
atmosphere [1] - 10:1
attached [4] - 5:16, 5:20, 5:24, 6:1
attack [1] - 58:20
attempted [1] - 7:1
attempting [1] - 6:8
attempts [2] - 42:16, 72:13
attention [4] - 3:7, 3:15, 3:23, 4:21
Attorney [1] - 1:17
Attorneys [2] - 1:21, 2:18
Attorneys' [1] - 35:5
AUSA [1] - 72:21
authenticate [2] - 24:11, 32:7
authentication [2] - 63:25, 64:17
authorities [2] - 53:14, 66:22
authority [33] - 9:9, 9:10, 13:5, 16:1,
17:14, 17:20, 18:5, 18:10, 18:20, 19:5,
20:3, 29:20, 38:19, 50:9, 52:3, 55:12,
56:8, 57:15, 58:24, 60:22, 62:1, 65:10,
66:21, 67:4, 67:14, 67:20, 68:6, 68:20,
69:13, 69:15, 69:16, 70:12, 70:18
authorization [1] - 54:23
authorize [1] - 14:15
authorized [1] - 52:3
availability [1] - 44:21
available [14] - 7:9, 8:12, 26:10, 30:4,
31:4, 35:4, 42:18, 55:9, 55:23, 61:5,
61:11, 61:20, 61:22, 62:13
aware [10] - 12:17, 16:16, 16:18,
16:25, 58:11, 63:2, 63:3, 63:10, 63:11,
67:16

B
back-door [2] - 66:11, 66:16

backdoor [4] - 12:21, 12:23, 12:24,
13:21
backdrop [1] - 54:15
background [3] - 16:18, 20:7, 20:8
badly [1] - 38:9
bag [1] - 33:2
balance [1] - 53:19
balk [1] - 13:10
ban [2] - 14:13, 16:10
bank [2] - 40:23, 41:8
bar [2] - 55:6, 64:4
bargain [1] - 65:19
bark [1] - 58:8
based [8] - 8:13, 11:2, 12:8, 12:12,
33:24, 34:3, 45:21, 46:24
basic [5] - 3:15, 12:25, 13:19, 13:21,
13:23
basis [10] - 24:2, 40:25, 60:13, 60:14,
60:16, 60:23, 65:6, 69:15, 70:4, 70:7
Battington [2] - 27:21, 28:2
become [2] - 9:3, 59:1
becomes [1] - 60:20
BEFORE [1] - 1:14
began [1] - 6:9
behalf [2] - 34:4, 34:6
belatedly [1] - 49:2
bells [1] - 67:15
best [2] - 11:22, 11:24
better [4] - 13:2, 66:17, 66:20, 72:21
between [4] - 42:22, 44:9, 51:16, 53:19
beyond [3] - 21:1, 37:5, 57:21
bi [1] - 4:8
bi-code [1] - 4:8
big [2] - 58:6, 58:7
bigger [1] - 65:24
biggest [1] - 9:4
bill [8] - 16:1, 16:2, 17:13, 17:15,
17:18, 18:1, 18:12, 18:21
bills [8] - 14:18, 15:18, 16:9, 16:11,
17:6, 17:7, 18:19
bit [3] - 6:16, 10:13, 71:10
blanking [1] - 67:12
block [1] - 32:18
blogs [1] - 12:18
Board [2] - 27:9, 28:13
board [1] - 27:22
boilerplate [2] - 55:25
boundaries [1] - 37:22
bounds [1] - 52:6
Bower [1] - 33:15
Brady [1] - 35:17
brand [7] - 9:19, 11:10, 11:12, 12:6,
13:25, 14:2, 14:7
break [5] - 17:24, 25:14, 59:9, 62:18,
63:2
brief [9] - 3:19, 6:20, 6:24, 9:22, 10:3,
10:6, 32:21, 42:5, 66:2
briefing [4] - 2:25, 4:19, 7:20, 28:17
briefly [1] - 32:21

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 77 of 88 Page ID #:464

briefs [1] - 24:1
bring [4] - 3:7, 3:15, 3:22, 45:16
brings [1] - 3:16
broad [1] - 9:9
broader [1] - 66:8
broadest [1] - 34:5
broadly [2] - 3:20, 37:19
broke [1] - 63:6
Brooklyn [3] - 1:11, 1:18, 2:2
brought [1] - 69:12
build [1] - 52:10
built [2] - 58:14, 60:11
burden [32] - 8:17, 9:4, 11:4, 12:4,
12:6, 12:7, 13:13, 14:1, 19:22, 24:5,
25:11, 25:15, 26:6, 26:7, 26:18, 26:22,
27:17, 27:19, 30:22, 31:2, 35:25, 43:23,
47:17, 47:18, 53:23, 57:17, 59:5, 61:15,
64:12, 64:18, 71:7, 71:10
burdens [1] - 57:21
burdensome [3] - 30:1, 55:8, 65:24
business [9] - 26:10, 44:1, 51:9,
54:17, 59:19, 59:21, 59:22, 60:10, 62:7
buy [1] - 68:5
buying [1] - 66:3
BY [3] - 1:7, 1:19, 1:24
bypass [12] - 4:7, 6:11, 7:17, 25:21,
25:22, 29:22, 30:18, 39:4, 39:5, 46:25,
59:17, 69:1
bypassing [2] - 8:6, 41:24

Ccab [1] - 27:23
Cadman [2] - 1:18, 2:1
CALEA [19] - 21:8, 21:9, 21:17, 21:18,
21:23, 22:3, 23:8, 37:19, 38:14, 38:17,
38:22, 52:5, 52:6, 52:8, 53:5, 53:7,
65:12, 65:18, 65:19
Calea's [2] - 21:13, 23:15
cannot [5] - 21:2, 34:16, 58:17, 58:18,
59:2
capability [5] - 9:10, 21:19, 30:17,
34:11, 34:25
capable [3] - 22:11, 39:5, 40:11
CAPERS [1] - 1:17
capture [1] - 26:12
car [1] - 27:23
card [10] - 31:21, 31:22, 31:23, 31:25,
32:1, 40:18, 40:21, 51:5, 51:6
cards [1] - 27:3
care [1] - 58:6
Care [2] - 18:22, 18:23
carrier [3] - 21:14, 22:7, 23:16
carriers [2] - 21:19, 22:4
carry [1] - 20:16
carrying [3] - 9:12, 21:12, 44:2
carves [1] - 37:21
case [57] - 3:11, 4:11, 4:14, 4:15, 4:16,
5:8, 6:25, 9:6, 9:16, 10:14, 10:16,

10:20, 18:1, 20:10, 25:13, 25:21, 26:23,
27:21, 33:18, 33:20, 35:3, 40:17, 40:18,
40:19, 40:20, 41:3, 41:13, 43:17, 45:21,
48:14, 49:4, 49:8, 49:15, 49:21, 50:1,
50:3, 50:11, 56:3, 62:23, 63:15, 64:10,
67:11, 69:12, 69:14, 69:18, 69:20,
69:23, 70:16, 70:21, 71:1, 71:12, 71:19,
72:3, 72:5, 72:11, 72:12
cases [20] - 15:23, 24:7, 24:20, 24:24,
25:4, 25:7, 25:18, 25:23, 26:13, 27:1,
27:2, 27:4, 27:8, 29:1, 43:6, 51:2,
51:14, 55:24, 69:4, 69:6
cast [1] - 39:20
catch [1] - 41:7
categorical [1] - 28:9
categorically [1] - 48:7
category [2] - 26:16, 26:18
cell [1] - 61:19
cellphone [1] - 41:17
cellphones [3] - 7:4, 7:6, 8:7
cellular [1] - 4:8
cents [1] - 47:22
certain [9] - 33:20, 33:22, 52:9, 57:2,
63:24, 64:25, 65:13, 70:11
cetera [1] - 19:23
challenge [3] - 56:15, 56:19, 60:3
challenged [2] - 55:10, 57:18
challenging [1] - 59:15
chance [3] - 50:13, 50:14, 72:16
change [1] - 48:20
changes [1] - 67:9
characteristics [1] - 26:12
characterize [1] - 68:24
characterized [1] - 28:21
choose [2] - 36:12, 36:23
chosen [1] - 65:17
Circuit [7] - 27:10, 28:12, 35:17, 49:4,
49:7, 49:8, 49:23
circumstance [1] - 71:22
circumvent [2] - 53:18, 53:22
cited [7] - 16:9, 16:20, 26:13, 27:2,
49:5, 51:15, 69:4
cites [6] - 15:19, 27:1, 27:8, 27:20,
49:16, 51:3
citizen [1] - 28:3
citizens [1] - 11:16
civil [1] - 2:9
claim [1] - 67:8
clarify [2] - 32:20, 62:20
classic [1] - 23:16
clean [1] - 31:1
clear [18] - 3:3, 4:15, 10:3, 16:21,
16:22, 17:17, 30:15, 57:3, 57:10, 59:8,
60:13, 60:14, 60:20, 60:22, 60:25, 62:1,
68:7, 69:25
clearest [2] - 27:21, 27:24
clearly [8] - 21:9, 27:18, 35:18, 37:22,
49:21, 55:5, 55:17, 64:5
CLERK [1] - 2:9

close [7] - 3:3, 38:23, 40:18, 43:23,
47:3, 64:3, 71:10
closely [4] - 39:18, 45:16, 46:5, 46:7
code [14] - 3:19, 4:5, 4:8, 4:9, 7:17,
25:14, 30:18, 39:4, 41:15, 42:14, 46:25,
72:7, 72:11
codes [1] - 4:2
codified [1] - 18:1
cognizable [1] - 14:19
coherent [2] - 38:1, 38:8
colleague [1] - 2:22
colleagues [2] - 3:8, 5:1
combination [1] - 29:5
combined [1] - 29:3
command [1] - 28:4
commanding [1] - 5:10
comment [6] - 11:8, 11:9, 11:10, 12:4,
56:20, 59:18
commented [1] - 15:17
commerce [1] - 51:10
committee [3] - 15:20, 16:12, 17:7
common [1] - 41:10
communicated [1] - 62:10
communications [8] - 21:20, 22:5,
22:9, 22:11, 51:22, 61:21, 61:24, 64:25
community [1] - 36:5
companies [3] - 9:21, 16:23, 43:6
companion [2] - 40:22, 41:6
company [29] - 9:4, 9:23, 11:9, 11:11,
13:6, 13:9, 14:3, 14:4, 17:2, 17:24,
31:21, 39:4, 43:4, 43:7, 43:24, 44:15,
44:16, 44:24, 45:1, 45:16, 45:25, 46:6,
47:19, 48:2, 51:5, 51:6, 58:6, 64:8, 69:5
company's [3] - 40:14, 41:11, 45:23
comparable [2] - 41:2, 41:9
compel [2] - 48:4, 48:6
compelled [6] - 43:12, 54:20, 55:15,
57:4, 57:11, 59:10
compelling [1] - 48:7
compensation [2] - 57:25, 58:2
competing [1] - 11:19
complete [1] - 6:10
completely [3] - 47:12, 48:23, 52:6
complex [1] - 51:7
complicated [2] - 30:25, 50:6
complied [2] - 8:11, 10:15
complies [1] - 12:10
comply [6] - 10:21, 10:24, 11:17,
60:12, 61:4, 62:8
complying [5] - 8:24, 12:14, 59:5,
61:6, 61:12
comports [1] - 19:11
comprehensive [5] - 25:1, 38:15,
38:18, 38:24, 65:12
compromise [1] - 58:21
compromising [1] - 54:11
computer [1] - 2:4
computer-aided [1] - 2:4
concede [1] - 43:20

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 78 of 88 Page ID #:465

conceived [1] - 69:9
concern [4] - 9:19, 18:24, 38:13, 48:19
concerned [1] - 48:18
concerns [2] - 30:23, 63:1
concession [1] - 57:14
concluded [1] - 73:16
conclusions [1] - 52:7
condone [1] - 11:11
conducting [1] - 39:5
confer [1] - 16:1
conferring [1] - 17:14
confidence [1] - 60:1
confidential [2] - 64:8, 64:14
configured [1] - 63:24
confusingly [1] - 27:20
Congress [51] - 13:5, 13:11, 14:12,
14:15, 15:8, 15:10, 15:15, 15:16, 15:25,
16:10, 16:13, 16:16, 16:25, 17:5, 17:13,
18:4, 18:8, 18:9, 18:19, 18:24, 19:5,
19:14, 19:17, 20:2, 20:4, 20:7, 20:23,
22:4, 36:18, 37:1, 37:14, 38:3, 38:7,
49:14, 51:18, 51:25, 52:2, 52:4, 53:7,
53:10, 53:15, 53:20, 64:23, 65:8, 65:10,
65:11, 65:17, 66:15, 66:23, 66:24
congressional [1] - 37:12
Congressional [17] - 14:17, 14:18,
14:24, 15:3, 16:3, 16:6, 17:18, 18:6,
18:17, 18:18, 21:4, 21:5, 39:6, 49:3,
49:20, 49:25, 65:5
connected [2] - 46:6, 46:7
connection [4] - 40:13, 40:19, 45:21,
71:11
connects [1] - 33:3
conscience [1] - 47:24
conscientious [2] - 48:5, 48:15
conscript [2] - 34:23, 60:23
conscripted [3] - 28:7, 37:23, 59:22
conscripting [2] - 27:22, 43:1
conscription [1] - 51:13
consider [8] - 8:1, 9:17, 20:3, 30:15,
47:11, 47:14, 48:12, 65:17
consideration [1] - 27:17
considered [1] - 60:15
considering [4] - 15:10, 18:19, 22:8,
45:12
consistency [1] - 57:20
consistent [5] - 28:6, 37:11, 38:5,
38:10, 56:24
conspiracy [1] - 5:11
constitutes [1] - 8:16
consult [2] - 36:5, 72:21
consulted [1] - 7:2
consumer [2] - 60:10, 61:3
consumer's [1] - 60:8
consumers [5] - 9:20, 11:8, 59:12,
60:1, 62:11
contacted [1] - 56:6
contained [1] - 4:3
contents [4] - 42:15, 51:22, 61:21,

