Invoking child sexual abuse and the pandemic, Attorney General Bill Barr is praising the introduction of a bill that would require tech companies to give law enforcement access to encrypted data. 

It is an issue AGs from both the Obama and Trump Administrations have hammered Apple over. 

Related: AG Barr Again Calls for Access to iPhones 

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) has introduced the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act, which would disallow warrant-proof encryption. It is a companion to a similar Senate bill introduced by Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). 

Tech companies--Apple is the poster-company--have resisted building encryption back doors into their devices.  

“I applaud Representative Wagner for introducing this critical lawful access legislation. Although strong encryption is vital, we cannot allow the tech industry to use encryption that blinds law enforcement and prevents it from thwarting or investigating serious crimes and national security threats, including terrorist plots, cyber attacks, and sexual exploitation," said Barr.   

Related: Barr Says Warrant-Proof Encryption Aids Sexual Exploitation 

The danger is particularly great for children, especially during this time of coronavirus restrictions when children are spending more time online. "Survivors of child sexual abuse and their families have pleaded with technology companies to do more to prevent predators from exploiting their platforms to harm children. Unfortunately, these companies have not done enough, which is why this legislation is needed." 

“Bad actors, especially child predators and human traffickers, have taken full advantage of warrant-proof encryption and other technological advances to hide their criminal activities from law enforcement at the expense of innocent victims," said Wagner and Graham in a joint statement. "It is time tech companies stand with criminal investigators and the public to make clear they are committed to rooting out perpetrators who use their services to commit horrific crimes." 

The law would require tech companies to help law enforcement get access to data if they had a warrant, encourage developing strong encryption that still allows for such access, and training law enforcement on how to access such data. 

"I am confident that the tech industry can design strong encryption that allows for lawful access by law enforcement," said Barr.   

The legislators argue the law balances privacy, public safety and due process. The bill is supported by various police, sheriffs and district attorneys groups, as well as the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. 

Related: Comey Says Warrant-Proof Spaces Are Problematic 

The Trump and Obama Administrations are not on the same page on most issues, but both have fought warrant-less encryption and had their run-ins with Apple over trying to get access to phone data.  

Back in May, Barr made Apple's refusal to build government back-doors into information on its iPhone part of the lead of his announcement on the December shooting at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. He said Apple's practice of warrant-less encryption is "dangerous" and "unacceptable."

Attorney General Bill Barr signaled Thursday (May 21) that China is poised to take a big lead in the race to 5G. 

Barr was commenting on the State Department's global roundtable with CTOs this week about 5G integrated open networks (IONs). 

Related: FCC's Pai Says U.S. Will Lead in 5G Deployment 

“The United States and our partners are in an urgent race against the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to develop and build 5G infrastructure around the world," Barr said. "Our national security and the flourishing of our liberal democratic values here and around the world depend on our winning it. Future 5G networks will be a critical piece of global infrastructure, the central nervous system of the global economy. Unfortunately, the PRC is well on its way to seizing a decisive 5G advantage. If the PRC wins the 5G race, the geopolitical, economic, and national security consequences will be staggering." 

"The PRC knows this, which explains why it is using every lever of power to expand its 5G market share around the globe. The community of free and democratic nations must do the same." 

Related: Shapiro Says Winning Race to 5G Is About Preserving Values 

Barr said it is imperative that the U.S. and its partners work with trusted vendors to "turn the tide now." 

The Trump Administration has made winning the race to 5G a national imperative.

Attorney General Bill Barr made Apple's refusal to build government back-doors into information on its iPhone part of the lead of his announcement on the December shooting at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. 

Barr said Apple's practice of warrantless encryption is "dangerous" and "unacceptable."

Related: Barr Says Warrant-Proof Encryption Aids Sexual Exploitation 

Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani shot and killed three U.S. sailors. Barr and Justice had sought Apple's help in unlocking the phones, but Apple had designed the phones so that only the user could gain access, something Justice is not happy with. 

