The case between Apple and the US government keeps generating a lot of responses, but if there’s one thing you really need to see, it’s ABC’s 30-minute interview with Tim Cook about the matter. It’s no secret around here that I am not a particular fan of either Apple (or any other company for that matter) or Tim Cook, but I am genuinely impressed by Cook’s spirit, insistence, and conviction displayed in this interview.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has firmly and clearly sided with Apple, stating the company will file an amicus brief next week. During a congressional hearing today, Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith pulled out an adding machine from 1912, to drive the point home how old the law is that the FBI is relying upon.
“We do not believe that courts should seek to resolve issues of 21st Century technology with a law that was written in the era of the adding machine,” Smith said.
I still think Apple will eventually lose this whole thing, but hearing Tim Cook say they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court at least reassures me he is willing to take it all the way.
“Soon after Microsoft announced it’s decision to back Apple’s legal battle with its own amicus brief, Facebook, Google and Amazon have stepped in and are reportedly working on similar legal briefs to offer support in court.”
but Bill Gates is on the other side of history
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html
Which is not surprising – as he clearly doesn’t fully understand what is going on.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160223/07191933684/bill-gates-is…
Face it, the guy is old now… it’s not like he’s on the forefront of OS security, or mobile technology for that matter. A lot has changed since he was in charge of Microsoft.
When has Bill Gates or Microsoft been at the forefront of OS security anyway? I don’t remember such a time, and i started with DOS 4.
Yeah, bet the FBI wishes we still used DOS too.
Who are this ‘reality’ creators? Who will end being their managers? Us -as consumers-?
Truman would be amazed.
Quoting Bill Gates:
There is absolutely no argument about 2 and 4. The FBI already has independent jurisdiction established independently, and the usage is agreeable with the principles of the law.
In this case 3, it being necessary and appropriate, is solely based on the fact that the FBI has exhausted alternative remedies (i.e. 1).
So here is the rub: The fact that the government has no alternative remedy is because, finally, after many many years of toil and effort by the technology sector, for once their fricken security actually works right. Backdoors, accidental or intentional, are no where to be found…
The point isn’t that the scope of the request is too broad – it is certainly narrow enough, and I don’t think Apple is trying to argue against that. The problem is that actual working security implementations require the government to resort to exercising authority granted in this archaic Act – they have no other option.
Why is that a problem? Because what they are basically saying here is that if a technology company does their job right, they will exercise their authority in the future to demand it be undone. Every single time they come up against “working” security, they will simply compel the company responsibly for it to weaken it for them. Because if they could do it themselves, then by definition, it isn’t working security.
So Bill Gates is dead wrong. While the requested remedy might be narrowly tailored, that isn’t the point. The point is the precedent that will be set. The government winning this cause essentially robs the public of the benefits of strong security, but only when it is implemented commercially.
In other words, criminals (if they are smart enough) can use their own means to securely encrypt data (the means to which are pretty well known now) without concern since there is no company for the government to force into weakening it.
The idea of commercially provided security, however, is basically destroyed. How does a company design actual, real, working security when the government has the power to compel them into making it no longer work?
The government is simply doing an end around… They are forcing backdoors into commercial products after the fact, without Congress being involved, and without the public having a chance to vote on it. Regardless of whether you think the government should get the data on that phone or not, this isn’t they right way to go about it. They are absolutely asking for “some general thing”, the fact that Bill Gates doesn’t see it says more about Bill Gates than it does about this case.
That article is inaccurate.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098592/bill-gates-fbi-apple-com…
Indeed. Nadella probably spat his drink out of his mouth and decided they needed to say something.
I think Apple made a pretty good case in today’s court filing, using constitutional arguments to counter the FBI’s invocation of the All Writs Act.
That might mean something if we didn’t have a government which continually wipes its ass with our constitution.