61:24
context [4] - 39:3, 45:24, 45:25, 47:7
continually [1] - 8:25
continue [3] - 20:24, 37:15, 62:3
Continued [1] - 22:13
continues [1] - 52:14
continuing [1] - 60:12
control [3] - 51:1, 51:4, 51:8
controversy [1] - 55:5
conversation [1] - 13:2
conversations [1] - 7:23
cop [1] - 27:22
copied [1] - 4:10
copy [1] - 3:9
corporate [3] - 8:6, 11:16, 27:3
corporations [1] - 27:3
correct [10] - 5:13, 5:25, 8:18, 10:23,
15:2, 29:14, 32:24, 34:15, 64:1, 65:16
costs [1] - 58:7
counsel [5] - 2:21, 4:14, 8:12, 24:21,
69:1
count [1] - 25:1
counterfactual [1] - 71:7
country [1] - 8:14
couple [3] - 12:12, 30:14, 39:8
course [5] - 4:22, 5:5, 10:12, 51:8,
54:17
COURT [152] - 1:1, 1:7, 2:12, 2:19,
2:23, 5:7, 5:12, 5:16, 5:20, 5:23, 6:12,
6:15, 8:15, 9:22, 10:17, 10:25, 11:6,
11:13, 12:8, 12:20, 12:24, 13:22, 14:2,
14:5, 14:9, 14:20, 15:1, 15:8, 15:21,
17:10, 17:23, 18:11, 18:16, 18:24,
19:13, 20:17, 21:3, 21:11, 21:21, 23:1,
23:18, 23:23, 24:3, 24:22, 25:3, 25:11,
25:24, 27:6, 27:18, 28:14, 28:18, 28:20,
28:25, 29:7, 29:15, 29:23, 30:2, 30:9,
30:24, 31:9, 31:13, 32:5, 32:7, 32:17,
33:2, 33:5, 33:9, 33:13, 34:2, 34:8,
34:16, 34:18, 34:22, 35:5, 35:12, 35:16,
36:2, 36:7, 36:16, 37:17, 39:8, 39:11,
40:7, 40:23, 41:7, 41:12, 41:18, 41:25,
42:4, 42:24, 43:22, 44:11, 44:16, 45:2,
45:14, 46:3, 46:9, 46:12, 46:16, 46:19,
46:22, 47:1, 47:10, 47:15, 48:17, 48:21,
50:12, 50:18, 53:1, 53:6, 53:23, 54:8,
54:24, 55:17, 56:10, 57:12, 57:16, 58:3,
59:4, 59:24, 60:5, 60:14, 61:1, 62:12,
62:15, 62:21, 62:24, 63:7, 63:21, 64:3,
64:12, 64:18, 64:21, 65:22, 67:1, 67:11,
67:17, 68:8, 68:11, 68:15, 68:22, 69:17,
70:20, 71:6, 71:15, 71:18, 72:2, 72:15,
72:23, 73:7, 73:10, 73:12
court [40] - 5:9, 8:10, 9:13, 10:19,
10:20, 10:24, 16:24, 19:19, 21:1, 22:6,
29:16, 34:12, 45:17, 54:20, 55:1, 55:15,
55:16, 55:18, 56:3, 58:23, 59:18, 60:15,
60:20, 61:4, 61:22, 62:4, 65:21, 69:6,
69:10, 69:13, 69:14, 70:10, 70:13,
70:21, 70:22, 70:24, 71:3, 71:24, 72:8

Court [31] - 2:1, 5:5, 7:16, 7:18, 8:3,
8:7, 9:17, 10:15, 11:11, 14:11, 15:4,
15:18, 16:2, 17:2, 17:19, 19:25, 20:3,
20:18, 21:15, 24:1, 27:25, 28:21, 32:24,
36:8, 38:7, 44:12, 44:13, 50:21, 53:3,
69:18
court's [1] - 70:2
Court's [4] - 38:13, 38:25, 42:22, 68:19
Courthouse [1] - 1:10
courts [6] - 19:6, 19:18, 39:12, 55:14,
66:13
covered [1] - 21:9
covers [3] - 52:8, 64:6, 65:4
craft [1] - 57:22
create [2] - 9:10, 10:1
created [2] - 19:17, 40:2
credit [14] - 27:3, 31:21, 31:22, 31:23,
31:25, 32:1, 40:17, 40:21, 40:24, 41:5,
51:5, 51:6
crime [3] - 5:11, 36:6, 42:23
criminal [2] - 40:15, 41:11
cross [2] - 4:14, 40:12
cross-examination [1] - 4:14
crystal [2] - 5:11, 60:20
Cupertino [1] - 32:15
current [4] - 16:9, 18:20, 20:8, 20:9
cursory [1] - 12:18
curtails [1] - 30:8
custodian [1] - 31:25
custody [1] - 50:24
customer [5] - 58:11, 58:13, 58:22,
60:24, 62:7
customers [2] - 12:17, 59:6
customers' [2] - 59:20, 59:21
cut [1] - 62:1

Ddaily [1] - 19:2
damage [2] - 11:10, 12:5
dare [1] - 34:7
dark [1] - 17:1
darn [1] - 58:6
data [17] - 4:3, 10:9, 12:8, 21:20,
28:23, 28:24, 52:8, 58:11, 58:13, 59:17,
59:20, 59:21, 60:11, 60:12, 61:20, 62:7,
70:18
date [1] - 6:6
dated [1] - 3:12
days [1] - 73:5
DC [1] - 1:23
DEA [6] - 3:18, 6:25, 33:25, 34:3, 35:4
death [4] - 43:11, 44:2, 44:9, 45:16
debate [18] - 10:12, 14:15, 15:16,
16:25, 17:5, 17:6, 20:24, 36:15, 53:10,
53:22, 64:24, 65:1, 65:2, 65:4, 66:8,
66:20, 66:25
debated [1] - 17:8
debates [1] - 16:12

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 79 of 88 Page ID #:466

debating [2] - 20:25, 53:8
decide [1] - 65:20
decided [2] - 36:20, 56:4
decides [1] - 43:4
deciding [1] - 15:5
decision [6] - 6:22, 13:3, 16:18, 65:6,
66:12, 73:12
decisively [1] - 15:25
declarant [1] - 63:4
declarations [1] - 25:20
declaratory [1] - 55:4
decrypt [5] - 16:23, 22:5, 22:7, 22:10,
57:1
decrypting [1] - 22:11
decryption [4] - 21:14, 21:24, 23:10
defeat [2] - 41:21, 72:18
defeating [1] - 72:17
defendant [4] - 40:21, 41:3, 41:13,
41:19
defendant's [3] - 4:5, 4:14, 7:5
defined [2] - 31:10, 37:22
definitely [1] - 20:18
definition [3] - 23:15, 37:6
delegating [1] - 20:3
deletes [1] - 42:15
deliberately [2] - 34:5, 44:19
denied [2] - 49:11, 69:13
Department [1] - 3:24
deponent [1] - 34:6
deputy [1] - 3:9
desegregation [1] - 27:12
detail [1] - 24:11
determined [3] - 7:12, 24:20
develop [2] - 45:1, 46:11
developed [1] - 17:5
device [14] - 4:9, 6:8, 17:2, 21:12,
23:17, 24:25, 30:18, 32:24, 33:12,
33:16, 50:24, 51:10, 57:1, 67:24
devices [10] - 5:19, 16:23, 20:16, 21:1,
54:12, 58:18, 58:22, 59:3, 59:17
died [1] - 15:20
difference [3] - 26:19, 26:21, 51:16
different [12] - 21:3, 35:19, 37:16,
44:6, 48:5, 48:7, 50:24, 52:6, 58:12,
60:5, 69:20, 71:5
difficult [1] - 46:4
directions [1] - 58:12
directly [2] - 70:1, 71:1
director [1] - 16:22
disagree [2] - 9:24, 55:8
disagreeing [1] - 49:19
disclose [3] - 29:18, 63:19, 64:8
disclosed [1] - 62:8
discussed [2] - 39:17, 40:16
discussing [2] - 62:12, 64:23
discussion [2] - 12:19, 53:17
disobey [1] - 28:3
dispute [1] - 42:10
distinction [1] - 50:2

DISTRICT [2] - 1:1, 1:1
district [1] - 3:12
District [4] - 35:5, 55:21, 69:4, 69:12
diversion [1] - 23:19
Djibo [5] - 3:14, 3:22, 4:11, 62:23, 72:5
docket [1] - 5:25
doctrine [1] - 65:5
dog [1] - 58:8
dollars [1] - 47:22
done [17] - 9:13, 11:3, 13:14, 14:5,
15:10, 15:15, 24:25, 38:3, 38:4, 40:2,
47:25, 49:10, 54:6, 54:21, 65:12, 66:23
door [2] - 66:11, 66:16
doubt [1] - 33:5
down [3] - 3:9, 66:22, 67:13
draw [4] - 48:1, 52:6, 67:5, 67:22
drawer [1] - 67:25
drawing [1] - 67:19
drug [6] - 43:15, 44:21, 45:1, 46:1,
47:2, 47:6
Drug [1] - 44:25
drugs [4] - 43:4, 43:7, 44:1, 48:2
due [1] - 18:25
during [1] - 9:2
dwindling [1] - 20:22

E
easier [1] - 71:11
easily [4] - 18:8, 18:9, 21:6, 34:9
East [2] - 1:18, 2:1
EASTERN [1] - 1:1
easy [1] - 63:18
Education [2] - 27:10, 28:13
effect [1] - 18:23
effective [2] - 19:19, 19:21
effectuate [4] - 19:25, 36:1, 39:12,
69:8
eight [1] - 20:18
either [4] - 25:1, 26:17, 49:18, 59:22
Elbert [1] - 2:17
ELBERT [1] - 1:20
electronic [2] - 6:7, 37:20
element [3] - 39:17, 43:24, 45:18
elements [1] - 45:19
email [2] - 6:1, 8:21
emphasize [1] - 50:20
employee [1] - 9:5
enabled [2] - 42:14, 42:16
encompass [1] - 53:9
encrypted [1] - 22:5
encryption [7] - 13:7, 21:13, 22:1,
22:7, 37:21, 40:4, 41:21
end [4] - 10:20, 30:12, 35:24, 42:6
ended [1] - 70:22
enforcement [14] - 12:15, 40:20,
47:20, 52:2, 52:11, 54:10, 56:7, 56:23,
59:2, 59:17, 59:23, 64:25, 65:3, 65:14
engage [2] - 20:4, 21:14

ensured [1] - 19:18
entangled [1] - 68:1
enter [2] - 4:9, 7:1
enterprise [1] - 40:15
entire [3] - 35:23, 53:22, 65:2
entirety [1] - 50:8
entity [1] - 11:21
entry [1] - 4:8
escape [1] - 41:1
especially [2] - 48:25, 56:11
ESQ [2] - 1:24, 1:25
essence [1] - 22:8
essential [1] - 69:6
essentially [4] - 15:14, 32:18, 51:11,
67:12
established [1] - 8:23
establishes [2] - 30:9, 45:21
estimates [1] - 8:9
estoppel [1] - 11:2
ET [1] - 1:7
et [1] - 19:23
event [2] - 3:25, 29:4
evidence [7] - 5:11, 6:7, 12:9, 13:13,
14:1, 36:19, 42:23
evolve [1] - 61:19
evolves [1] - 61:25
ex [2] - 54:22, 54:25
exact [4] - 8:12, 16:10, 45:3, 52:1
exactly [8] - 10:16, 11:5, 28:4, 29:21,
57:6, 57:23, 69:13, 72:17
examination [1] - 4:14
example [11] - 8:5, 15:25, 18:21,
24:21, 25:14, 27:21, 27:24, 31:20,
37:19, 39:14, 51:4
examples [1] - 18:18
exception [2] - 23:10, 55:20
excuse [1] - 36:9
execute [3] - 7:10, 29:12, 43:9
executed [4] - 6:6, 42:13, 42:23, 44:8
executing [2] - 7:7, 8:2
Execution [1] - 2:11
execution [5] - 6:7, 38:25, 42:17, 43:8,
45:16
EXECUTION [1] - 1:5executions [1] - 44:20
executive [1] - 16:22
exempted [1] - 21:24
exhausted [1] - 48:23
exhaustive [1] - 50:6
Exhibit [1] - 5:24
exist [1] - 63:16
existing [2] - 29:23, 43:14
exists [1] - 70:3
expanded [1] - 4:12
expands [1] - 3:19
expansive [1] - 43:21
expect [5] - 7:22, 9:20, 11:8, 11:16,
34:9
expedite [1] - 23:6

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 80 of 88 Page ID #:467

expedited [1] - 6:21
expense [1] - 57:21
expert [4] - 4:12, 50:23, 59:1, 63:5
expired [3] - 5:12, 6:3, 6:16
explain [1] - 32:1
Explain [1] - 59:24
explained [2] - 4:12, 57:18
explains [1] - 54:8
explanation [1] - 72:18
explicitly [4] - 16:1, 36:25, 38:7, 39:22
explore [2] - 7:9, 10:13
expressed [1] - 39:6
expressly [1] - 14:13
extend [1] - 68:7
extending [3] - 40:23, 41:4, 41:5
extensive [2] - 25:22, 50:5
extent [3] - 25:7, 38:4, 47:16
extracting [2] - 28:23, 28:24
extractions [1] - 24:25