Related: CCIA 'Disayed' at Barr Encryption Stand 

Barr announced that there was a definite link between Alshamrani and Al Quaeda, which had been confirmed because after four months the FBI had unlocked his phones, but added a "no thanks to Apple" high in his announcement. DOJ had a warrant, but it took DOJ four months to crack the encryption Apple had built in to protect user privacy. 

"Four months ago, I announced that this shooting was an act of terrorism," Barr said. "I also publicly asked Apple to help us access the locked contents of the two iPhones belonging to the deceased terrorist Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani. It was clear at that time that the phones were likely to contain valuable information. Indeed, Alshamrani attempted to destroy both phones, even going so far as to disengage from the gunfight long enough to fire a bullet into one.

"Within one day of the shootings, the FBI sought and obtained court orders, supported by probable cause, authorizing the FBI to search the contents of both phones as part of its investigation. The problem was that the phones were locked and the FBI did not have the passwords, so they needed help to get in. We asked Apple for assistance and so did the President. Unfortunately, Apple would not help us unlock the phones. Apple had deliberately designed them so that only the user — in this case, the terrorist — could gain access to their contents. " 

Barr said that the information secured by the FBI had already proven "invaluable" in protecting Americans, sending the clear message that those lives could have been protected months sooner had Apple built in a back door.    

Barr has long argued that law enforcement must have access to secure devices to be able to deter and solve crimes, and that technology has to be part of the solution. 

The concern predates Barr or the Trump Administration. FBI Director James Comey expressed similar concerns over warrant-proof encryption. 

Big tech critic Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has big issues with Amazon.  

Related: Hawley Slams Apple, Tik Tok 

The senator has asked Attorney General Bill Barr to open an antitrust investigation into Amazon and what he says could be "predatory and exclusionary" practices.  

That was spurred by a report that it was "stifling competition by culling data from the platform's sellers to launch competing products under its own private label, a practice he called an existential threat to small businesses already facing the existential threat of a pandemic.   

Related: Attorney General Barr Slams Big Tech's Sec. 230 Carve-Out 

“Abusing one’s position as a marketplace platform to create copycat products always is bad, but it is especially concerning now,” he wrote Barr, according to a copy of the letter supplied by Sen. Hawley's office. “Thousands of small businesses have been forced to suspend in-store retail and instead rely on Amazon because of shutdowns related to the coronavirus pandemic. Amazon’s reported data practices are an existential threat that may prevent these businesses from ever recovering.” 

The Justice Department is currently investigating how Big Tech got that way and whether it was through circumvention of antitrust laws, or perhaps a loophole in the law that needs fixing. 

Related: The COVID-19 Crisis Hits the TV Industry 

Hawley pointed to a European Union investigation of Amazon's use of data to target third-party sellers and cited testimony from former employees and internal documents that support the conclusion that Amazon "abuses its position as an online platform." 

Amazon has said it now has policies preventing this, but Hawley counters that what it says in that policy, and what it does in practice "are two different things." 

Related: DOJ's Rosen Signals Possible Action if Big Tech Proves 'Innovation' Threat 

And during the COVID-19 pandemic, that could be the difference between life and death for small businesses, he suggests. "Thousands of small businesses have been forced to suspend in-store retail and instead rely on Amazon because of shutdowns related to the coronavirus pandemic. Amazon’s reported data practices are an existential threat that may prevent these businesses from ever recovering...I ask that you look into this issue and open a criminal antitrust investigation of Amazon." 

FCC chair Ajit Pai's circulation of an item approving Ligado's long-standing request to launch a terrestrial broadband service using satellite spectrum drew a immediate response Thursday from interested observers inside the Beltway, including the attorney general.  

The FCC has been vetting one or another variation of that proposal for most of a decade--the company was originally called LightSquared--and what was initially billed as a 4G service is now promoted for 5G and IoT. 

GPS users, including federal agencies like the Department of Defense, had complained of potential adjacent band interference from the Ligado proposal, but Pai said the FCC has determined a conditioned approval can promote that 5G use of midband (L-band) spectrum without harmful interference. 

But at least one head of a federal agency, attorney General Bill Barr was pleased and urged the other FCC commissioners to follow Pai's lead.  