//That might mean something if we didn’t have a government which continually wipes its ass with our constitution.//
The government also regularly gets their ass handed to them by the Constitution. If not for the Constitution, gays and lesbians would still be third class citizens (or if Christian Fundamentalists had their way, hanging from trees or in “conversion therapy”); women still wouldn’t have the right to choose (or vote for that matter) and our schools would be Christian indoctrination centers where children would learn that a sky god created everything in a week and that Adam and Eve cavorted with Dinosaurs. If not for the Constitution, the United States would be a Christian theocracy run by Christian Mullahs, we’d have our own Christian Shariah Courts, and children (Texas and South Carolina are working hard at this) would be indoctrinated into the Gospel of Christian Fundamentalism from day one. Remember, “In God We Trust”.
So I’d say the Constitution hasn’t done so badly protecting us from the Government. I’m not as pessimistic about Apple’s chances, especially with the Supreme Court’s recent history siding with “Free Speech” claims and Corporate Rights (read personhood).
Edited 2016-02-26 14:01 UTC
I’m probably just bitter toward Apple and mega-corporations in general;
But I don’t see this as Apple saying “oh please think of the privacy of the children!” I see it as them defending their business.
If they follow what the FBI wants and create a backdoor, they’ll lose a lot of customers.
People can’t even turn back to blackberry for a secure phone ’cause they’ve switched to Android like everyone else.
It’s a sad state of affairs.
Of course. They are a business, after all. This is only natural. And for all I’m concerned they can leave the children out of it, as they get used as excuses for everything in this country. If you’re not from the states, you probably won’t realize just how ridiculous it is to hear “think of the children!” every time anybody wants to restrict anything at all.
The invocation of constitutional items is a set-up for a possible Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court doesn’t often deal with little issues and would be unlikely to overturn a lower court’s decision regarding a simple law enforcement case.
But if the case highlights a conflict between a current law or regulation and the Constitution of the United States, the Court would be more likely to hear it.
i don’t think they’ll lose, at least not the whole thing where they have to provide the fbi with a custom built iOS just for that phone to be cracked.
even if the fbi offers to come to apple’s offices to try to crack the phone, it’s a case by case thing that no tech company really wants to deal with. every murder, ever divorce, every accusation of anything and law enforcement isn’t going to march over to apple to ask for help. they want a full backdoor no matter how they couch it, and hackers can and will exploit it.
i don’t think a judge – or congress, or obama – risks 100+ million other customer’s bank, fingerprint, location, and now health data just to see what’s on 1 guy’s work phone. i don’t care how many people that guy killed.
it was his work phone, he was a crazy internet terrorist. there’s all kinds of other data they can and have gotten on that guy without compromsing every single other iPhone user’s life on the planet, and ruining the entire iOS ecosystem.
that reporter was really thick, asking the same question 14 times.
You overestimate the administration’s will to do what’s right, I think. The FBI and NSA would do just about anything to get this kind of access.
Something that bothers me a bit, with all due respect to privacy issues, is that the legal owner of the phone cannot access their own data on it. That’s not relevant to the legal dispute at the moment, but it’s a nagging concern regardless.
Will that make corporations and organizations less likely to buy iPhones, if they come to learn that with a simple password change their data is lost forever with no process for recovery?
Or maybe it makes them more likely to buy iPhones, knowing that if they can’t get their own data, no one else can get it either?
It looks like corporately managed iPhones can be configured to send a recovery key to the company’s own servers. I’m guessing in this case they didn’t enable the setting.
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/featuredarticles/…
Caveat: I’m not an iPhone user, so this is just from my reading of the docs.
Edit: I realise now this is for OS X not iOS… oops. You can certainly push policy to an iPhone, but maybe not this specific functionality.
Edited 2016-02-27 14:23 UTC
Raton than seeking a technical solution, I was considering the philosophical issue:
How many hoops should someone have to jump through to retrieve their own data off of a phone they own?
Should the phones be locked up so securely? Or should the phone owner be able to retrieve their data or reset their passwords with a phone call to Customer Service?
“It’s no secret around here that I am not a particular fan of either Apple (or any other company for that matter).”
You’re not a fan of any companies? How should I interpret that, you make all of your own clothing, only walk to locations barefoot, and eat only what the Earth provides you with on your hunt for vegetation and game?
Are you so idealogical that you can’t even realize how stupid you sound? Go find a rock to live under.