F
F2D [1] - 27:10
face [1] - 36:19
facetiously [1] - 66:7
facilities [10] - 26:11, 29:3, 29:6,
32:13, 32:15, 40:14, 45:23, 46:1, 50:25,
51:3
facility [3] - 27:13, 48:6, 71:12
fact [20] - 8:15, 16:8, 16:19, 17:5, 17:7,
20:13, 32:23, 36:6, 38:18, 40:16, 43:5,
43:22, 53:25, 56:5, 56:7, 56:13, 56:18,
57:9, 57:14, 58:14
factors [4] - 14:6, 43:18, 45:12
factual [1] - 71:21
failed [4] - 3:18, 21:22, 42:16, 72:13
fair [8] - 6:23, 15:9, 17:19, 23:22,
36:21, 37:1, 48:19, 68:23
fairly [1] - 69:25
fall [3] - 26:16, 26:18
falls [1] - 26:22
familiar [2] - 18:25, 43:21
fanciful [2] - 43:2, 43:3
far [9] - 14:17, 15:15, 15:21, 15:24,
17:11, 24:16, 48:11, 64:23, 68:7
Faraday [1] - 32:16
FBI [7] - 3:18, 6:25, 7:3, 16:21, 33:24,
34:3, 35:3
feasible [1] - 30:20
feature [4] - 4:2, 41:15, 42:15, 72:12
features [1] - 46:1
federal [16] - 5:9, 9:13, 10:11, 19:17,
19:18, 19:19, 29:19, 32:3, 36:4, 40:20,
42:13, 55:16, 70:24, 71:12, 71:14
Federal [3] - 38:24, 42:22, 46:11
few [9] - 14:18, 15:16, 15:17, 20:14,
20:15, 24:19, 36:17, 55:19
fewer [1] - 44:17
fight [2] - 61:5, 61:12

fighting [1] - 47:3
figure [2] - 26:7, 65:8
filing [1] - 36:14
fill [3] - 38:4, 53:12, 65:21
filling [1] - 65:9
fills [1] - 15:6
fine [4] - 20:10, 47:12, 49:22, 60:17
finely [1] - 35:16
finish [1] - 6:13
first [21] - 2:24, 5:18, 7:1, 7:15, 8:21,
12:13, 21:8, 30:15, 39:16, 39:24, 43:24,
44:3, 45:18, 45:19, 47:5, 47:6, 54:15,
57:17, 66:19, 67:2, 68:19
five [1] - 3:23
floor [1] - 16:12
focus [2] - 10:3, 51:15
folks [1] - 2:24
follow [6] - 8:2, 27:23, 33:17, 50:11,
59:11, 72:8
followed [3] - 9:6, 72:4, 72:17
following [1] - 58:10
follows [1] - 11:12
Food [1] - 44:25
force [3] - 17:23, 37:13, 58:24
forced [5] - 58:25, 59:1, 59:2, 62:3,
63:23
forcing [2] - 21:13, 64:7
foreclosed [1] - 53:24
forensic [6] - 4:1, 4:12, 53:14, 59:1,
63:5, 63:12
forensics [1] - 51:13
forget [1] - 3:25
forgive [1] - 10:17
forgotten [1] - 17:25
form [2] - 10:8, 29:16
forma [1] - 56:12
forth [1] - 25:19
forums [1] - 12:19
forward [4] - 39:25, 40:25, 41:2, 58:17
foster [1] - 54:10
foundational [1] - 19:11
four [2] - 15:18
frames [1] - 40:13
frankly [1] - 28:7
frequency [1] - 57:9
front [2] - 37:2, 57:24
frontier [1] - 53:13
frustrate [1] - 44:19
frustrated [1] - 51:25
fugitive [4] - 40:24, 40:25, 41:5
fully [1] - 40:16
fundamentally [1] - 36:13
futile [1] - 56:2
future [2] - 20:25, 63:16

G
gambit [1] - 27:2
game [4] - 15:9, 17:19, 36:21, 37:1

gap [4] - 14:14, 15:5, 36:14, 53:11
gaps [1] - 38:4
Gene [1] - 2:1
given [5] - 17:4, 20:5, 32:24, 52:10,
56:14
glad [1] - 69:11
gorilla [1] - 43:6
governed [1] - 39:3
Government [26] - 1:17, 24:16, 25:13,
29:19, 30:20, 32:4, 33:22, 34:3, 34:6,
34:10, 34:16, 35:1, 35:19, 35:20, 35:23,
36:10, 43:8, 45:5, 46:11, 46:12, 46:19,
46:23, 51:3, 51:11, 51:18, 51:22
government [55] - 2:14, 3:10, 3:16,
3:19, 3:20, 3:23, 6:19, 6:24, 7:8, 7:14,
7:15, 7:24, 8:3, 8:14, 9:15, 10:21,
11:22, 12:20, 12:25, 13:3, 13:10, 13:20,
14:13, 14:16, 15:22, 16:17, 16:24,
17:23, 19:23, 53:13, 53:15, 53:19,
53:21, 54:2, 60:23, 61:21, 61:22, 62:17,
63:18, 63:19, 64:16, 65:25, 66:6, 66:14,
66:15, 67:4, 67:6, 67:13, 68:1, 68:6,
69:25, 70:9, 70:17, 71:25
Government's [1] - 50:24
government's [4] - 4:12, 8:2, 9:6, 61:9
Grand [6] - 29:20, 30:11, 30:14, 30:16,
30:21, 31:25
grant [3] - 17:19, 61:9, 70:4
granted [3] - 52:4, 66:21, 68:6
grants [1] - 18:10
great [1] - 73:10
greater [2] - 51:20, 51:21
grown [3] - 9:3, 14:3, 14:4
guess [1] - 37:17
guidance [2] - 8:22, 15:24
guidelines [2] - 7:25, 9:1
guys [1] - 73:8

Hhabeas [2] - 71:1, 71:2
Hall [3] - 40:17, 40:23, 45:23
halves [1] - 26:2
hand [3] - 3:9, 25:18, 36:17
handle [1] - 3:2
handled [1] - 72:5
happy [8] - 4:19, 5:5, 10:7, 23:25,
48:12, 50:11, 50:16, 73:1
hard [7] - 19:7, 44:5, 45:10, 47:10,
54:4, 61:14, 67:5
Haute [1] - 43:10
head [1] - 60:8
headquarters [1] - 32:15
hear [5] - 3:6, 4:20, 50:13, 50:15,
50:16
heard [4] - 5:1, 15:17, 63:11, 63:14
hearing [2] - 3:11, 72:9
hearings [2] - 16:19, 16:21
heart [1] - 14:21

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 81 of 88 Page ID #:468

held [1] - 43:13
help [7] - 9:25, 11:14, 12:3, 21:6, 43:9,
47:20, 54:9
helped [1] - 3:2
helpful [3] - 3:1, 10:1, 72:25
helping [1] - 41:3
helps [1] - 12:10
herring [1] - 42:7
hesitate [1] - 44:6
higher [2] - 10:19, 30:22
historically [1] - 70:9
history [1] - 54:1
home [2] - 5:19, 7:5
Homeland [2] - 3:24
honest [1] - 44:4
Honor [45] - 2:15, 2:20, 5:3, 6:23, 10:6,
10:23, 11:5, 11:8, 12:5, 13:20, 14:8,
14:25, 16:5, 16:8, 16:20, 18:7, 20:21,
21:10, 23:13, 24:15, 29:14, 30:1, 30:13,
31:17, 32:12, 32:20, 34:7, 36:4, 39:10,
44:4, 46:21, 47:13, 48:13, 50:16, 50:19,
58:10, 64:20, 68:13, 68:17, 69:11,
69:22, 70:25, 71:20, 72:4, 73:11
HONORABLE [1] - 1:14
hope [3] - 20:17, 67:17
hours [1] - 25:22
House [2] - 18:21, 22:2
HSI [3] - 3:24, 3:25, 4:4
hurt [3] - 13:14, 13:25, 14:3
hypo [1] - 47:4
hypothetical [7] - 17:21, 35:10, 46:22,
47:13, 48:10, 60:8, 60:9

I
idea [2] - 12:25, 28:7
identified [2] - 11:20, 24:17
identify [1] - 11:22
ignore [1] - 36:7
III [5] - 21:20, 22:10, 50:3, 50:4, 67:8
illegal [1] - 45:24
immediate [1] - 57:21
impact [1] - 11:12
imperil [4] - 59:11, 60:18, 61:3, 61:14
imperils [1] - 61:11
implemented [1] - 67:9
implicate [1] - 25:8
implicated [1] - 25:5
implicates [1] - 59:5
implied [2] - 38:22, 39:6
import [1] - 43:13
importance [1] - 20:23
important [8] - 5:8, 7:15, 11:25, 14:21,
51:16, 56:21, 58:13, 71:21
impose [1] - 25:16
impractical [1] - 37:10
improper [2] - 10:9, 10:10
IN [1] - 1:5
inaction [5] - 15:3, 37:12, 49:3, 49:25,

65:5
INC [1] - 1:4
Inc [2] - 2:10, 55:21
include [1] - 51:23
included [2] - 51:20, 51:23
includes [1] - 38:10
including [2] - 4:13, 37:15
independent [2] - 33:23, 63:13
indicate [1] - 56:13
indicated [1] - 9:15
indicating [1] - 55:14
indication [2] - 51:18, 63:11
individuals [1] - 27:4
indulged [1] - 48:25
industry [1] - 37:20
infer [1] - 38:2
inference [1] - 38:20
inflammatory [2] - 47:14, 48:10
influences [1] - 18:25
information [30] - 23:7, 23:11, 23:15,
25:8, 26:9, 27:6, 27:7, 27:13, 28:23,
28:25, 29:2, 29:6, 29:7, 29:11, 29:13,
29:18, 31:14, 41:6, 48:6, 53:2, 64:5,
68:21, 68:25, 69:2, 69:7, 69:9, 70:11,
70:13, 70:15, 72:6
informative [1] - 2:25
informed [1] - 33:21
informing [1] - 8:25
infringe [1] - 25:16
initial [2] - 8:9, 8:13
initiate [1] - 6:7
initiates [1] - 72:13
injection [2] - 43:4, 44:15
inserted [1] - 39:19
inside [1] - 53:1
insight [1] - 11:4
insisted [1] - 7:25
instance [2] - 24:17, 71:4
instances [1] - 61:10
instead [1] - 47:3
instruct [1] - 70:14
instruction [1] - 64:2
Intel [1] - 34:10
intelligence [1] - 36:5
intend [1] - 3:8
intended [4] - 32:21, 45:20, 51:18,
65:11
intending [1] - 38:3
intent [3] - 19:8, 45:15, 51:25
intentionally [2] - 48:1, 48:9
intercept [1] - 21:19
intercepted [1] - 22:9
interest [1] - 11:19
interesting [2] - 24:15, 35:9
interests [5] - 11:23, 25:5, 25:9, 25:17,
55:18
internal [1] - 32:2
internet [1] - 33:3
interpretation [1] - 38:21

interpretive [1] - 36:24
interrupting [1] - 10:18
interstitial [1] - 65:9
intervening [1] - 18:14
introduce [1] - 25:10
introductory [1] - 5:4
intuitive [1] - 24:9
investigate [1] - 36:5
investigation [7] - 12:11, 33:24, 39:23,
40:1, 40:3, 40:8, 46:24
invitation [1] - 61:7
invited [3] - 55:16, 55:18, 59:18
invoke [2] - 9:8, 57:16
involve [3] - 25:21, 32:16, 51:3
involved [5] - 6:25, 33:19, 58:18,
67:21, 67:23
involves [2] - 27:9, 40:20
involving [1] - 30:1
IOS [14] - 4:17, 20:14, 20:16, 20:25,
33:19, 33:23, 33:25, 58:15, 58:16, 63:1,
63:2, 63:3, 63:6
iPhone [5] - 3:17, 4:3, 4:6, 4:16, 63:6
ironic [1] - 59:13
irrelevant [1] - 13:21
issuance [2] - 6:6, 69:25
issue [29] - 3:17, 3:21, 6:21, 7:5, 9:25,
12:3, 12:22, 17:1, 20:12, 20:15, 20:22,
20:25, 25:4, 25:7, 25:24, 29:20, 34:8,
35:8, 36:20, 37:18, 38:17, 38:23, 39:7,
40:12, 53:23, 56:4, 56:14, 64:15, 65:21
ISSUED [1] - 1:7
issued [7] - 5:9, 5:15, 6:5, 9:12, 19:19,
44:10
issues [7] - 3:3, 10:13, 14:21, 19:20,
20:6, 57:15, 69:6
issuing [1] - 31:20
items [1] - 73:2
iterations [1] - 38:18
itself [6] - 13:1, 14:1, 25:5, 50:4, 58:19,
60:12

J
jail [1] - 60:18
JAMES [1] - 1:14
Jeffrey [1] - 2:22
JEFFREY [1] - 1:25
job [1] - 45:4
Johnson [1] - 3:11
joined [2] - 2:17, 2:21
joke [1] - 35:14
JUDGE [1] - 1:15
Judge [4] - 3:11, 69:17, 69:22, 73:15
judges [1] - 56:9
judgment [1] - 55:4
Judiciary [1] - 19:10
judiciary [1] - 20:4
July [4] - 3:12, 6:5, 6:19, 7:6
jumping [1] - 48:25

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 82 of 88 Page ID #:469

jurisdiction [2] - 70:3
jurisdictional [3] - 55:6, 70:4, 70:7
Jury [6] - 29:20, 30:11, 30:14, 30:16,
30:21, 31:25
jury [1] - 44:10
Justice [3] - 43:5, 69:18, 69:21
justification [1] - 64:10

K
Kabrawala [1] - 2:17
KABRAWALA [1] - 1:20
keep [4] - 26:7, 31:1, 55:3, 68:8
keeps [1] - 26:6
key [1] - 38:16
kill [1] - 48:3
kin [1] - 40:11
kind [6] - 12:8, 21:12, 24:10, 28:4,
54:9, 56:14
kinds [2] - 28:8, 37:14
knowledge [2] - 20:7, 33:19
KOMATIREDDY [110] - 1:19, 2:15, 5:3,
5:8, 5:14, 5:18, 5:22, 6:5, 6:14, 6:23,
8:18, 10:5, 11:5, 11:7, 12:4, 12:12,
12:22, 13:19, 13:23, 14:4, 14:8, 14:11,
14:25, 15:7, 15:14, 16:5, 17:21, 18:7,
18:15, 18:17, 19:9, 19:16, 20:21, 21:10,
21:17, 22:2, 23:13, 23:22, 23:25, 24:15,
26:21, 27:7, 28:13, 28:16, 28:19, 28:21,
29:5, 29:14, 29:19, 29:25, 30:6, 30:13,
31:6, 31:12, 31:17, 32:6, 32:12, 33:7,
33:11, 33:17, 34:7, 34:15, 34:17, 34:20,
35:2, 35:9, 35:15, 35:24, 36:3, 36:13,
37:9, 38:13, 39:10, 40:5, 40:10, 41:4,
41:10, 41:14, 41:23, 42:2, 42:11, 43:16,
44:4, 44:14, 44:23, 45:7, 45:20, 46:4,
46:10, 46:15, 46:17, 46:21, 46:24, 47:9,
47:13, 48:12, 48:18, 50:1, 50:16, 68:17,
68:23, 70:6, 70:25, 71:9, 71:17, 71:20,
72:4, 72:20, 73:5, 73:15
Komatireddy [7] - 2:16, 4:25, 25:24,
52:12, 62:12, 63:1, 64:1
Komatireddy's [1] - 64:22

