21st Century Privacy and Security

rocketsjudoka · Mar 6, 2016

Mathloom said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

It's been done before. AT&T was broken up in the 1980's and Microsoft was forced to unbundle it's software.

Northside Storm · Mar 6, 2016

Mathloom said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think of big tech employees as the least coerced of all wage classes, I mean, the big tech companies are all terrified people who have knowledge in scarce knowledge areas such as distributed computing or machine learning will leave them more than anything. This leads to great salaries, huge stock grants, amenities like free food/yoga classes and etc.

and a lot of those employees will have options to start their own company, freelance at really high rates etc., so the culture tends towards individual autonomy to offer employees the best of both worlds (stable pay and freedom).

Out of every corporate culture, big tech is probably the least autocratic.

(anecdotal take from my experience, I work for a tech company that is quite well privately financed, though not on public markets yet, so not quite big tech--though several friends work for the standard Facebook/Google/Microsoft giants and have similar feelings).

The better argument, I think, is that big tech left to its own devices is blocking new entrants by taking product categories (such as mapping or document sync) and making them loss leaders for eyeballs and attention to their main product line, which often involves holding large reams of connected data points on all of us.

Space Ghost · Mar 11, 2016

I'll say it again, Obama says it best when he says nothing at all. The less he talks, the better he does. It baffles me on some of the subjects he chooses to weigh in.

Obama on encryption debate: ‘There has to be some concession’ from tech companies.

“If your argument is strong encryption no matter what and that we can and should, in fact, create black boxes, that I think does not strike the kind of balance we’ve lived with for 200, 300 years,” he said. “It’s fetishizing our phones above every other value. And that can’t be an answer. I suspect the answer is going to come down to how do we create a system where the encryption is as strong as possible, the key is as secure as possible, it is accessible by the smallest number of people possible for a subset of issues that we agree are important.”
Click to expand...

Invisible Fan · Mar 12, 2016

Dream Sequence said: ↑

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?
Click to expand...

The fear is that the government demands all safe deposit boxes to be made of transparent glass. you don't know who else has access to the bank vault but it's there for anyone to see once you get inside or know what you're doing. There are around 50k government officials and contractors with clearance to eavesdropped and wire tapped information flowing on the net and telecoms. That's all without a warrant.

Your scenario implies this would happen on a case by case basis. With automation it's more like sifting through millions of cases on a day to day basis.

J.R. · Mar 21, 2016

FBI may not need Apple to unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — The FBI may have found a way without Apple’s assistance to unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Justice Department officials said Monday.

Less than 24 hours before a highly anticipated hearing over access to the phone was set to begin, Justice Department lawyers requested a delay. A federal judge agreed to postpone the oral arguments here in which Apple and the U.S. government were set to face off over whether a court could force Apple to help the FBI unlock the phone.

The sudden about-face was a stunning development in a month-long legal saga, as government lawyers and the FBI director had been insisting for the past month that the bureau had found no other way to obtain access to the locked phone than to compel Apple to assist the government.

“Our top priority has always been gaining access into the phone used by the terrorist in San Bernardino,” Justice Department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said. “With this goal in mind, the FBI has continued in its efforts to gain access to the phone without Apple’s assistance, even during a month-long period of litigation with the company.”

On Sunday, the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Eileen Decker, said in a terse application to a magistrate judge in Riverside, Calif., that “an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking [attacker Syed Rizwan] Farouk’s iPhone.”

If the method works, she said, it should eliminate the need for help from Apple.

But it would also raise questions about the FBI’s competence in unlocking digital devices. “This suggests that the FBI either doesn’t understand the technology well enough or wasn’t telling us the full truth earlier when it said that only Apple could break into the phone,” said Alex Abdo, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of Apple in the case. “Either possibility is disconcerting.”

Newman stressed that the bureau must first test the method to ensure it doesn’t destroy the data on the phone. “We remain cautiously optimistic,” she said. “If this solution works, it will allow us to search the phone and continue our investigation into the terrorist attack that killed 14 people and wounded 22 people.”

Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym directed the government to report back by April 5.

Though the case centers on one iPhone, it potentially has much larger implications for privacy and national security. If the legal battle resumes, it almost certainly would drag on for months, potentially up to the Supreme Court.

Last month, the Justice Department announced it had obtained a court order under the All Writs Act to force Apple to create software to disable a phone security feature so that the FBI could try its hand at unlocking the device by cracking a numeric password.

Apple argued that the law the government cites does not permit a court to force it to do such a thing, that doing so would violate its constitutional rights, and that a ruling in the government’s favor would set a precedent that could weaken overall device security and privacy for users around the world.

The government argued that the law did authorize the court to direct Apple to provide the assistance and that Apple, which creates its own software, was the only party that was in a position to help.

The surprise move on Monday appears to vindicate Apple’s argument, which is that the U.S. government had not exhausted all available means to recover information from the phone.

It stands in contrast to assertions made by FBI Director James B. Comey, who this month testified that bureau officials “have engaged all parts of the U.S. government” to ask “does anybody have a way, short of asking Apple to do it,” to unlock Farouk’s phone. “And we do not,” he said.

Similarly, FBI supervisory special agent Christopher Pluhar said in a court filing that the bureau had “been unable to identify any other methods feasible for gaining access.”

In a conference call with reporters, a senior law enforcement official repeatedly said that “the FBI has been continuously working on all different avenues” on how to unlock the phone throughout the litigation.

He declined to say whether it was a lost opportunity for the government to establish a legal precedent that authorities, under the All Writs Act, may force a company to provide technical help in unlocking an encrypted device.

“This is about getting into a terrorist’s phone,” he said. “It’s always been about this phone and the evidence that may be on it.”
Click to expand...

JeffB · Mar 22, 2016

J.R. said: ↑

FBI may not need Apple to unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone
Click to expand...

Well, color me not surprised.

robbie380 · Mar 28, 2016

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Govt says it has successfully accessed data stored on San Bernardino suspect's iPhone, no longer requires help from Apple - filing</p>— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/714569864891858944">March 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Brando2101 · Mar 28, 2016

robbie380 said: ↑

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Govt says it has successfully accessed data stored on San Bernardino suspect's iPhone, no longer requires help from Apple - filing</p>— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/714569864891858944">March 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

This illustrates the extreme risk in building in official ways to bypass security on phones. You can barely keep people from breaking in now.

ipaman · Mar 29, 2016

Don't fall for it guys. The story that the FBI couldn't get in is a GIANT LIE. They always could (thanks to the NSA) but wanted to set the precedent legally. They failed but the investigation had to continue so they used the NSA anyway. They'll try legally again which means expect another terror attack soon.

zeeshan2 · Mar 29, 2016

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: FBI uses mystery method to break into gunman's iPhone without Apple's help, ending court case.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/714570046056570880">March 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Forums

21st Century Privacy and Security

Who do you support in case between Apple and the FBI?

Apple

FBI

Don't know

rocketsjudoka Member

Northside Storm Member

Space Ghost Member

Invisible Fan Member

J.R. Member

JeffB Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

Brando2101 Member

ipaman Member

zeeshan2 Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

21st Century Privacy and Security

Who do you support in case between Apple and the FBI?

Apple

FBI

Don't know

rocketsjudoka Member

Northside Storm Member

Space Ghost Member

Invisible Fan Member

J.R. Member

JeffB Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ) Supporting Member

Brando2101 Member

ipaman Member

zeeshan2 Member

Share This Page

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member