This is the analogy I used with the missus when discussing this case, last night. But it is more like forcing the safe maker create a special key for every safe you want opened. Eventually, you'd just ask them to create one master key you can keep or just a special side panel only you can access. In this one instance, the FBI request is reasonable. But it will not stop at this one case. This case is the perfect public trial because the bad guy is just so evil and the FBI position is so righteous. But, as was pointed out above, this is just a judicial way of achieving a goal law enforcement couldn't get legislatively. They will use this power in a wide range of cases, even when the public is not in danger, just as they have with the Patriot Act powers. And I don't buy that if retraining government is restraining/disempowering the people. Maybe in a perfect world, but not this one. This government is not the people. Rumors are Apple has been at work on a device that even they couldn't crack or weaken even if ordered by the courts. I have reservations about that route as I do think law enforcement should have some way of getting past encryption when it is necessary. People already abuse the pseudo-anonymity of the Internet so I can't imagine what people would do if they knew their devices were 100% secure. Access should be behind checks and balances which is what we see playing out in this case. Which is why I support Apple in their protest but want them to just do their duty when they lose in the courts. In the end, I think there is less risk in the corruption of law enforcement than in the corruption amongst corporations and individuals. We entrust government with the power to kill, imprison, seize property, and tax. In this day and age, with this technology, we are just adding spy domestically, to the list.
I am very much an advocate of privacy and freedom and advocate using technology to ensure those rights. I am a total fanboy of GNU systems and the entire free as in speech movement, to that end. Apple is one of the greatest threats to that privacy and freedom in a legitimate technical sense, but, for now, they are complete privacy advocates. And that I respect. But all it takes is a shift among shareholders, the board of directors, or the CEO for Apple to one of the most dangerous companies on the planet. They are far less creepy than Google and Facebook and all 3 concern me deeply, given what they collectively know about all of us.
Yea .. . but Apple didn't run COINTELPRO either Didn't Bomb the MOVE (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/why-did-we-forget-the-move-bombing) Didn't intentionally give men diseases to see how they worked either Didn't intentional push drugs into poor minority neighborhoods My philosophy is simple Good Law allow people to go good GREAT law prevents people from doing evil WE ARE SO BUSY . . .trying to see the GOOD that can come out of this. . . that we overlook, ignore, minimize the EVILNESS that can come out of this. Rocket River
UC Berkeley has a large collection of COINTELPRO papers and materials on the Black Panthers. Quite sobering **** to read.
While it defies U.S. government, Apple abides by China's orders — and reaps big rewards Apple Inc. has come out swinging in its pitched battle with the government on its home turf. But when it comes to its second-largest market, China, the Cupertino, Calif., company has been far more accommodating. Since the iPhone was officially introduced in China seven years ago, Apple has overcome a national security backlash there and has censored apps that wouldn't pass muster with Chinese authorities. It has moved local user data onto servers operated by the state-owned China Telecom and submits to security audits by Chinese authorities. The approach contrasts with Apple's defiant stance against the FBI, which is heaping pressure on the company to decrypt an iPhone that belonged to San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook. I can't imagine the Chinese would tolerate end-to-end encryption or a refusal to cooperate with their police, particularly in a terrorism case. - James Lewis, senior fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies The years-long strategy in China is paying off at a crucial time. While sales of Apple products have flatlined or declined in the U.S., Europe and Japan, business in the company's greater China region continues to soar — to a record $59 billion last year. The Asian giant surpassed the U.S. last year as the No. 1 buyer of iPhones and could one day be the largest market for Apple Pay, the mobile payment platform that was rolled out for Chinese consumers last week. But there's no guarantee the good times will continue rolling for Apple. Beijing is increasingly tightening the screws on foreign technology companies, having introduced strict laws aimed at policing the Internet and digital hardware. The environment will get even tougher, Apple says, if the FBI prevails in seeking a so-called backdoor to Farook's phone. That could set a precedent for China's authoritarian leaders to demand the same in a country where Apple has never publicly defied orders. "What's driving this is Apple's desire to persuade the global market, and particularly the China market, that the FBI can't just stroll in and ask for data," said James Lewis, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I can't imagine the Chinese would tolerate end-to-end encryption or a refusal to cooperate with their police, particularly in a terrorism case." Apple's fight with the FBI The last time Apple was in the crosshairs of Chinese negative opinion was after the Edward Snowden National Security Agency leak in late 2013. Chinese state-run media began raising national security questions about the iPhone's location-tracking feature. Communist party cadres and other officials were also urged to ditch their Apple devices. The controversy underscored how quickly nationalistic sentiment in China can turn on a foreign brand. Amid the furor, Apple announced it was shifting local user data onto China-based servers. The move was seen by some analysts as a concession to calm fears that Apple's infrastructure was compromised by U.S. intelligence. It came four years after Google pulled its search engine out of China in an unprecedented stand against the Chinese government over censorship. Apple, one of only a handful of U.S. tech giants that have flourished in China, said the move was necessary to improve services for its growing Chinese user base. It added