Llabor [1] - 69:9
lack [1] - 49:20
LANDIS [1] - 1:25
Landis [1] - 2:22
language [16] - 7:24, 8:4, 17:14, 17:22,
34:5, 56:21, 56:22, 57:2, 57:8, 57:14,
57:16, 57:19, 57:22, 57:24, 59:9, 69:25
larger [1] - 18:1
last [10] - 12:13, 15:22, 17:10, 39:11,
43:4, 43:7, 44:16, 49:2, 70:20
LAUREN [1] - 1:20
Lauren [1] - 2:17

Law [1] - 43:21
law [48] - 11:12, 11:17, 12:10, 12:15,
14:14, 15:7, 15:8, 16:8, 18:9, 20:8,
20:9, 26:23, 30:4, 35:17, 37:3, 37:4,
38:11, 38:12, 38:17, 39:7, 40:20, 41:1,
43:20, 44:23, 44:25, 45:22, 47:20,
48:20, 52:1, 52:11, 53:11, 53:12, 54:10,
56:7, 56:23, 59:2, 59:10, 59:11, 59:17,
59:22, 60:23, 61:18, 61:19, 61:25,
64:24, 65:3, 65:14
lawful [8] - 10:15, 43:11, 44:2, 45:17,
60:13, 60:14, 60:16, 62:8
lawyers [1] - 69:20
leading [1] - 66:21
learned [1] - 4:18
least [6] - 8:10, 12:2, 18:21, 39:21,
71:13, 72:6
leaves [1] - 38:19
leaving [1] - 10:18
left [2] - 17:9, 39:7
legal [15] - 7:24, 9:1, 9:8, 9:25, 10:4,
10:8, 12:3, 18:20, 24:2, 37:13, 54:15,
62:16, 64:9, 70:17
legally [5] - 14:19, 53:24, 63:21, 63:22,
64:3
legislates [1] - 20:7
legislation [10] - 12:21, 13:21, 15:11,
17:3, 17:16, 38:5, 49:10, 49:20, 66:11,
66:16
legislative [3] - 19:5, 38:15, 38:16
length [2] - 9:22, 40:18
lesser [1] - 51:23
lethal [1] - 43:4
letter [4] - 3:10, 3:12, 3:23, 73:2
letters [1] - 73:4
letting [1] - 29:6
level [4] - 15:3, 24:11, 56:11, 62:16
licences [1] - 41:16
license [2] - 42:6, 42:7
lies [1] - 61:9
light [1] - 59:14
likelihood [1] - 71:23
limit [2] - 27:15, 28:9
limited [1] - 56:1
limits [1] - 15:13
line [3] - 67:5, 67:19, 68:3
lines [1] - 31:1
list [1] - 15:23
litigation [1] - 32:8
location [1] - 41:6
lock [4] - 41:15, 41:24, 42:14, 65:18
locked [4] - 8:7, 12:15, 67:22, 67:25
locksmith [1] - 43:2
logs [1] - 51:4
long-standing [1] - 8:6
look [21] - 11:15, 13:8, 13:13, 13:16,
16:19, 27:18, 28:14, 30:25, 34:9, 35:16,
36:18, 36:22, 43:19, 43:24, 44:11,
56:10, 57:16, 65:11, 65:24, 69:3, 71:21

looking [4] - 23:14, 37:10, 38:14, 49:9
loop [1] - 64:3
lose [2] - 39:9, 60:1
losing [1] - 26:7
loudly [1] - 15:4

Mmagistrate [1] - 56:11
MAGISTRATE [1] - 1:15
magistrates [1] - 55:13
main [1] - 68:19
majority [1] - 24:6
managed [1] - 25:9
manner [2] - 8:11, 45:1
manual [1] - 64:2
manufacture [2] - 21:11, 43:14
manufacturers [1] - 23:17
MARC [1] - 1:24
Marc [1] - 2:21
market [1] - 13:15
marketing [1] - 47:21
Marshal [1] - 70:23
marshals [1] - 72:1
Marshals [5] - 30:3, 30:7, 31:4, 70:21,
71:13
materials [1] - 3:22
matter [7] - 13:12, 20:4, 32:23, 38:20,
47:21, 47:24, 73:16
matters [1] - 6:16
MC [1] - 1:8
mean [9] - 30:17, 34:25, 39:19, 45:24,
46:12, 58:5, 59:8, 64:13, 70:8
meaning [3] - 23:7, 49:19, 49:24
meaningless [1] - 14:24
means [2] - 62:13, 63:15
mechanical [1] - 2:4
mechanism [3] - 62:7, 63:2, 63:18
members [1] - 15:16
mentioned [1] - 51:2
mere [1] - 61:20
meth [1] - 5:11
method [1] - 63:19
middle [1] - 58:19
might [3] - 32:7, 46:12, 62:13
mind [9] - 3:4, 17:4, 19:24, 23:2,
24:22, 38:1, 49:21, 64:19, 66:1
minimal [1] - 9:5
minute [2] - 36:9, 60:3
minutes [1] - 36:17
Miscellaneous [1] - 2:10
mischaracterizing [1] - 15:1
missing [1] - 50:9
mistaken [3] - 4:17, 23:9, 57:24
mode [1] - 6:9
modifying [1] - 67:7
moment [3] - 23:9, 47:9, 68:10
monitoring [1] - 69:6

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 83 of 88 Page ID #:470

monopoly [1] - 43:25
moot [1] - 23:1
morning [4] - 2:12, 2:15, 2:20, 2:23
most [5] - 5:8, 14:21, 51:16, 64:8,
64:14
motion [2] - 21:20, 61:9
move [1] - 14:9
moving [1] - 20:2
MR [43] - 2:20, 10:23, 24:23, 25:6,
25:15, 32:20, 33:4, 50:19, 53:3, 53:7,
54:7, 54:13, 55:10, 56:5, 56:20, 57:13,
58:1, 58:9, 59:13, 60:2, 60:9, 60:19,
61:17, 62:14, 62:19, 62:22, 62:25,
63:10, 63:22, 64:7, 64:13, 64:20, 64:22,
66:19, 67:2, 67:16, 67:19, 68:10, 68:13,
69:11, 69:24, 73:9, 73:11
MS [109] - 2:15, 5:3, 5:8, 5:14, 5:18,
5:22, 6:5, 6:14, 6:23, 8:18, 10:5, 11:5,
11:7, 12:4, 12:12, 12:22, 13:19, 13:23,
14:4, 14:8, 14:11, 14:25, 15:7, 15:14,
16:5, 17:21, 18:7, 18:15, 18:17, 19:9,
19:16, 20:21, 21:10, 21:17, 22:2, 23:13,
23:22, 23:25, 24:15, 26:21, 27:7, 28:13,
28:16, 28:19, 28:21, 29:5, 29:14, 29:19,
29:25, 30:6, 30:13, 31:6, 31:12, 31:17,
32:6, 32:12, 33:7, 33:11, 33:17, 34:7,
34:15, 34:17, 34:20, 35:2, 35:9, 35:15,
35:24, 36:3, 36:13, 37:9, 38:13, 39:10,
40:5, 40:10, 41:4, 41:10, 41:14, 41:23,
42:2, 42:11, 43:16, 44:4, 44:14, 44:23,
45:7, 45:20, 46:4, 46:10, 46:15, 46:17,
46:21, 46:24, 47:9, 47:13, 48:12, 48:18,
50:1, 50:16, 68:17, 68:23, 70:6, 70:25,
71:9, 71:17, 71:20, 72:4, 72:20, 73:5,
73:15
multiple [1] - 56:9
must [3] - 10:20, 60:15, 70:3

N
narrow [2] - 64:24, 70:17
narrower [1] - 66:2
narrowly [1] - 36:18
nature [4] - 25:4, 26:23, 27:15, 27:16
navigate [1] - 34:9
necessarily [3] - 27:12, 47:23, 56:13
necessary [4] - 19:25, 36:1, 36:8, 70:2
necessity [2] - 36:2, 36:3
need [11] - 6:21, 23:6, 30:25, 32:5,
32:7, 32:10, 34:18, 50:1, 53:3, 54:2,
55:17
needed [1] - 19:20
needn't [1] - 19:1
needs [3] - 23:4, 53:10, 53:20
negative [1] - 11:12
negotiating [1] - 25:20
never [9] - 8:11, 15:19, 52:2, 54:19,
56:18, 58:1, 58:12, 59:20, 65:10
nevertheless [1] - 4:5

new [10] - 9:8, 9:9, 53:13, 59:3, 66:4,
66:21, 66:22, 67:3, 68:5
NEW [1] - 1:1
New [27] - 1:11, 2:2, 26:4, 26:19,
26:24, 27:1, 27:5, 27:8, 27:20, 27:24,
39:17, 39:21, 40:13, 43:18, 43:24,
45:18, 45:22, 47:6, 47:17, 49:5, 49:16,
51:17, 51:20, 54:16, 67:22, 69:3, 71:8
newer [1] - 66:5
next [3] - 18:12, 22:13, 52:14
Nickerson [2] - 69:17, 69:22
nine [1] - 20:19
Ninth [4] - 49:4, 49:6, 49:8, 49:23
nobody [1] - 47:2
normal [2] - 51:8, 54:17
note [5] - 5:23, 7:4, 7:15, 21:22, 48:14
note-taking [1] - 21:22
noted [1] - 6:24
notes [1] - 24:4
nothing [4] - 18:19, 40:7, 55:25, 67:24
notice [1] - 33:17
noting [1] - 8:20
notion [1] - 11:11
number [6] - 4:25, 8:12, 8:13, 18:18,
20:5, 24:22
NW [1] - 1:23
NY [1] - 1:18

Oo'clock [1] - 1:12
Oakland [1] - 55:23
objected [1] - 8:11
objection [3] - 48:5, 48:15, 48:16
obligation [8] - 21:25, 22:10, 35:17,
36:4, 52:10, 55:2, 59:10, 60:17
obligations [1] - 21:25
observation [1] - 14:12
obsolete [1] - 20:15
obtain [4] - 4:3, 4:6, 70:11, 70:18
obtained [1] - 16:24
obtaining [3] - 16:17, 69:8, 70:14
obvious [2] - 50:9, 68:3
obviously [2] - 18:24, 64:6
October [2] - 1:12, 6:19
odds [1] - 19:6
OF [3] - 1:1, 1:6, 1:14
offensive [1] - 54:18
offered [1] - 56:22
office [3] - 35:6, 35:12, 35:19
old [1] - 59:3
once [3] - 4:9, 7:12, 62:2
one [61] - 3:7, 3:17, 4:25, 5:15, 5:16,
5:20, 7:19, 7:21, 11:7, 14:10, 14:21,
15:11, 16:20, 17:10, 17:16, 17:24, 21:3,
24:5, 26:3, 26:15, 27:8, 29:3, 34:12,
36:17, 36:23, 37:1, 37:2, 38:16, 38:19,
39:14, 40:16, 41:14, 42:25, 43:3, 44:8,
44:18, 45:11, 49:2, 54:25, 55:20, 55:22,

56:20, 56:22, 57:4, 59:4, 59:9, 61:18,
62:16, 65:17, 66:2, 66:7, 67:3, 67:23,
68:10, 69:3, 69:18, 69:19, 70:10, 70:20,
73:4
ongoing [3] - 8:13, 40:15, 55:5
onwards [1] - 26:24
open [1] - 34:11
operates [2] - 20:9, 42:12
operating [7] - 20:10, 33:21, 40:2,
41:15, 42:22, 58:14, 58:16
opinion [1] - 15:19
opportunity [2] - 4:22, 10:13
opposed [5] - 28:7, 31:23, 31:24,
35:17, 72:1
opposite [2] - 28:4, 52:1
oral [1] - 2:9
order [38] - 7:9, 7:18, 8:1, 8:3, 8:7,
10:20, 10:24, 16:24, 17:2, 21:1, 27:9,
27:11, 29:17, 31:20, 35:8, 36:5, 44:7,
44:12, 44:13, 45:12, 45:17, 52:2, 54:20,
55:11, 57:3, 59:5, 61:4, 61:5, 61:12,
61:22, 64:5, 64:6, 64:11, 67:8, 69:8,
70:1, 71:24
ORDER [1] - 1:4
Order [1] - 2:10
ordered [4] - 22:6, 25:12, 59:25, 68:2
ordering [2] - 21:15, 62:17
orders [26] - 8:10, 10:15, 12:14, 12:16,
16:18, 19:18, 19:19, 19:25, 54:25,
55:13, 55:14, 55:19, 55:25, 56:6, 56:12,
56:19, 56:23, 56:24, 57:15, 60:4, 60:13,
62:8, 66:18, 69:5, 69:7, 70:9
ORENSTEIN [1] - 1:14
organized [1] - 36:10
original [1] - 49:13
orthodoxy [1] - 61:23
otherwise [4] - 17:18, 22:12, 44:22,
50:9
ourselves [1] - 36:10
outset [1] - 50:2
outside [3] - 52:6, 52:13, 53:5
outstripped [1] - 19:3
overall [2] - 38:5, 49:9
override [1] - 4:2
owes [1] - 41:16
own [11] - 7:2, 20:5, 21:22, 26:10,
33:19, 42:3, 46:11, 46:13, 46:23, 51:12,
59:22
owner [1] - 41:16
owns [1] - 42:12

P
page [3] - 3:23, 22:13, 52:14
pains [1] - 59:8
parallels [1] - 48:1
parents [2] - 27:9, 27:11
parse [1] - 16:4
part [12] - 3:16, 16:20, 18:1, 26:6,

