It does sound like a threat at the end. He's basically saying, "you don't want to give us a new bill? Okay, we'll write a one-sided one, and you're going to hate it, but too bad because all you wanted to do was debate and discuss the issue".
He sounds like he has already made up his mind, is in a rush, and does not want to engage in debate. He already agrees with the DOJ and nothing is going to change his mind.
It is unreasonable for him to expect Apple to propose legislation before even one congressional hearing on the issue is complete.
Even after one hearing we can't expect the public and Congress expect to be so informed on the implications of curtailing encryption that they should be prepared to legislate on the issue.
Sensenbrenner claims Apple is saying "No no no" but in reality he is the one doing the censure. Apple has repeatedly said they're willing to discuss the issue in public.
He sounds like he has already made up his mind, is in a rush, and does not want to engage in debate. He already agrees with the DOJ and nothing is going to change his mind.
It is unreasonable for him to expect Apple to propose legislation before even one congressional hearing on the issue is complete.
Even after one hearing we can't expect the public and Congress expect to be so informed on the implications of curtailing encryption that they should be prepared to legislate on the issue.
Sensenbrenner claims Apple is saying "No no no" but in reality he is the one doing the censure. Apple has repeatedly said they're willing to discuss the issue in public.