that all data on the servers were encrypted and inaccessible to China Telecom. Even so, some security experts say the servers could be vulnerable. "Whatever data is on Chinese servers is susceptible to confiscation or even cryptanalysis," a sort of code cracking, said Jonathan Zdziarski, a leading expert in iPhone security. The same could be said about access to data in servers in the U.S., Zdziarski said, the only difference being you need a subpoena. But it's not just the servers that pose a risk. Apple's source codes could be stolen from one of its Chinese factories or during government security audits. "Most of the hardware tools that have hacked iPhones in the past all came out of China, and that's probably for a reason," Zdziarski said. "It'd be foolish to think that Apple could form a safe and healthy relationship with the Chinese government that didn't put the U.S. at some level of higher risk." In the end, moving users to China Telecom's servers was followed by a rehabilitation of Apple's image in China that continues today. On Monday, the state-run Economic Daily gave Apple Pay its stamp of approval, saying it complied with national security standards — echoing endorsements the iPhone 6 received more than a year earlier. In January 2015, the government mouthpiece, the People's Daily, tweeted a picture of Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook shaking hands with Lu Wei, China's top cyberspace official. "Apple has agreed to China's security checks, 1st foreign firm to agree to rules of Cyberspace Admin of China," the tweet said. Apple said this was nothing special; it accedes to security checks in all countries it operates in. And all companies that want to do business with China are required to submit to such checks. What's different, however, is how stringent the checks could be in the near future. Despite criticism from foreign governments, including the White House, China is introducing security laws that are so vaguely worded some fear it will require technology companies to provide source codes and backdoors for market access. Regulators there have already demanded more foreign companies store data locally like Apple did with China Telecom. How the new rules fare could depend on the outcome of Apple's case with the FBI, experts say. "The problem is, depending on what happens with Apple in the U.S., the window for foreign companies to maneuver over encryption and other security requirements in China could shrink," said Samm Sacks, an analyst for Eurasia Group. She said the ambiguity of China's security laws are designed to promote self-censorship. Apple in the past has pulled apps from its China app store that mentioned the Dalai Lama and ethnic Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer — both considered enemies of the state. And late last year, it disabled its news app in China. "Virtually every foreign tech company doing business in China is going to have to make some concessions to the government, just as the price of entry," said Charlie Custer, a writer and expert on tech in China. "I'd love to hold all global corporations to Google's moral standard, but it's probably not realistic to expect that, especially from a company like Apple whose most important market is probably China."
I'm voting "Don't Know" as I'm still deciding for myself. IT security isn't something that I know much about and at the moment I can see both sides of the argument. I am somewhat leaning to supporting Apple and think JeffB has posted some very good information for that side of the argument. As someone who has been to the PRC several times and probably will again in the future the issue of how this affects what is going on in other countries is very important. I've been in seminars regarding Chinese piracy and safeguarding data. What I've been told is that the Chinese will seek any advantage to try to get data from visitors for national security purposes, R & D, or business advantages. I've been told that any sensitive or privileged data should be kept encrypted on a flash drive and kept on one's person. For people like myself with an Iphone I've brought that with me to the PRC and while I'm not using their cellular networks have used it web browsing, as a a camera and to play music. That my personal phone might also have work emails and other data that I wouldn't want the PRC to get hold of is concern and I'm not comfortable with the idea that if Apple develops a key to unlock US Iphones that the PRC might press them, and Apple might cave, for it. This case is most likely going to end up in the USSC. More reason we should get another Justice seated soon.
I think this is as much about power as technology or privacy, so I'm guessing Standard Oil, Ma Bell and Windows 95/Me/Internet Explorer give an indication of how this will turn out.
I'm not so sure they lose this in court. One of Apple's argument is unreasonable burden. Apple designed their system to specific security criteria. For this particular case, or phone, there were ways to get to the data within certain conditions, and they were willing to do that. Those conditions were destroyed (foolishly by the FBI themselves). Now, they are being asked to go back and poke new holes through that "soft iron" door they built. Today, in the physical world, I think it is already established that it is reasonable to ask an individual or company to open a door when they have a key. It's not reasonable to place the burden on any individual or company to cut down the door when they do not have the key or the lock was destroyed. It is not that different in the non-physical world of software. Furthermore, I'm fairly sure the government DOES have the ability to cut the door down (at a very extensive initial cost). But the government knows that that ability is diminishing every day and might disappear. This is where the FBI and government is probably trying to get a side access and might be using this particular instance of terrorism as their mean to push for public support. But I hope they will eventually back down and start or continue close collaborate with industry experts and companies on a standardize method of access that is built upon very strict government and private body of check and balance system for future design and have it adopted. Once established, they may push it through as a requirement for national security where the government will only buy devices/phone that meet this standard. At some point in time when the industry and public is ready to widely adopt, put in the law.