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 84 of 88 Page ID #:471

27:18, 27:19, 40:14, 46:4, 47:18, 57:5,
69:9, 71:14
parte [2] - 54:22, 54:25
particular [11] - 20:12, 20:22, 27:11,
33:19, 33:23, 38:19, 39:3, 46:25, 69:8,
71:22, 71:24
particularly [1] - 45:9
parties [6] - 27:1, 37:22, 38:25, 39:13,
42:8, 63:12
partly [1] - 49:14
parts [1] - 19:10
party [7] - 7:11, 26:24, 29:2, 34:23,
39:15, 51:8, 70:14
party's [1] - 51:4
pass [16] - 3:19, 4:2, 4:5, 7:17, 16:8,
25:14, 30:18, 37:14, 39:4, 41:15, 42:13,
42:14, 46:25, 71:7, 72:7, 72:11
passed [13] - 16:11, 17:8, 17:16,
18:21, 19:9, 19:13, 19:14, 38:17, 44:3,
49:14, 53:17, 65:8
passes [1] - 18:2
passing [1] - 15:8
password [4] - 6:11, 13:6, 17:25,
21:13
past [8] - 11:2, 13:6, 16:22, 17:7,
24:25, 55:5, 59:15, 61:15
path [3] - 31:4, 31:6, 59:24
patient [1] - 50:18
patriotic [1] - 10:2
patriotism [3] - 9:23, 10:5, 11:9
pause [1] - 68:12
Pause [1] - 47:8
paying [1] - 60:17
pejoratively [1] - 39:20
pen [2] - 51:24
pending [1] - 32:19
Pennsylvania [4] - 30:2, 30:6, 31:3,
70:21
people [8] - 12:9, 16:4, 16:7, 16:14,
25:1, 25:7, 47:19, 48:3
per [1] - 8:19
perceived [2] - 11:10, 56:16
percent [1] - 58:18
perception [2] - 48:19, 48:20
perform [5] - 51:12, 54:21, 57:4,
58:18, 65:19
performing [2] - 51:24
perhaps [4] - 24:20, 29:17, 38:20,
46:14
period [1] - 8:23
permit [2] - 31:7, 45:11
person [4] - 40:21, 40:24, 41:8, 63:5
personal [1] - 33:19
personally [2] - 63:6, 72:8
personnel [1] - 71:3
perspective [1] - 25:6
phone [21] - 3:21, 5:10, 7:1, 7:13, 29:8,
29:18, 31:14, 32:11, 33:25, 42:3, 42:15,
46:25, 51:5, 62:18, 63:9, 63:13, 63:15,

66:5, 67:13, 68:5, 69:5
phones [7] - 7:7, 12:15, 17:24, 59:9,
66:4, 66:6, 67:3
phrased [1] - 38:9
picture [2] - 58:7, 65:25
place [5] - 23:20, 26:7, 49:1, 50:5,
53:15
placing [1] - 6:9
plainly [1] - 9:4
plans [1] - 61:8
play [1] - 56:7
Plaza [2] - 1:18, 2:1
plenty [1] - 56:11
point [26] - 11:7, 13:19, 13:21, 13:23,
14:10, 19:17, 20:21, 42:11, 43:25,
44:17, 46:18, 47:21, 47:22, 57:8, 58:5,
60:25, 61:14, 63:25, 64:14, 65:7, 66:9,
66:19, 67:2, 67:19, 71:2, 71:4
points [5] - 23:24, 50:20, 52:12, 68:14,
68:18
policy [1] - 44:19
pops [1] - 50:2
posed [1] - 17:12
posited [1] - 62:4
positing [1] - 47:1
position [15] - 9:17, 9:18, 11:22,
11:24, 12:5, 24:12, 39:22, 39:25, 45:3,
53:4, 58:17, 58:20, 59:16, 62:9, 62:11
possession [3] - 4:1, 51:1, 51:7
possibility [3] - 10:19, 34:10, 40:3
possible [5] - 36:15, 38:18, 40:25,
47:3, 72:11
possibly [1] - 42:16
potential [1] - 44:9
power [6] - 51:19, 51:21, 51:23, 53:21
powers [3] - 19:7, 19:12, 20:1
practical [4] - 36:14, 37:10, 37:11,
37:13
practically [1] - 36:22
practice [10] - 8:6, 8:25, 11:2, 12:14,
12:16, 16:7, 16:17, 16:25, 17:8, 72:21
precedent [2] - 31:19, 51:14
preliminary [1] - 17:6
prepare [1] - 25:7
presence [1] - 50:6
pressed [1] - 11:21
pretend [1] - 72:17
pretty [2] - 15:23, 58:6
prevent [2] - 21:15, 60:11
preventing [1] - 42:12
primarily [1] - 7:1
principles [4] - 37:4, 37:18, 37:25,
38:11
prioritization [1] - 20:5
prioritize [1] - 20:11
priority [1] - 73:4
prisoner [3] - 70:23, 71:12, 71:25
privacy [5] - 9:21, 53:19, 54:11, 58:13,
58:21

private [3] - 11:21, 28:3, 47:22
pro [1] - 56:12
problem [1] - 47:10
problems [2] - 65:10, 67:4
procedure [4] - 8:23, 9:7, 29:23, 30:4
proceeding [2] - 54:22
Proceedings [1] - 2:4
proceedings [1] - 54:25
process [12] - 7:6, 7:23, 7:25, 8:20,
9:1, 25:22, 28:23, 29:16, 60:7, 62:17,
66:24, 69:1
processing [2] - 8:24, 9:3
produce [1] - 31:24
produced [1] - 2:4
product [3] - 67:10, 67:21, 67:23
proffer [1] - 69:24
prohibit [3] - 16:7, 17:8, 17:22
prohibited [2] - 37:1, 38:7
prohibiting [2] - 15:9, 16:8
prohibition [2] - 15:12, 38:22
promote [1] - 12:11
prong [5] - 26:5, 36:2, 36:3, 47:6,
67:22
prongs [1] - 71:8
propose [1] - 59:9
proposed [6] - 14:18, 15:18, 16:9,
17:7, 19:4
proposition [1] - 3:17
proprietary [2] - 25:9, 25:16
prosecuting [1] - 35:3
prosecution [2] - 34:21, 34:22
prosecutors [5] - 8:14, 24:16, 24:18,
35:3, 36:4
prospect [1] - 25:12
prospective [1] - 22:9
prospectively [2] - 41:3, 41:8
protect [1] - 9:21
provide [14] - 9:16, 13:6, 15:23, 21:25,
28:16, 53:14, 58:24, 62:1, 64:1, 65:13,
69:15, 70:11, 70:12, 72:6
provided [7] - 2:25, 7:24, 8:22, 9:14,
22:7, 57:19, 69:16
provider [5] - 21:14, 21:25, 22:10,
54:17, 54:18
providers [7] - 52:9, 53:10, 53:14,
63:12, 65:2, 65:13
provides [3] - 27:16, 57:15, 60:21
providing [9] - 12:14, 41:13, 43:7,
50:23, 50:25, 52:9, 54:8, 64:24, 67:25
provision [5] - 18:1, 21:13, 21:23,
22:2, 71:2
public [8] - 8:25, 12:16, 13:25, 23:16,
44:19, 48:19, 66:20, 66:25
publicly [1] - 55:23
published [1] - 12:13
publishing [1] - 9:1
Puerto [2] - 69:4, 69:12
purpose [1] - 45:25
purposefully [1] - 47:15

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 85 of 88 Page ID #:472

purposes [4] - 26:10, 26:19, 34:13,
43:23
pushing [1] - 53:12
put [4] - 4:20, 24:12, 51:10, 61:14
puts [3] - 19:5, 37:21, 58:16
putting [1] - 11:13

Q
qualify [1] - 23:11
query [1] - 8:13
questioning [1] - 9:23
questions [13] - 3:5, 4:25, 5:5, 21:8,
23:23, 24:1, 26:15, 27:5, 39:8, 45:10,
47:10, 48:23, 56:25
quick [1] - 3:1
quickly [1] - 73:13
quite [2] - 66:7, 66:9
quo [3] - 16:15, 17:9, 37:15
quoted [1] - 8:21

R
raise [1] - 6:18
rather [2] - 72:18, 73:4
Re [2] - 2:10, 69:5
re [1] - 43:13
re-import [1] - 43:13
reached [3] - 7:14, 7:15, 66:8
read [5] - 16:13, 37:7, 56:18, 69:23,
72:16
reading [4] - 36:25, 49:18, 50:7, 69:13
readings [1] - 69:20
realistic [1] - 25:12
realize [1] - 20:8
really [18] - 3:2, 8:17, 9:25, 10:3,
13:14, 21:5, 27:2, 35:7, 36:19, 45:4,
47:4, 48:21, 49:5, 49:17, 55:7, 60:5,
65:24, 72:25
realtime [2] - 21:19, 22:8
reason [11] - 3:22, 9:18, 13:1, 16:6,
20:11, 23:8, 33:5, 37:12, 40:12, 44:5,
72:12
reasonable [9] - 7:9, 12:17, 16:16,
18:23, 19:21, 20:9, 20:23, 35:4, 38:20
reasonably [1] - 16:13
reasons [6] - 12:25, 16:14, 36:11,
37:14, 56:22, 57:19
received [2] - 8:10, 55:11
receiving [2] - 55:13
recent [2] - 14:15, 43:6
recently [2] - 19:14, 66:9
record [5] - 8:21, 17:17, 32:4, 62:20,
68:18
recorded [1] - 2:4
records [13] - 4:6, 4:10, 27:3, 31:21,
31:23, 31:24, 32:1, 32:5, 32:8, 40:18,
40:21, 50:25, 51:3

recounted [1] - 6:20
red [1] - 42:7
referred [2] - 15:20, 43:5
refund [1] - 49:11
refused [1] - 14:15
regard [1] - 62:22
regime [1] - 18:3
register [2] - 51:24, 51:25
regression [1] - 14:5
regularly [1] - 55:13
regulates [1] - 37:19
regulating [1] - 42:8
rehearse [1] - 19:1
reject [1] - 15:25
rejected [1] - 16:3
related [5] - 21:8, 29:15, 39:18, 57:1,
65:23
relation [1] - 71:13
relationship [2] - 43:23, 59:6
relatively [1] - 50:6
release [1] - 43:14
relevance [1] - 42:9
relevant [3] - 42:11, 43:19, 44:25
relief [3] - 7:16, 35:20, 49:6
relieve [1] - 55:2
rely [2] - 24:1, 66:13
remain [1] - 16:15
remarks [1] - 5:4
remember [1] - 5:9
remind [1] - 65:22
reminded [2] - 39:11, 69:17
remote [5] - 32:16, 32:17, 32:22,
32:23, 42:18
renewed [1] - 6:17
reopen [1] - 66:15
repeal [1] - 18:22
repeatedly [1] - 56:6
Reporter [1] - 2:1
reports [1] - 22:3
represent [2] - 40:10, 72:7
representation [11] - 33:6, 33:7, 34:2,
34:4, 34:6, 34:13, 34:18, 34:20, 35:7,
35:20, 35:22
represented [2] - 42:18, 69:1
representing [1] - 45:4
represents [1] - 9:17
reputation [1] - 9:5
reputational [2] - 12:7, 14:1
request [12] - 6:17, 8:2, 9:11, 32:18,
32:22, 32:23, 39:4, 49:12, 54:3, 72:1,
73:5
requested [3] - 8:1, 38:19, 70:1
requesting [6] - 10:16, 14:14, 14:16,
16:10, 17:22
requests [3] - 8:24, 9:3, 32:16
require [11] - 13:5, 13:11, 44:24, 45:1,
49:15, 53:14, 57:23, 57:25, 68:20,
69:10, 70:22
required [20] - 7:25, 24:10, 24:11,

24:18, 24:24, 26:25, 53:5, 56:15, 56:25,
57:6, 57:7, 58:1, 61:24, 62:9, 65:3,
65:13, 65:19, 69:2, 70:23, 71:3
requirement [1] - 4:8
requires [5] - 21:18, 21:21, 45:12,
63:24, 64:16
Requiring [1] - 2:10
REQUIRING [1] - 1:4
requiring [8] - 8:7, 8:10, 10:15, 27:9,
27:11, 38:25, 39:14, 50:3
research [1] - 13:15
resolve [2] - 9:25, 69:21
resolved [2] - 24:8, 24:20
resources [1] - 9:5
respect [1] - 37:20
respects [1] - 37:21
respond [1] - 49:22
response [2] - 49:15, 68:16
responsibility [2] - 10:7, 22:5
responsible [2] - 8:6, 35:18
responsive [1] - 48:24
restricts [1] - 23:16
result [4] - 10:20, 15:11, 54:23, 66:23
retain [1] - 21:19
return [1] - 43:17
reveal [2] - 24:13, 25:14
reversal [2] - 9:18, 9:19
review [3] - 50:1, 50:11, 64:23
reviewed [1] - 45:22
revised [1] - 7:20
revisiting [1] - 19:2
Rico [2] - 69:4, 69:12
rid [1] - 32:17
rights [2] - 9:24, 56:16
ring [1] - 67:14
road [1] - 66:22
ROBERT [1] - 1:17
robust [1] - 66:20
role [1] - 65:2
room [2] - 32:16, 33:2
routine [2] - 9:7, 9:11
routinely [1] - 8:23
Rudolph [1] - 2:1
Rule [4] - 30:9, 30:10, 69:16, 70:7
ruled [1] - 69:14
run [1] - 27:2
running [4] - 4:16, 27:22, 63:6

S
safe [1] - 43:1
safety [1] - 9:21
salient [1] - 20:25
SARITHA [1] - 1:19
Saritha [1] - 2:16
satisfied [1] - 45:17
satisfy [2] - 45:18, 47:5
saw [1] - 57:3
scenario [3] - 17:12, 47:1, 47:7