Does anybody sees how ironic is this whole thing?
I mean that Apple (and Microsoft) are fighting for user’s privacy whilst Apple and Microsoft are super rich companies who have proved again and again that all they care the most is their profits (e.g. monopoly, tax evading schemes, using patent laws as weapons, etc.).
All I am saying is that the stakes here are so high that definitively not Apple and nor Microsoft (and nor Facebook) should be the ones defending the user’s privacy! I guess the next thing (after Apple looses this battle) would be that Apple could start defending the net neutrality for the sake of iPhone users.
Edited 2016-02-27 08:48 UTC
“…the stakes here are so high that definitively not Apple and nor Microsoft (and nor Facebook) should be the ones defending the user’s privacy!”
Kind of agree [Should accept that Apple is confronting FBI on behalf of people, as ‘clientele’], but also with Tim: Is FBI and his track record the correct entity to do so?
FBI would weaken the case, if representing more than the victims. But, are the fallen down the only victims?
Entities having decades fighting for the consumer.
Director of the Federal Trade Commission^aEURTMs Bureau of Consumer Protection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/technology/obamas-effort-on-consu…
Tim Cook has his flaws (like anyone) but I can’t help but wonder why you can’t admire the man’s positives, even while understanding his failings. As the saying goes, hate the game not the player. He’s doing what must be done in capitalism – competing to win. If you don’t like that game, you need a different system. It’s continuously frustrating to see people villainize individuals in this economic system for behaving the way the system insists they behave, rather than pointing at the system and saying this here – capitalism – this needs to change. By the rules of capitalism Tim Cook is doing well, both in terms of how he plays, and even morally as defined by that system. (If you don’t think morals are defined largely by economic systems – go read more.)
Imagining that I took those not so flattering photos, and that karaoke video at that party nobody wants to admit ever happened, not with my smart phone, but with my pocket camera.
Then deposited that camera at my trusted bank. Inside one of those little, funny boxes with two keys, as appear in many American and European movies.
Seems to be that some SuperStar was around -Didn’t see her, sorry-. She is demanding for a search and destroy of those photos. Can that gentle Judge deny that little favor to HER? Please!
Happens I’m uncontactable at some spiritual retirement within the profound and unexplored jungle of Timbuktu. Said won’t come back in 5 years.
I carried my key with me. Can the Bank say they don’t a copy of my key? So the Bank can’t open it? So Authority -and not the impeccable ethics Bank- has to force that little box? Is Authority forced to be the breaker of my privacy?
As I have for my trusted bank? On keeping the privacy of my photos? Now that they know my photos have market value?
Of half my digital life? along with that of half a country? Compiled, Analyzed, Meta-dated?
To Corporations? To the State? To ourselves?
Vigilant States would force smart phones in all citizens.
“…In other words, if people opted for free [Internet] access that^aEURTMs slower and more basic instead of paying for more expensive high-speed connections, less data would be collected about them.”
From Adrienne Lafrance:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/free-web/4711…
^aEURoeThe Internet, like most technologies, it^aEURTMs a multiplier,^aEUR [Steve] Song told me. ^aEURoeIt can multiply good, and it can multiply bad. But if you have no access, anything multiplied by zero: It^aEURTMs still zero.^aEUR
These are not ‘appliance’ Corporations.
The most miserable and shameful ‘cold’ war actions are happening at hot points where there is not adequate shared intelligence.
Carpet bombing the kingdom of the temples?
There is no reason for the FBI to even examine the phone. Any information would be totally ‘cold’ by now and of no use. The suspects are dead and can’t be prosecuted.
And deserves an answer. Unclefester is right about info inside being ‘cold’.
Hardly. This is the same people formerly intercepting pony express or telegraph lines.
Not by far as Apple insinuates by dropping a mechanical adder machine at the bar. This is -indeed- just for the show.
More like a bunch of drunken young people taking some old & tired melody as the himn of a new age.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160226/16551633728/leaked-detail…
At Safe Harbor Successor…
http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/29/privacy-shield-document-release/
1
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Synapse)