http://abc13.com/business/ny-judge-us-cannot-make-apple-provide-iphone-data/1224466/ The U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to a locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case, a magistrate judge ruled Monday. U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein's written decision gives support to the company's position in its fight against a California judge's order that it create specialized software to help the FBI hack into an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terrorism investigation. Apple's filing to oppose the order by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym in California is due by Friday. Apple's opposition to the government's tactics has evoked a national debate over digital privacy rights and national security. Orenstein concluded that Apple is not obligated to assist government investigators against its will and noted that Congress has not adopted legislation that would achieve the result sought by the government. "How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago," Orenstein wrote. "But that debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive." A Justice Department spokesman said they were disappointed in the ruling and planned to appeal in the coming days. Apple and their attorneys said they were reading opinion and will comment later. In October, Orenstein invited Apple to challenge the government's use of a 227-year-old law to compel Apple to help it recover iPhone data in criminal cases. The Cupertino, California-based computer maker did, saying in court papers that extracting information from an iPhone "could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand." It followed up by declining to cooperate in a dozen more instances in four states involving government requests to aid criminal probes by retrieving data from individual iPhones. Federal prosecutors say Apple has stopped short of challenging court orders judicially, except in the cases before Orenstein and the California jurist who ruled about the San Bernardino shooter's phone. "Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come," Orenstein wrote. "For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not."
So Apple hands privacy and security to Chinese communists in order to sell their phones but won't unlock a murderer's cell phone here. Disgusting.
Apple also puts the squeeze on Chinese manufacturers for the privilege of making iProducts with a bleeding thin margin. Maybe the geographical differences in attitude isn't that surprising.
A point that should be made in this discussion: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/going_dark_vs_a.html The crypto wars have been going on for a very long time, here's a bit of history on exactly what happened the last time government clashed with encryption. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1960602
Can I ask a laymen's question (I know dangerous). But from a justice point of view, what is different from this then say: Judge gives the police a search warrant to a safe deposit box at a bank? Wouldn't the bank have to comply and let the police access to the safe deposit box? Is the basic crux that yes, the police should have access to that information but doing so puts other's security at risk for more sinister actors? Or is Apple saying that even the government shouldn't have access? Or are folks here saying that police shouldn't even have access, regardless of AT&T's (edit, meant Apple) position?
Today the subject is breaking up big banks, but soon the subject of breaking up big tech companies will come up too. These guys have been on both sides of the law and people but as with all big autocratic structures they're eventually going to become such a grave threat that it's not worth what they provide in exchange. We're probably already there, but they haven't abused their power enough for people to care enough. Or they have and we don't know, which is the biggest fear with tech companies - they are not going to suffer a Snowden-like whistleblower. Kudos to Apple to doing this but there is profit for them in doing this, whether they won or lost. I would have liked to see how they would behave in a situation where it would have cost them.
What is different about this request is that the FBI is asking every safe to have the same pre-built weakness, which would defeat the purpose of safes in the first place. They are using this as a test case to attack a philosophy. If you design for vulnerabilities, somebody out there will find it. How do I know this? Even the brightest cryptologists have f**ked up multiple times in the last few years (Heartbleed for example) while designing for absolute security! Somebody who is attacking you only needs to be right once, while you need to be right all of the time. A commitment to designing for security rather than access is an absolute, rather than a relative argument. What is the point of having a safe if each one is designed to break easily in some way? The other part of this is that it should be the legislative wing proposing the checks and balances, not an executive agency well known for its overreach.
I think breaking up big technology companies would be good insofar as freeing up certain verticals and spaces for new entrants. Not sure why you think they're an autocracy though. Nobody is forcing you to share your scandalous selfies. Big tech is a lot more "Brave New World" than "1984".
I meant internally autocratic, which is how companies/corporations are structured by law. Although they can't directly project that autocracy onto the rest of us, they certainly have an impact on breeding a culture of obedience. It's easier to accept authority when you go to work for a mini authoritarian every day IMO. As far as breaking up large tech companies, for me it's more about their ability to influence the remainder of the society they live in. We don't deeply scrutinize the HR practices of Google for example although an egomaniac CEO could put us all in grave danger. It's just too much of a concentration risk I think and as a consequence they would be more capable of blocking new entrants into the market even if it may meet our critical needs. I acknowledge that it's more of an argument for large companies in any industry, but coming up is the tech. We've already become very aware of how bad it could be with financial institutions and a lot of those lessons can be carried over.