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 86 of 88 Page ID #:473

schedule [3] - 3:1, 7:20, 73:1
scheduling [1] - 23:5
scheme [9] - 38:16, 38:24, 39:12, 50:7,
50:8, 50:10, 65:9, 65:12
school [1] - 27:12
scope [3] - 52:13, 53:1, 53:5
se [1] - 8:19
search [25] - 5:10, 5:12, 5:14, 5:15,
5:18, 6:8, 6:10, 7:5, 7:7, 7:10, 9:12,
10:11, 12:16, 12:18, 16:24, 19:20,
19:21, 29:12, 39:1, 42:17, 54:23, 70:18
Search [1] - 2:11
SEARCH [1] - 1:6
searching [1] - 42:25
second [9] - 23:1, 26:3, 30:21, 51:16,
57:19, 66:7, 66:19, 70:13, 72:2
Second [1] - 35:17
secret [4] - 9:8, 24:13, 30:22, 64:15
secrets [1] - 64:9
Security [1] - 3:24
security [3] - 4:2, 58:13, 58:21
see [6] - 20:21, 26:19, 26:21, 55:24,
61:1, 61:11
seeing [1] - 20:13
seek [6] - 9:9, 12:21, 13:5, 17:14, 55:4,
56:15
seeking [8] - 12:21, 18:22, 35:19, 52:2,
66:10, 67:5, 67:20, 68:6
seeks [2] - 10:21, 15:22
seem [2] - 61:3, 68:3
seized [1] - 7:4
sell [1] - 66:6
Senate [1] - 22:3
send [2] - 27:11, 71:25
sense [6] - 24:9, 36:11, 37:24, 48:10,
65:25, 66:2
sensitive [1] - 23:5
sentence [5] - 43:11, 44:2, 44:9,
44:12, 45:16
separate [6] - 12:22, 18:12, 25:24,
70:4, 70:6, 70:17
separation [3] - 19:7, 19:11, 20:1
September [1] - 3:13
seriously [1] - 10:7
servers [3] - 29:12, 63:25, 69:2
service [12] - 11:21, 23:7, 23:11,
23:15, 28:7, 39:14, 41:12, 48:4, 48:8,
53:2, 60:24, 63:12
Service [1] - 70:23
services [19] - 22:1, 24:12, 40:14,
41:11, 41:12, 41:14, 50:23, 51:13,
52:10, 53:9, 53:14, 54:21, 57:4, 57:6,
58:19, 59:1, 65:20, 67:25, 68:21
set [3] - 51:17, 67:12, 73:1
setting [1] - 20:5
settled [2] - 56:8
seven [1] - 12:13
several [4] - 14:12, 25:21, 44:25, 55:3
share [1] - 12:1

short [4] - 15:8, 15:14, 41:20, 41:23
shown [1] - 14:15
shows [1] - 13:14
side [3] - 34:10, 73:2, 73:4
sides [4] - 3:5, 4:22, 23:3, 72:25
siege [1] - 58:12
signed [1] - 56:12
significant [1] - 25:19
signing [1] - 25:20
silence [12] - 14:24, 16:3, 17:19, 18:6,
18:17, 18:18, 21:4, 21:5, 45:2, 45:3,
49:20
silent [1] - 36:19
simple [2] - 9:11, 18:20
simply [6] - 3:20, 16:7, 26:24, 27:15,
40:1, 44:8
simultaneous [1] - 73:3
site [1] - 61:20
sitting [1] - 67:24
situation [5] - 21:18, 28:22, 52:1, 54:4,
71:24
situations [2] - 26:25, 71:22
skip [1] - 24:6
skipped [1] - 50:12
slice [2] - 35:16, 56:1
slightly [1] - 21:3
slipped [1] - 64:19
slowly [1] - 20:2
so-called [1] - 17:1
societal [2] - 65:2, 66:8
software [11] - 4:7, 4:15, 4:16, 21:12,
29:22, 42:3, 42:4, 42:12, 42:21, 67:7
sold [2] - 41:19, 41:21
solved [1] - 68:4
someone [1] - 46:6
somewhat [7] - 3:1, 27:20, 56:8,
59:13, 61:23, 65:23, 66:9
son [1] - 27:11
soon [1] - 10:3
sorry [6] - 28:11, 41:23, 44:11, 54:24,
60:16, 67:17
sort [14] - 8:17, 11:1, 21:12, 23:8, 26:2,
28:4, 28:9, 39:20, 48:25, 49:9, 53:24,
59:24, 66:2
sorts [3] - 12:14, 26:25, 66:22
sought [1] - 13:21
sounds [1] - 31:15
Southern [2] - 35:5, 55:20
speaking [1] - 3:20
speaks [1] - 15:4
specialized [1] - 4:7
specific [9] - 7:24, 23:14, 24:17, 30:4,
32:14, 33:21, 39:6, 43:22, 50:9
specifically [2] - 21:24, 31:10
specify [2] - 26:23, 27:15
speculation [1] - 63:3
spirit [1] - 37:24
spot [1] - 4:20
square [1] - 49:24

squarely [1] - 19:5
squares [1] - 19:8
stake [1] - 55:18
stand [3] - 10:9, 40:8, 66:10
standardized [1] - 57:8
standing [2] - 8:6, 71:15
stands [4] - 3:25, 9:23, 42:21, 42:22
start [2] - 5:2, 15:16
started [3] - 3:6, 6:12, 17:13
starting [1] - 4:24
state [5] - 32:24, 49:10, 55:15, 71:3,
71:12
statements [2] - 14:17, 14:18
states [4] - 10:6, 18:10, 22:4
STATES [2] - 1:1, 1:15
States [10] - 1:10, 1:17, 2:16, 2:18,
3:13, 34:25, 40:17, 45:22, 49:6, 71:13
statue [1] - 53:8
status [3] - 16:15, 17:9, 37:15
statute [19] - 23:12, 28:2, 30:8, 30:9,
36:14, 37:2, 37:7, 38:2, 38:8, 38:10,
38:21, 49:13, 50:4, 50:5, 65:15, 71:1,
71:2, 71:4, 71:6
statutes [2] - 19:2, 37:15
statutory [11] - 15:12, 18:3, 23:14,
31:4, 31:6, 37:5, 38:20, 38:24, 50:6,
50:8, 50:10
stays [1] - 67:21
stenography [1] - 2:4
step [2] - 44:3, 44:8
steps [5] - 55:8, 61:5, 61:11, 61:16,
68:2
still [12] - 16:3, 17:16, 17:18, 18:2,
18:6, 18:14, 25:19, 30:19, 35:6, 42:14,
57:18, 60:16
stipulations [1] - 25:20
stock [1] - 43:14
stop [2] - 43:5, 67:6
stops [2] - 67:5, 68:3
store [1] - 32:14
stored [1] - 4:6
stream [1] - 51:10
Street [1] - 1:23
strip [1] - 17:15
stripped [1] - 18:2
struck [2] - 42:6, 65:19
struggling [1] - 25:25
stunning [1] - 9:18
subject [4] - 4:3, 4:6, 16:12, 22:6
submission [1] - 23:4
submit [2] - 4:22, 55:16
subpoena [10] - 29:16, 29:20, 29:21,
31:18, 31:22, 31:25, 61:20, 61:22,
62:16, 64:4
subset [1] - 52:3
successfully [1] - 63:8
sufficient [3] - 12:25, 32:3, 60:23
sufficiently [4] - 46:5, 67:21, 67:23,
68:1

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 87 of 88 Page ID #:474

suggest [1] - 32:21
suggested [1] - 56:2
suggesting [1] - 49:9
suggestion [1] - 10:6
suggestions [1] - 43:1
supplement [2] - 28:19, 68:18
supplemental [1] - 23:4
support [1] - 12:18
suppose [2] - 3:20, 71:23
supposed [1] - 69:21
Supreme [1] - 69:18
surely [1] - 51:23
surprised [2] - 10:14, 34:11
surprising [2] - 9:22, 28:2
surprisingly [1] - 13:3
surveillance [3] - 9:9, 37:20, 51:6
survey [2] - 8:13, 24:16
suspect [1] - 32:15
system [13] - 32:2, 32:3, 32:4, 33:21,
33:25, 40:2, 41:15, 58:14, 60:11, 63:1,
63:24, 64:16, 71:14
systems [2] - 58:15, 58:16

Ttable [1] - 2:22
talks [2] - 40:18, 72:16
tap [4] - 49:13, 50:4, 51:22
tapes [2] - 27:4, 51:6
target [1] - 33:25
task [1] - 37:23
team [2] - 34:21, 34:22
technical [8] - 30:17, 37:18, 62:16,
68:25, 69:7, 70:19, 72:18
technically [2] - 63:21, 63:23
technicians [1] - 4:2
technologies [1] - 33:22
technology [9] - 4:1, 7:2, 19:3, 32:12,
32:13, 33:10, 35:6, 46:13, 72:10
Tel [16] - 26:4, 26:19, 27:20, 27:25,
39:21, 40:13, 43:24, 45:18, 45:22, 47:6,
47:17, 49:5, 49:16, 54:16, 67:22, 71:8
telecom [4] - 21:14, 21:25, 49:12,
49:15
telecommunications [3] - 21:18, 22:4,
23:16
Telephone [8] - 26:24, 27:1, 27:8,
39:17, 43:18, 51:17, 51:20, 69:3
telephone [1] - 4:8
template [1] - 9:7
ten [5] - 7:4, 7:6, 38:18, 42:15, 72:13
tendentious [1] - 11:13
terms [16] - 9:4, 12:6, 15:10, 25:11,
25:25, 30:22, 35:12, 37:7, 37:9, 39:12,
39:20, 40:11, 42:8, 43:22, 57:17, 72:20
Terre [1] - 43:9
test [4] - 26:5, 47:5, 47:6, 71:7
testifies [1] - 33:16
testify [9] - 24:8, 24:10, 24:18, 24:24,

25:2, 25:8, 25:19, 25:23, 31:23
testifying [1] - 63:5
testimony [15] - 3:11, 3:12, 4:11,
15:17, 16:20, 16:21, 25:4, 25:10, 32:2,
32:8, 33:12, 63:4, 72:15, 72:16
text [3] - 37:5, 37:8, 38:8
textbook [1] - 8:5
THE [154] - 1:5, 1:7, 1:14, 2:9, 2:12,
2:19, 2:23, 5:7, 5:12, 5:16, 5:20, 5:23,
6:12, 6:15, 8:15, 9:22, 10:17, 10:25,
11:6, 11:13, 12:8, 12:20, 12:24, 13:22,
14:2, 14:5, 14:9, 14:20, 15:1, 15:8,
15:21, 17:10, 17:23, 18:11, 18:16,
18:24, 19:13, 20:17, 21:3, 21:11, 21:21,
23:1, 23:18, 23:23, 24:3, 24:22, 25:3,
25:11, 25:24, 27:6, 27:18, 28:14, 28:18,
28:20, 28:25, 29:7, 29:15, 29:23, 30:2,
30:9, 30:24, 31:9, 31:13, 32:5, 32:7,
32:17, 33:2, 33:5, 33:9, 33:13, 34:2,
34:8, 34:16, 34:18, 34:22, 35:5, 35:12,
35:16, 36:2, 36:7, 36:16, 37:17, 39:8,
39:11, 40:7, 40:23, 41:7, 41:12, 41:18,
41:25, 42:4, 42:24, 43:22, 44:11, 44:16,
45:2, 45:14, 46:3, 46:9, 46:12, 46:16,
46:19, 46:22, 47:1, 47:10, 47:15, 48:17,
48:21, 50:12, 50:18, 53:1, 53:6, 53:23,
54:8, 54:24, 55:17, 56:10, 57:12, 57:16,
58:3, 59:4, 59:24, 60:5, 60:14, 61:1,
62:12, 62:15, 62:21, 62:24, 63:7, 63:21,
64:3, 64:12, 64:18, 64:21, 65:22, 67:1,
67:11, 67:17, 68:8, 68:11, 68:15, 68:22,
69:17, 70:20, 71:6, 71:15, 71:18, 72:2,
72:15, 72:23, 73:7, 73:10, 73:12
their's [1] - 26:11
theoretically [2] - 46:19, 46:22
theory [2] - 31:17, 31:22
therefore [2] - 20:2, 43:12
therein [1] - 4:3
they've [1] - 56:3
thin [1] - 15:23
thinking [2] - 12:2, 13:8
thinks [1] - 68:1
third [13] - 7:11, 26:24, 27:1, 29:1,
34:23, 37:22, 38:25, 39:13, 39:14, 51:4,
51:8, 63:11, 70:14
third-party [1] - 7:11
thoughts [1] - 4:19
thread [1] - 41:10
three [6] - 16:9, 26:5, 26:12, 41:14,
45:12, 45:19
throughout [1] - 8:22
thwart [6] - 39:22, 39:25, 40:3, 42:16,
45:15, 45:21
thwarting [3] - 43:11, 44:2, 45:17
timeframe [1] - 9:2
Title [5] - 21:20, 22:10, 50:3, 50:4, 67:8
title [1] - 65:14
TO [1] - 1:5
today [3] - 9:17, 53:20, 58:23
took [4] - 7:7, 7:8, 16:2, 33:1

tool [1] - 35:4
top [1] - 20:12
topic [1] - 65:4
topics [1] - 65:4
total [1] - 42:7
touched [1] - 50:21
tough [3] - 45:8, 45:9, 48:9
traction [1] - 16:13
trade [4] - 24:13, 30:22, 64:8, 64:14
transactions [1] - 51:5
TRANSCRIPT [1] - 1:14
transcript [2] - 2:4, 52:14
transcription [1] - 2:4transfer [3] - 71:3, 71:11, 71:24
transitory [1] - 66:18
transmissions [1] - 52:8
transport [2] - 70:23, 71:16
trial [3] - 7:17, 25:13, 29:20
tried [2] - 3:18, 56:18
trouble [1] - 61:1
troubled [1] - 53:25
true [2] - 42:19, 71:20
trust [7] - 59:5, 59:11, 60:18, 60:24,
61:3, 61:11, 61:14
try [2] - 44:19, 56:3
trying [13] - 26:7, 26:20, 36:16, 38:6,
40:20, 41:7, 45:6, 47:2, 47:5, 48:1,
56:17, 67:12, 72:11
turn [1] - 59:16
turnaround [1] - 7:22
turned [1] - 72:19
turning [2] - 6:8, 40:4
twenty [1] - 24:24
two [19] - 5:14, 6:6, 6:24, 7:19, 9:15,
21:8, 26:2, 26:15, 37:4, 45:10, 50:20,
54:14, 57:6, 61:17, 65:18, 66:1, 68:18,
70:10, 73:5
type [4] - 51:13, 54:22, 64:10, 67:4
types [7] - 52:9, 52:10, 53:13, 57:15,
64:25, 65:13, 69:9

