[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Apple v. FBI: What Just Happened? Last night, on the eve of its courtroom showdown with Apple over a locked iPhone, the FBI surprised everyone. In a motion filed with the court, it asked for more time to explore a new possible method it claimed it had come across to unlock the iPhone at issue — the work phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. If the method works, the FBI will no longer need Apple's assistance to unlock the phone. What does this mean for the fight over whether the government can force Apple to write new software to help the FBI break into an iPhone? First and foremost, it makes it hard to trust the technical expertise of the FBI. The FBI had previously claimed in filings with the court and in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee that it couldn’t get into the San Bernardino iPhone on its own. It insisted that the only way to break into the phone was to force Apple to write new software weakening the security protections on the device. We have already explained that a key premise of the government's argument — that it would lose the data if it tried to guess the passcode too many times — was false. And now the FBI is acknowledging that its previous statements that only Apple could help may also have been wrong. This doesn't inspire confidence, and it is yet another reason to resist the government's demands in the larger debate about whether tech companies should be forced to weaken the encryption in their devices to provide for governmental access. There is an extraordinary consensus among security professionals that doing so would be disastrous for security. The FBI has responded by wishing away the consensus of the technical community. The latest development in Apple's case gives little reason to think that the FBI has the technical qualifications necessary to make this point. Second, the legal fight is far from over. Even if the FBI gets access to the San Bernardino phone using the new method it is exploring, it is inevitable that the FBI will come knocking again. We know of a dozen or so other apparently pending requests that Apple has received from the government for technical assistance — including a case in New York, in which the government recently appealed a ruling against it. (It’s unclear if the technique that the FBI indicated could help it unlock the San Bernardino phone would apply in these other instances. If it does, that could moot those requests.) Meanwhile, Apple and other tech companies are bolstering the security of their devices in response to consumer demand and the new threats to security cropping up every day. The FBI will eventually run into a phone that it can't unlock on its own, and it will likely seize the opportunity to go after the legal precedent it sought in this case. Finally, expect the debate in Congress to heat up. The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), are reportedly circulating draft legislation that would allow judges to order companies like Apple to provide backdoor access to encrypted communications. Thus, the momentum in Congress continues despite delays in court. And we have yet to see the Obama administration take a firm stand to defend companies like Apple and their right to ensure the security of our electronic products. The security of all of our devices is compromised in a world in which the FBI — or any other government around the world — can turn the tech companies against their users. Users need to be able to trust tech companies to refrain from pushing government-mandated malware onto their phones. That trust is essential to the basic hygiene of our devices and of the Internet. And that's why allowing the FBI to poison the well, so to speak, is nothing short of reckless. While yesterday’s development puts the brakes on that recklessness, it’s not likely to have solved the bigger problem. For that, we need the Department of Justice and members of Congress to abandon their attempts to undermine our security, and to instead focus on policies that encourage widespread adoption of strong encryption. TAGSSurveillance by Other Agencies Privacy and Surveillance National Security Surveillance Technologies Privacy & Technology ADD A COMMENT (15) Read the Terms of Use Terry C. Quit putting your whole life on a simple telephone and you don't have to worry about what the government finds. REPLYMARCH 22, 20162:23 PM John H Stop using streets and you never have to worry about car crashes! Stop drinking water and you don't need to worry about water pollution! Stop breathing and you don't need to worry about air pollution! You're technically correct, but this is a non sequitur. MARCH 23, 201612:09 PM Anonymous So, what this article is saying is that it is OK to protect domestic terrorist? I am not saying the government needs free rein on issues like this, but when it comes to the security of the U.S. them I think its the moral obligation of a company like Apple to help with their products. REPLYMARCH 22, 20165:19 PM Anonymous Don't be naive. Apple has consistently helped law enforcement. This isn't about getting into a phone but rather forcing a company to weaken its own software to allow anyone -- and it really is anyone as opposed to just "the good guys" -- access to whatever they want, whenever they want. Our privacy rights are supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution. That's a full stop by the way. If we allow our Government to become the tyrannical one it wants to become then we truly lose to any perceived terrorist threat. We become them. MARCH 22, 20166:28 PM Anonymous They would of lost this fight on appeal. The government. The All Writs Act was never used in this way. It would of redefined judicial power. Many many briefs by over 40 well respected legal scholars said that this was an abuse of the Act. MARCH 22, 20168:56 PM HawkAtreides "Stopping terrorism" is how we've been giving the government free rein to do whatever they like for the past decade and change. MARCH 22, 201611:02 PM Richard L That may seem true, but Only if you're a Simple Minded , dim witted ,follower. Our founders knew value of privacy. Liberty outweighs any security your (un)concerned Big brother claims is for U. U silly man. Please don't vote MARCH 22, 201611:15 PM John H A couple things: This isn't protecting a domestic terrorist. Assuming we're going to label a mass shooting "terrorism" at all - we usually don't, instead insisting it's an unpredictable "lone wolf" shooting people, and the Second Amendment is more important than the entire rest of the US Constitution - Syed Rizwan Farouk is already dead. Apple isn't protecting a domestic terrorist, and the FBI has no good reason to believe that the data they're seeking will actually be of any help in preventing future attacks or identifying collaborators. Even if this WAS a case of protecting a suspected domestic terrorist, we should still be doing so: the larger principle is more important, as the harm caused by the infrequent, statistically-insignificant "terrorist" attacks people occasionally commit pales in comparison to the harm caused by nullified encryption, which is very rapidly where this path leads. We can know this thanks to similar systems of commercial encryption that have had master keys - DVD and Blu-Ray encryption schemes, for example. Blu-Ray in particular was supposed to have unbeatable encryption with closely guarded master keys, but it took all of a year to irrevocably break that system. MARCH 23, 20162:08 PM Anonymous The ACLU is supposedly the premiere defender of our Constitutional Rights, not Corporate rights. There is no Constitutional right to a repository of information that the government doesn't have access to with a duly issued warrant. I would like to point out that the government, with a warrant, can collect and analyse your DNA and blood - the single most personal information you "have." A phone, server, or any other tool is not more sacrosanct than an individual's biological code and body chemistry. Amend the Constitution if this is a fight you want to continue. REPLYMARCH 22, 20169:15 PM Anonymous There is nothing that says that you need to make the collection of that data easy. They can collect your devices but cannot compel you to unlock them. "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government" Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||