“I applaud FCC chairman Pai's proposal to make available L-band spectrum, to be used together with C-band spectrum, for deployment of advanced wireless services, including 5G," he said in an emailed statement. "As I said in my speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, swift FCC action on spectrum is imperative to allow for the deployment of 5G. This is essential if we are to keep our economic and technological leadership and avoid forfeiting it to Communist China. Freeing up L-band spectrum for use in tandem with the C-band, as the Chairman proposes, should greatly reduce the cost and time it will take to deploy 5G throughout the country and would be a major step toward preserving our economic future. I hope the full Commission moves forward quickly."

CTIA suggested the lengthy process had been an issue. 

“We're pleased to see that the FCC has managed to cut through the red tape to make a decision on Ligado," said CTIA SVP and general counsel Tom Power. "This multi-year process reveals the challenges at play in our nation’s spectrum policy and the need for stronger support for new commercial wireless services. We need to all learn lessons from this process and ensure that decisions on key spectrum bands like lower 3 GHz occur in a more expedited and collaborative manner.” 

“I commend chairman Pai for circulating a draft order to approve Ligado’s applications, which will make much-needed mid-band spectrum, specifically L-band spectrum, available for terrestrial use," said Competitive Carriers Association president Steven Berry. "This long-awaited, positive progress comes at a critical time for all Americans, particularly those in rural areas, who are relying on mobile connections and services more than ever before. Mid-band spectrum provides real opportunities for deploying next-generation technologies, and competitive carriers are eager to access this valuable resource to expand and enhance their networks. I thank the chairman for taking steps to approve the applications and look forward to continued work to bring robust mobile broadband to all corners of the US as quickly as possible."

Michael Calabrese, a member of the National Telecommunications & Information Administration's Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC), said the move was long overdue and was not happy with the power limits and other conditions the FCC put on the proposal to try and accommodate federal agencies. 

“The Ligado order should have been adopted years ago," he told Multichannel News. "While it’s heartening that Chairman Pai is standing up to unreasonable federal agency efforts to block more efficient uses of spectrum, the compromises needed to overcome the balkanization and NIMBYism that afflicts the Trump administration’s incoherent spectrum policy are disheartening. 

“Like the 5.9 GHz band, where the Department of Transportation continues to block a full reallocation, Ligado’s spectrum is now saddled with conditions that will severely limit its utility. In both cases, the FCC did what politics allowed, but not what the agency would have done based purely on the technical and economic merits.” 

Attorney General William Barr used a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Wednesday (Feb. 26) to take aim at progressive Democrats and the "massively consolidated" media, or, put another way, the President's favorite twitter targets. 

Barr took his NRB convention audience in Nashville on something of a combination political philosophy/ecclesiastical history tour, touching on St. Augustine, Tocqueville, Rousseau and John Adams. 

But his ultimate destination was the present day, where he blamed the current "passionate" political divisions on conflict between liberal democracy, which he described as limited government and personal liberty, and totalitarian democracy, which he said "seeks to submerge the individual in a collectivist agenda" and "subverts individual freedom in favor of elite conceptions about what best serves the collective," and which he said today's progressive Democrats are turning into. 

Related: Religious Broadcasters Have Ratings Issues

He called it a form of messianic democracy that substitutes politics for religion and requires an all-knowing elite to guide the masses. He said the new "progressives" have become increasingly "militant and totalitarian" with a socialist, collectivist agenda. 

Barr said the goal of those progressives and their "totalitarianism beneath a veneer of democratic choice" is to "convert all of us into 25 year-olds living in the government’s basement, focusing our energies on obtaining a larger allowance rather than getting a job and moving out." 

And what has been one of the eroded bulwarks against this "slide toward despotism?" The mainstream media. 

Barr said a free and diverse press provided a form of decentralization of power, but now that the "corporate--or mainstream--media press is massively consolidated" and "remarkably monolithic" in viewpoint," while journalists increasingly see themselves as agents of change rather than reporters of fact, the media has the power to mobilize public opinion in a particular direction, with those mobilized becoming more powerful with the press as its ally.

"This is not a positive cycle, and I think it is fair to say that it puts the press’ role as a breakwater for the tyranny of the majority in jeopardy," said Barr. 