U
U.S [1] - 35:5
unable [3] - 3:21, 6:10, 7:2
unanimous [1] - 17:15
unanimously [1] - 18:2
under [29] - 4:13, 17:20, 18:14, 21:8,
26:4, 26:13, 26:22, 27:17, 28:8, 30:2,
30:4, 30:6, 30:10, 31:3, 31:17, 31:22,
35:8, 38:8, 43:12, 43:18, 43:22, 53:5,
53:21, 54:16, 58:12, 66:18, 67:22,
69:14, 70:1
undermine [3] - 18:20, 18:23, 60:24
underscore [1] - 50:22
undue [1] - 20:3
unfortunate [1] - 9:20
unfortunately [1] - 64:19
UNITED [2] - 1:1, 1:15

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-31 Filed 02/25/16 Page 88 of 88 Page ID #:475

United [10] - 1:10, 1:17, 2:16, 2:18,
3:13, 34:25, 40:17, 45:22, 49:6, 71:13
unknown [1] - 13:3
unlawful [1] - 28:3
unless [1] - 22:6
unlock [4] - 3:18, 3:21, 4:8, 51:13
unlocked [1] - 4:10
unlocking [1] - 67:6
unnecessary [1] - 19:22
unrealistic [2] - 35:10, 35:13
unreasonable [2] - 19:24, 26:18
unwillingly [1] - 59:25
up [10] - 20:6, 33:17, 50:11, 57:2,
67:17, 69:12, 70:22, 72:4, 72:8, 73:2
update [2] - 20:18, 67:13
updated [1] - 19:14
updating [1] - 9:1
US [2] - 1:21, 11:12
usage [1] - 37:4
usages [3] - 37:18, 37:25, 38:12
useful [1] - 13:2
user [3] - 17:25, 29:6, 42:6
users' [1] - 54:11
uses [2] - 30:18, 32:13
utilities [1] - 23:17

V
valid [4] - 9:12, 10:10, 12:16, 39:1
value [4] - 11:25, 12:1, 12:2, 14:6
values [1] - 13:2
variation [1] - 17:12
variety [4] - 53:9, 58:12, 65:4
various [2] - 27:2, 73:2
vast [1] - 24:6
vector [1] - 58:21
verification [1] - 63:14
Verizon [2] - 21:8, 21:15
version [3] - 4:15, 4:17, 19:14
versus [8] - 27:10, 28:13, 30:2, 30:6,
31:3, 40:17, 45:22, 70:21
video [1] - 27:3
view [2] - 37:7, 65:16
views [4] - 55:16, 56:8, 59:19
vindicate [1] - 56:15
voluntarily [1] - 54:20
voluntary [1] - 57:5
vote [3] - 16:2, 18:8, 18:13
voted [4] - 15:19, 15:25, 16:4, 17:9
voting [1] - 18:4

W
wait [1] - 36:9
waited [1] - 6:19
waiver [3] - 8:17, 8:19, 11:2
walk [2] - 29:21, 30:11
wants [4] - 5:1, 25:13, 53:13, 65:25

warfare [1] - 43:6
Warrant [1] - 2:11
warrant [30] - 5:10, 5:12, 5:15, 5:18,
6:3, 6:5, 6:8, 6:17, 7:5, 7:7, 7:10, 9:12,
10:11, 16:24, 19:20, 19:21, 29:12,
29:17, 31:14, 36:1, 39:1, 40:1, 42:13,
42:17, 42:23, 44:7, 44:13, 54:23, 61:23,
70:18
WARRANT [1] - 1:6
warrants [2] - 5:14, 39:12
Washington [1] - 1:23
ways [2] - 36:16, 54:14
Wednesday [3] - 73:6, 73:7, 73:9
week [2] - 18:13, 18:14
weeks [3] - 6:6, 7:19, 9:15
weight [2] - 55:12, 61:15
welcome [5] - 2:19, 10:12, 23:4, 23:21
whole [1] - 65:7
wider [2] - 53:9
win [1] - 56:3
wipe [5] - 32:17, 32:22, 32:23, 42:18,
72:13
wire [5] - 32:16, 49:13, 50:3, 50:4,
51:21
wiretap [2] - 21:20, 22:10
wiretaps [1] - 22:6
withdraw [1] - 44:20
witness [2] - 29:21, 31:22
wonder [1] - 37:6
wonderful [3] - 11:15, 45:4, 72:25
wondering [1] - 28:6
words [5] - 4:4, 37:4, 60:7, 66:17,
71:18
works [3] - 4:7, 4:13, 56:10
world [1] - 9:4
worried [1] - 66:12
worse [1] - 31:2
worth [1] - 8:20
wrapping [1] - 31:1
writes [1] - 3:24
writing [1] - 54:3
Writs [60] - 15:5, 15:13, 15:22, 16:17,
17:20, 18:14, 19:4, 19:8, 19:9, 20:24,
26:13, 26:17, 26:22, 27:14, 28:1, 28:5,
28:9, 29:17, 30:3, 30:7, 31:16, 31:18,
31:20, 34:14, 35:8, 36:14, 36:17, 36:21,
37:10, 39:3, 43:13, 43:19, 44:21, 45:11,
48:4, 48:11, 49:11, 49:18, 51:14, 53:12,
53:16, 53:22, 57:14, 57:17, 58:24,
60:21, 62:1, 64:4, 64:6, 65:7, 66:13,
66:18, 68:20, 69:7, 69:14, 69:15, 70:1,
70:8, 70:12

X
XXX [1] - 55:21

Yyear [3] - 3:13, 5:13, 6:3
years [5] - 9:14, 12:13, 20:15, 48:15
YORK [1] - 1:1
York [30] - 1:11, 2:2, 26:4, 26:19,
26:24, 27:1, 27:5, 27:8, 27:10, 27:20,
27:25, 28:13, 28:14, 39:17, 39:21,
40:13, 43:18, 43:24, 45:18, 45:22, 47:6,
47:17, 49:5, 49:16, 51:17, 51:20, 54:16,
67:22, 69:3, 71:8

Z
ZwillGen [1] - 1:22
ZWILLINGER [44] - 1:24, 2:20, 10:23,
24:23, 25:6, 25:15, 32:20, 33:4, 50:19,
53:3, 53:7, 54:7, 54:13, 55:10, 56:5,
56:20, 57:13, 58:1, 58:9, 59:13, 60:2,
60:9, 60:19, 61:17, 62:14, 62:19, 62:22,
62:25, 63:10, 63:22, 64:7, 64:13, 64:20,
64:22, 66:19, 67:2, 67:16, 67:19, 68:10,
68:13, 69:11, 69:24, 73:9, 73:11
Zwillinger [1] - 2:21

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-32 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:476

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
NICOLA T. HANNA, SBN 130694
nhanna@gibsondunn.com
ERIC D. VANDEVELDE, SBN 240699
evandevelde@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
THEODORE B. OLSON, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
Facsimile: 202.467.0539
MARC J. ZWILLINGER*
marc@zwillgen.com
JEFFFREY G. LANDIS*
jeff@zwillgen.com
ZWILLGEN PLLC
1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.706.5202
Facsimile: 202.706.5298*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAEASTERN DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH
OF AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZEDDURING THE EXECUTION OF A
SEARCH WARRANT ON A BLACK
LEXUS IS300, CALIFORNIA
LICENSE PLATE 35KGD203

ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)DECLARATION OF LISA OLLE IN
SUPPORT OF APPLE INC’S
MOTION TO VACATE ORDERCOMPELLING APPLE INC. TO
ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH, AND
OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL ASSISTANCE
Hearing:
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:March 22, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Courtroom 3 or 4
Hon. Sheri Pym

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-32 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:477

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-32 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:478

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-32 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:479

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-32 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:480

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:481

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
NICOLA T. HANNA, SBN 130694
nhanna@gibsondunn.com
ERIC D. VANDEVELDE, SBN 240699
evandevelde@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
THEODORE B. OLSON, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
Facsimile: 202.467.0539
MARC J. ZWILLINGER*
marc@zwillgen.com
JEFFFREY G. LANDIS*
jeff@zwillgen.com
ZWILLGEN PLLC
1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.706.5202
Facsimile: 202.706.5298*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

EASTERN DIVISION

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH
OF AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZEDDURING THE EXECUTION OF A
SEARCH WARRANT ON A BLACK
LEXUS IS300, CALIFORNIA
LICENSE PLATE 35KGD203

ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)DECLARATION OF ERIKNEUENSCHWANDER IN SUPPORTOF APPLE INC’S MOTION TO
VACATE ORDER COMPELLINGAPPLE INC. TO ASSIST AGENTS IN
SEARCH, AND OPPOSITION TO
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL ASSISTANCE
Hearing:
Date:
March 22, 2016
Time:
1:00 p.m.
Place:
Courtroom 3 or 4

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:482

1

I, Erik Neuenschwander, declare:

2

1.

I am over the age of eighteen years and am competent and authorized to3

make this declaration. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below except as

4

to any facts set forth upon information and belief. As to those facts, I believe them to

5

be true. If called as a witness, I would and could testify to the statements and facts

6

contained herein, all of which are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and7belief.

8

2.

I have reviewed the Government’s Ex Parte Application for Order

9

Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, the Memorandum of Points and10

Authorities in support of that application, and the Declaration of Christopher Pluhar. I

11have also reviewed the Court’s February 16, 2016 Order Compelling Apple Inc. to

12Assist Agents in Search and the Government’s February 19, 2016 Motion to Compel.

13

3.

To the extent Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is required to perform the services that14

the government demands in these documents, I will likely be tasked with planning the

15

project, which would be implemented by multiple engineers and additional Apple16

personnel across different groups.

17

Background18

4.

I have worked for Apple for over eight years, with more than half of that

19

period focused on privacy matters. I am presently Manager of User Privacy. In that

20role, I am primarily responsible for the privacy design of Apple’s products and21

services. This includes performing ongoing reviews of the privacy impact of various

22

features in, and data collected by, Apple products and services (in coordination with a23

team of Apple engineers under my supervision), coordinating with Apple’s global

24

privacy policy organization and, with the legal department, coordinating outreach and25

communications with regulators and standards bodies. Prior to becoming User Privacy

26

Manager, my title was Product Security and Privacy Manager, a role I held for four

27

years.

28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

2

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:483

1
2
3

5.

Prior to joining Apple in 2007, I spent over four years at Microsoft

Corporation as a Program Manager.
6.

I attended Stanford University where I obtained both a Bachelor of

4

Science degree in Symbolic Systems and a Master of Arts degree in Philosophy.

5

During the time I was getting my Master of Arts degree, I was also a teaching fellow at

6

Stanford, teaching classes in Computer Science including C++ and Object-Oriented

7

Programming.

8

7.

All told, I have spent the majority of the last 13 years focusing on

9software engineering, with a significant focus on privacy and security dating back10

more than twenty years.

11
12

Overview of Security of Apple’s Devices
8.

In September 2014, Apple announced that iPhones and other devices

13

operating Apple’s then-newest operating system, iOS 8, would include hardware- and14

software-based encryption of the password-protected contents of the devices by

15

default. These protections are designed to prevent anyone without the passcode from

16

accessing stored data on the device.

17

9.

When a user sets up an iPhone, the user designates a device passcode,18

consisting of four, six, or more alphanumeric characters. This passcode is part of the19

encryption for files with certain classes of protection. The stronger the user passcode20

is, the stronger the encryption becomes. On iPhones running iOS 8 or newer operating

21

systems, the major types of user data, including messages, photos, contacts, email,22

notes, and calendar data all are encrypted with keys protected by a key derived from23

the user-chosen passcode. The end result is a person must know that passcode to read24

this data.

25

10.

26
27
28

To prevent “brute-force” attempts to determine the passcode bysubmitting multiple guesses in rapid succession, iOS includes a variety of safeguards.
11.

One of these safeguards is referred to as a “large iteration count.” This

safeguard functions to slow attempts to unlock an iPhone by increasing the

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

3

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:484

1computational burden of each attempt. The iteration count is calibrated so that one

2

attempt to unlock an iPhone takes approximately 80 milliseconds.

3

12.

As another safeguard, Apple imposes time delays, including one which

4

escalates after the entry of invalid passcodes to deter anyone attempting to improperly

5

access a phone by guessing the passcode. After enough consecutive incorrect attempts

6

to enter the passcode, the time delay is set to an infinite value, such that the device will7

refuse to accept any further passcode entries. There is also a user-configurable setting

8(“Erase Data”) which automatically deletes keys needed to read encrypted data after9

ten consecutive incorrect attempts. Even when this setting is disabled, however, the10infinite delay limits the number of passcode attempts.

11

13.

A further safeguard for iOS devices is the creation of a Unique ID

12(“UID”) for every device during fabrication, which is not accessible to the operating

13

system or stored by Apple. When the decryption key for a device is being generated,14

the user-chosen passcode is entangled with that device’s UID. This means that data is

15

protected with a key cryptographically tied to a given device, and consequently iOS is16

designed to require passcode validation (and therefore any attempted brute-force17

attack) be performed on the physical device itself.

18
19

14.

the device in question in this matter.

20
21

Each of the features described above is present in the operating system on
The Government’s Request

15.

As I understand it, the government is demanding that Apple build for the

22

FBI a version of Apple’s iPhone operating system that does not currently exist, that23Apple would not otherwise build, and that can be used to defeat the above-referenced

24

security measures on Apple devices such as the device at issue here. I will refer to this25

operating system as GovtOS.

26

16.

Specifically, I understand that the government wants GovtOS to (1)27bypass or disable the Erase Data function on the device, whether or not it has been

28

enabled; (2) enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the device electronically as opposed

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

4

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:485

1

to manually, which is how Apple devices are now designed to accept passcodes; and2(3) ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the device electronically, software

3

running on the device will not introduce additional time delays between passcode4

attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple’s hardware.

5

17.