President Trump's argument has been that Democrats, progressive and otherwise, have mobilized the mainstream media as their ally in trying to bring him down. 

But Barr had some preaching for the choir as well, finding some hope in the media folks he was addressing.

"The key to restoring the press in that vital role is to cultivate a greater diversity of voices in the media," he said. "That is where you come in. You are one of the last holdouts in the consolidation of organs and viewpoints of the press. It is, therefore, essential that you continue your work and continue to supply the people with diverse, divergent perspectives on the news of the day. And in this secular age, it is especially vital that your religious perspective is voiced." 

Attorney General William Barr said there are valid questions about whether tech companies should still get immunity from liability over third party content hosted online, but that Justice was not advocating its demise. 

Related: Tech's Sec. 230 Sweetheart Deal Must End 

Barr was giving opening remarks at a Department of Justice workshop Wednesday (Feb. 19) entitled: "Section 230: Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability." 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act holds that no web site is the publisher of third party content on the site, and so is not liable for its content. It also allows it to restrict constitutionally protected speech that it considers objectionable. 

Republicans are concerned that the latter power allows liberal Silicon Valley companies to censor conservative speech as "objectionable." 

The attorney general is no big fan of the section. In a speech back in December, Barr signaled that Justice was looking seriously, and critically, at social media platforms' Sec. 230 immunity from liability for third-party posts.  This week's workshop is part of that deep dive.

"Section 230 was passed at a time where the internet was relatively new, and Congress wanted to protect the growth of online services and the ability for the internet to offer 'a forum for true diversity of political discourse," he said at the time, but said that the courts had expanded that original charter, citing the "staggering breadth of Section 230 immunity, as construed by the courts."   

Related: Court Upholds Edge Protection from Liability 

Congress is currently considering whether to tighten Sec. 230's protections, though there does not yet appear to be the political appetite for getting rid of it entirely. 

In Wednesday's opening remarks for the workshop, Barr continued to raise questions about Sec. 230. 

"No longer are tech companies the underdog upstarts; they have become titans of U.S. industry," he said. "Given this changing technological landscape, valid questions have been raised on whether Section 230’s broad immunity is still necessary, at least in its current form." 

Barr said that the rise of tech giants has left consumers with fewer options, both for those who want safer online spaces and those whose speech has been banned or restricted. "[T]he avenues for sharing information and engaging in discourse have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. Further, the big tech platforms of today often monetize through targeted advertising and related businesses, rather than charging users," he said. "Thus, their financial incentives in content distribution may not always align with what is best for the user." 

He also said the days of bulletin boards like AOL have morphed into sophisticated platforms with moderation tools and algorithms, blurring the line between passively hosting third-party speech and curating or promotion it. 

Barr sounded like anything but an originalist when it comes to Sec. 230. "Technology has changed in ways that no one, including the drafters of Section 230, could have imagined," he said. But then in the next breath sounded just like one when it came to court interpretations, saying they "seemingly stretch[ed] beyond the statute’s text and original purpose." 

Then there was something of an original sin for a law enforcement official. "Online services also have invoked immunity even where they solicited or encouraged unlawful conduct, shared in illegal proceeds, or helped perpetrators hide from law enforcement," he argued. 

Barr said that while Justice is concerned about the section and its use top evade the law, it is not ready to advocate for its demise, saying that the section has brought benefits and he wanted to avoid a cure that was worse than the disease.  

The tension between protecting online and device privacy and helping law enforcement track down criminal activity was on display Thursday (Oct. 3). 

That came after Attorney General Bill Barr planned to join with other countries in a letter asking Facebook not to deploy end-to-end encryption. 

Related: DOJ Fires New Encryption Warning Shot at Silicon Valley 

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, said it was "dismayed" by Barr's opposition to strong encryption, though the Justice Department has made it clear in the case of Apple and its reluctance to provide back doors to device security that it needs access to info, whether in devices or elsewhere.  

“Strong encryption is increasingly vital to the privacy and security of individuals, national security and economic prosperity," said CCIA President Ed Black. "Companies should be encouraged to develop and employ the security standards that the public expects for their devices and online activity. ” 

In a speech back in July, Barr said time was running out on warrant-proof encryption and painted a bleak picture of the internet and communications platforms morphing into "law free" zones where criminals "go dark" with impunity leading to more crime, abetted by Big Tech.

It was another kind of "March madness" Sunday (March 24) as big news broke inside the Beltway.

Broadcast and cable nets, with the exception of CBS, broke into regular programming Sunday afternoon to report the news that, according to Attorney General Bill Barr's letter to Congress, there was no evidence President Donald Trump or his campaign conspired or colluded or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election, and that there was not enough evidence of the crime of obstruction of Justice by the President, though neither was the President exonerated of that charge.  

The President called the investigation "an illegal takedown that failed."

Democrats will hinge on that "no exoneration" conclusion from Barr, based on special counsel Robert Mueller's report, which was concluded Friday (March 22), while Republicans will point to the "no collusion" conclusion. 

it was Barr who drew the conclusion from the report's evidence of no obstruction of justice, rather than Mueller, which Democrats could also latch on to to push for more info and even push for impeachment, which has a lower standard than sufficient evidence of indictment. 

“After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense," Barr said, according to the White House.

Related: Nets Gang Up on Mueller Report Conclusion

In his note, Barr said that the conclusion that there was no obstruction was separate from whether a sitting President can be indicted. Observers had been looking for the answer to whether there was no indictment because the general Justice theory that is that the President can't, or that there was not sufficient evidence whether or not he could be, so Barr said it was the latter. 

The White House was definitely declaring victory per the following tweet from the President (who appeared to feel exonerated anyway) and Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

[embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1109918388133023744[/embed][embed]https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1109911057013919746[/embed]

The President also spoke briefly about it:

"After a long investigation, after so many people have been so badly hurt, after not looking at the other side where a lot of bad things happen, there was no collusion with Russia, no obstruction, the President said. He also said it was a shame the country and "your President" has had to go through this. He said it was an illegal takedown that failed and hopefully somebody is going to be looking at the other side.

“After a long look, after a long investigation, after so many people have been so badly hurt, after not looking at the other side where a lot of bad things happened...it was just announced there was no collusion with Russia,” Trump said, calling the collusion allegations, “the most ridiculous thing ever. 

“It was complete and total exoneration” 

“It’s a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest it’s a shame that your president had to go through this.” 

“This was an illegal takedown that failed and hopefully somebody is going to be looking at their other side” 

“It’s a complete exoneration”

Vice President Mike Pence included a shot at the media in his reaction:

"After two years of investigation, and reckless accusations by many Democrats and members of the media, the Special Counsel has confirmed what President Trump said along; there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election... This total vindication of the President of the United States and our campaign should be welcomed by every American who cherishes the truth and the integrity of our elections."

The news nets all morning had been anticipating the letter to Congress would come down Sunday (March 24).  CBS was the odd net out as it continued to cover the NCAA Tournament game between North Carolina and Washington as the story was breaking, though it did air a special report during halftime of the game and encouraged viewers to check out its digital platform for more news.

CBS later in the day said it would air an hour, prime time, special, The Mueller Report: A Turning Point, Monday (March 25) at 10-11.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) was not happy and signaled in a tweet that Barr would have a date with the committee.

[embed]https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1109913142933573632[/embed]

Nadler's opposite number in the Republican-controlled Senate saw it quite differently.

“I have just received topline findings from Attorney General Barr. Good day for the rule of law, "confirmed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a statement. "Great day for President Trump and his team. No collusion and no obstruction. The cloud hanging over President Trump has been removed by this report. 

“Bad day for those hoping the Mueller investigation would take President Trump down. 

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, agreed: 

“For two years, Special Counsel Mueller conducted his investigation with every available Justice Department resource at his disposal, and today’s principal conclusions assure every American there was no collusion between Russia and Donald Trump or his campaign," said Collins."Russia is a bad actor with dark intentions, but there is no evidence that they compromised a presidential nominee. The special counsel’s investigation was long, thorough and conclusive: There was no collusion. There is no constitutional crisis. As the report states, 'the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.'