The government wants GovtOS to load and run from Random Access

6

Memory (“RAM”), and not modify the operating system on the actual phone, the user

7

data partition, or the system partition on the device’s flash memory.

818.

I understand that the government wants Apple to cryptographically sign

9

GovtOS to represent that it is a legitimate Apple product, and then load it onto the10device in question so that the government can attempt to brute-force hack the device,11

either directly or remotely.

12

19.

Apple’s current iPhone operating systems designed for consumer

13

interaction do not run in RAM, but are installed on the device itself. To make them14

run in RAM, Apple would have to make substantial reductions in the size and15complexity of the code.

16
17

20.

input of a passcode.

18
19

Apple’s current consumer operating systems do not allow for electronic
Creating and Testing the Operating System

21.

The government is asking Apple to do something that, to my knowledge,

20Apple has never done before. Accordingly, it is difficult to accurately predict exactly

21

the work such a project would entail and how long it would take.

22

22.

I would estimate that the design, creation, validation, and deployment of23

GovtOS would necessitate between six and ten Apple engineers and employees

24

dedicating a very substantial portion of their time for two weeks at a minimum, and25

likely as many as four weeks. This includes, in addition to myself, at least two

26

engineers from Apple’s core operating system group, a quality assurance engineer, a27

project manager, and either a document writer or a tool writer (depending on whether

28

Apple is writing the tool to submit passcodes electronically or a protocol so that the

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

5

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:486

1

government can do so). This does not include the other personnel who would support

2

those individuals.

3

23.

These individuals would otherwise be performing engineering tasks

4

related to Apple’s products. New employees could not be hired to perform these tasks,

5

as they would have insufficient knowledge of Apple’s software and design protocols to6

be effective in designing and coding the software without significant training.

7

24.

The first step in the process would be for Apple to design and create an

8

operating system that can accomplish what the government wants. No such operating

9

system currently exists with this combination of features. Moreover, Apple cannot

10

simply remove a few lines of code from existing operating systems. Rather, Apple will

11

need to design and implement untested functionality in order to allow the capability to12enter passcodes into the device electronically in the manner that the government

13

describes.

14

25.

Creating the ability to enter passcodes into a device electronically with no15

software-imposed delays would entail modifying existing code to remove delays as

16well as writing new code that manages a connection to another device and, using a17communications protocol that would also have to be designed, allows the other device18

to submit test passcodes and receive and process the result of those tests. The means

19

for establishing such connection could include Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or direct cable

20

connection.

21

26.

Apple will also need to either (1) develop and prepare detailed

22

documentation for the above protocol to enable the FBI to build a brute-force tool that23

is able to interface with the device to input passcode attempts, or (2) design, develop

24

and prepare documentation for such a tool itself. Further, if the tool is utilized

25

remotely (rather than at a secure Apple facility), Apple will also have to develop

26

procedures to encrypt, validate, and input into the device communications from the

27

FBI.

28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

6

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:487

1

27.

After GovtOS is designed and implemented, it will need to be compiled

2

and an installable image will need to be created for the type of device in question.

3

Lastly, it will have to be signed with Apple’s cryptographic key verifying that it is4Apple-authorized software. Absent Apple’s proper cryptographic signature, this5

device will not load GovtOS.

6
7
8
9

28.

software that Apple wants created, deployed or released.
29.

12
13

This entire development process would likely be logged and recorded incase Apple’s methodology is ever questioned, for example in court.

10
11Apple would not agree to sign GovtOS voluntarily because it is not

Quality Assurance and Security Testing
30.

Once the operating system is created it will need to go through Apple’squality assurance and security testing process.
31.

The quality assurance and security testing process is an integral part of the14

development and deployment of any hardware or software product Apple creates.

15

Apple’s ecosystem is incredibly complicated. Changing one feature of an operating

16

system often has ancillary or unanticipated consequences. The potential for such

17

consequences increases with the number of changes to the operating system. Thus,

18

quality assurance and security testing requires that the new operating system be tested

19

and validated before being deployed. The quality assurance and security testing

20

process requires that Apple test GovtOS internally on multiple devices with the exact

21

same hardware features and operating system as the device at issue, in order to ensure

22

that GovtOS functions as required by the government’s request.

23

32.

Here, quality assurance and security testing will be particularly critical24

because the FBI-commissioned operating system will need to access the data partition

25of the device in order to test the passcodes. The data partition is where any user data

26

resides. Because the device at issue contains unique data—any damage or

27

modification to which could be irreversible—Apple will have to undertake additional

28

testing efforts to confirm and validate that running this newly developed operating

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

7

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:488

1

system to bypass the device’s security features will not inadvertently destroy or alter2

the user data on the data partition.

3

33.

To the extent during the quality assurance and security testing process4

problems are identified (which is almost always the case), solutions will need to be5

developed and re-coded into the new operating system. Once such solutions are

6

inputted, the quality assurance and security testing process will begin anew.

734.

The entire quality assurance and security testing process would also likely

8

be logged, recorded, and preserved in case Apple’s methodology is ever questioned,

9

for example in court.

10
11
12
13

Deploying the Operating System on the Subject Device
35.

Once the new operating system is created and validated, it will need to be

deployed on to the subject device.
36.

The deployment will need to be done at an Apple facility. That is because

14

GovtOS is not intended to run on any consumer device except with the validation of

15

Apple in circumstances where due process is followed. In addition, simply delivering

16

the operating system to the government would impose upon the government full17

responsibility for securing it from hackers and others looking to get their hands on it.

18

37.

Once GovtOS is created, Apple will need to set up a secure, isolated

19

physical facility where the FBI’s passcode testing can be conducted without interfering

20with the investigation or disrupting Apple’s operations. At that facility, the FBI can

21then connect the device to a computer equipped with the passcode testing tool and22

conduct its tests for as long as that process takes. At the conclusion of the FBI’s

23

testing, whether or not successful, the subject device will need to be restarted so that

24

GovtOS is erased from the device’s memory, and Apple can confirm that this sensitive

25

software does not ever leave its facility.

26

38.

The deployment steps for a particular device outlined above will require27

additional time beyond the creation and testing of GovtOS, likely at least a day (not28

including FBI time spent at Apple’s facility testing passcodes).

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

8

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:489

1
2

Destroying or Securing the Operating System
39.

The government’s papers suggest that once deployment of GovtOS is3

completed and the government (presumably) accesses the device, Apple can simply

4“destroy” GovtOS.

5

40.

The government suggests that this would reduce or eliminate any risk of6

misuse of the new operating system, including potential use on a device other than the7device at issue here. I believe this to be a fundamentally flawed premise.

8

41.

The virtual world is not like the physical world. When you destroy

9

something in the physical world, the effort to recreate it is roughly equivalent to the10effort required to create it in the first place. When you create something in the virtual

11

world, the process of creating an exact and perfect copy is as easy as a computer key

12

stroke because the underlying code is persistent.

13

42.

Even if the underlying computer code is completely eradicated from

14

Apple’s servers so as to be irretrievable, the person who created the destroyed code15

would have spent the time and effort to solve the software design, coding and16

implementation challenges. This process could be replicated. Thus, GovtOS would

17

not be truly destroyed.

18

43.

Moreover, even if Apple were able to truly destroy the actual operating

19

system and the underlying code (which I believe to be an unrealistic proposition), it

20

would presumably need to maintain the records and logs of the processes it used to21

create, validate, and deploy GovtOS in case Apple’s methods ever need to be22

defended, for example in court. The government, or anyone else, could use such

23

records and logs as a roadmap to recreate Apple’s methodology, even if the operating24

system and underlying code no longer exist.

25

44.

All told, I would estimate that the process of designing, creating,26

validating, deploying GovtOS would take two to four weeks, with additional time27

spent on eradication (assuming that is possible).

28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

9

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:490

1

Burden of Repeated Requests

2

45.

Given the complexity of designing, creating, validating, deploying, and3

eradicating a bespoke operating system such as the government demands, the burden

4

on Apple will increase significantly as the number of requests to Apple increase.

546.

For example, if Apple receives three orders a week similar to the one here

6from around the United States, the entire process described above—writing, validating,

7

executing, and then completely destroying the code—will have to happen three times

8

every week, week in and week out. Each such commissioned operating system will

9

need to be tailored to the specific combination of hardware and operating system

10running on the relevant device.

11

47.

The other alternative would be for Apple to maintain custody of GovtOS.

12

Doing that creates an entirely different set of burdens. If a purpose-built operating

13

system such as the one the government seeks here got into the wrong hands it would

14

open a significant new avenue of attack, undermining the security protections that

15

Apple spent years developing to protect its customers.

16

48.

Apple would thus need to impose the same level of security protections

17

around GovtOS (as well as the source code used to create it and records and logs

18

document its creation, validation, and deployment) that Apple now employs for its

19

most sensitive trade secrets.

20

49.

These measures would need to be maintained for as long as Apple was

21

being required to create and deploy specialized operating systems like those demanded

22

here.

23
24
25
26
27

Novelty of the Government’s Request
50.

What the government is requesting Apple do is not something that Applehas ever done before or would otherwise do.
51.

Apple does not create operating systems the purpose of which is to defeat

the security measures Apple specifically designs in to its products.

28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

10

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:491

1
2
3
4

52.

be installed a single time.
53.

7
8

Apple does not create operating systems built to third-party specifications

provided uniquely to Apple.

5
6

Apple does not build bespoke operating systems that are only intended toAlternative Ways of Obtaining Information from the Device
54.

There are several other ways the government could have potentiallyobtained any data stored on the subject device.
55.

I understand that the subject device was provided to the user by his

9employer, the San Bernardino County Public Health Department (“SBCPHD”), which

10

owned the device.

11

56.

The FBI would likely have been able to clear the passcode lock on the12device without assistance from Apple had the SBCPHD required that Mobile Device

13

Manager (“MDM”) be installed and activated on the device before giving it to their

14

employees.

15

57. MDM is an Apple feature that allows employers to exercise control over16

devices used by employees, whether those devices are owned by the employer and17

provided to the employees or are the employees’ own devices. Using MDM,

18

employers can wirelessly configure and update settings, monitor policy compliance,

19

deploy apps and books, and remotely wipe or lock managed corporate devices.

20

58. Administrative commands available to employers using MDM include

21

changing configuration settings automatically without user interaction and clearing the22

passcode lock so users can reset forgotten passwords. Had SBCPHD employed MDM

23

in a way that allowed it do those things, SBCHD could simply clear the passcode lock24

for the government and/or turn off the Erase Data feature for the government.

25

59.

The government may also have been able to obtain the latest data from26

the device through iCloud backup had the FBI not instructed the SBCPHD to change

27

the iCloud password associated with the account.

28
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

11

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:492

1

60.

Apple iCloud backs up information—including device settings, app data,2

photos, videos, and conversations in the Messages app—daily over Wi-Fi. In order for

3

an iCloud backup to occur, however, the backup feature must be enabled, and the4device must be locked, connected to a power source, signed into iCloud, and have Wi-

5

Fi access to the Internet.

6

61.

Shortly after the shooting, in the course of voluntarily providing the FBI

7

with guidance, Apple recommended to the FBI that that the device be connected to a8

known Wi-Fi network, such as one at the subject’s home or at the SBCPHD, and9plugged into a power source so it could potentially create a new iCloud backup

10

automatically. If successful, that backup might have contained information between

11

the last backup and the date of the shooting.

12

Process of Writing Code

13

62.

I have been writing computer code for thirty years.

14

63.

I started out writing IBM Advanced BASIC.

15

64.

In my experience, different people approach writing code in different

16

ways. Some people write a complete design before starting to code. Others start with17

the code and write it from start to finish. Still others begin with a sketch of what they18

want to make, which can be a list of features or an actual physical picture.

19

65.

Writing code is an exceedingly creative and expressive process, requiring

20

a choice of language (e.g., C, C++, Objective-C, Swift, Javascript, Python, Perl, PHP,

21etc.), a choice of audience (both in terms of the targeted technology platforms and22

types of end users), a choice of syntax and vocabulary (e.g., variable names, function

23

names, class definitions, etc.), the creation of complex data structures, algorithms to24

manipulate and transform data, detailed textual descriptions to help explain what the25

code is doing (i.e., what are called “comments” to code), methods of communicating

26

information to the user (e.g., through words, icons, pictures, sounds, etc.) and receiving

27

and responding to user input—all expressed through human-readable, expressive (and28functional) written work product.

Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP

12

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-33 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:493

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-34 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:494

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
NICOLA T. HANNA, SBN 130694
nhanna@gibsondunn.com
ERIC D. VANDEVELDE, SBN 240699
evandevelde@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
THEODORE B. OLSON, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: 202.955.8500
Facsimile: 202.467.0539
MARC J. ZWILLINGER*
marc@zwillgen.com
JEFFFREY G. LANDIS*
jeff@zwillgen.com
ZWILLGEN PLLC
1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.706.5202
Facsimile: 202.706.5298*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

EASTERN DIVISION

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH
OF AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZEDDURING THE EXECUTION OF A
SEARCH WARRANT ON A BLACK
LEXUS IS300, CALIFORNIA
LICENSE PLATE 35KGD203

ED No. CM 16-10 (SP)[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGAPPLE INC.’S MOTION TO VACATEAND DENYING GOVERNMENT’S
MOTION TO COMPELHearing:
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:March 22, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Courtroom 3 or 4
Hon. Sheri Pym

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16-34 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:495

1

On February 16, 2016, upon ex parte application by the government, the Court

2

issued an Order Compelling Apple to Assist Agents in Search (Case No. ED 15-

30451M, Dkt. 19).

4This matter is before the Court on Apple Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Order

5

Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, and Opposition to Government’s

6

Motion to Compel Assistance (“Motion to Vacate”), and the government’s Motion to7

Compel Apple Inc. to Comply with This Court’s February 16, 2016 Order Compelling

8

Assistance in Search (“Motion to Compel”).

9

Having considered the files and records in the case, the parties’ papers in

10

support of and opposition to the Motion to Vacate and the Motion to Compel, the11accompanying declarations and exhibits, and the parties’ argument at the hearing on

12this matter, the Court hereby GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Vacate and DENIES the13

government’s Motion to Compel.

1415

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: ______________________, 2016

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Honorable Sheri Pym
United States Magistrate Judge