Your Basic Needs: Food, Shelter and The TRUTH
Privacy and the IPhone, Who do you trust more, Uncle Tim or Uncle Sam
There has been a firestorm about the FBI request for Apple to break the IPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist's.
If like me, you are conflicted about the recent news about the FBI
request for Apple to create a backdoor, or entry to the IPhone of the terrorist from San Bernardino, I would suggest that you review the video below. It is a passionate defense of privacy by Ted Olson, who lost his wife in the 9/11 Terrorist attacks and is a former Solicitor General of the US.
I admit that my first reaction was that Apple was trying to protect our privacy. After a bit of thought, I came to the conclusion that it is protecting its reputation for having an unbreakable system on any IPhone. If we can calm down for just a minute, we may find that this is not as clear-cut as it may appear. Both the government and Apple are using the emotional response. The government is using the possibility of a major terrorist attempt with the details on the IPhone. Apple is using the emotional argument that you would be exposing all your private and personal data to the whim of anyone.
Both may be true, but the fundamental question is based on the law and not emotion. I have mixed feelings in this dilemma. Our system of laws is based on a rational approach to balance the often-conflicting issues of constitutional rights and public good. When we allow emotion to overcome logic, we are risk to losing our rights without due process.
Privacy is a matter of concern for both the guilty and the innocent. Two of the largest social networking companies, Google and Facebook, make their money by taking your "private" communications and searching it for clues to your interest. They then sell it or provide it to advertisers for profit or use it to present you with options of things that you may be interested in seeing. The difference is that you willing offer information by posting or commenting on their sites.
When you make a phone call or add a contact to you IPhone, do you have some expectation that it will remain private? The phone call is captured by the carrier of your choice. A court order can force them to provide the government with listing of your calls to and from but not the content.
I am not as naive as to think that anything in this life is private including my own thoughts. That is because; I sometimes do not use my internal filter before the thought comes out of my mouth. Later, I may have a faulty memory about whether I thought or said something.
So here is the central point of the matter for me. The resolution of this matter should be settled in the courts and not in the court of public opinion. The answer to your question is "Yes, I would want to know if some of the information on the phone would prevent another terrorist attack". My return question is: "Do I trust the government to only use this information and any other information it gets to track and prevent terrorism only"?
As long as humans have access to information, it will be misused and subverted to the whim of any clerk who has clearance to see and pass on that information. It could also be used to prevent a future terrorist attack.
That reminds me of a quote from the Absence of Malice. (1981) James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General:
"You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat".
As a society, we must eventually come to a resolution of this matter. The resolution should be based on a logical and legal application of the rights in our Constitution. Justice Scalia, who recently passed away, would have a reasoned opinion on this matter based on what the law says. Others may have an equally appropriate opinion based on the emotional need to protect the society from the menace of terror.
This will require some thought and we should not make a hasty decision on this one instance because there are thousands of other IPhones and Smartphones that may just have information that is not in the best interest of our society.
Former U.S. Solicitor General & Apple Attorney Ted Olson says the Apple, FBI case will be resolved in court.
Other references for your review:
What is at stake
Tim Cook privacy is a human right
Tim Cook takes rivals to task
Public Opinion
I have one last question. If you have an IPhone, do you have a Passcode to keep inquiring minds from rummaging through your data?
FBI has accessed San Bernardino shooter's phone without Apple's help
"The Justice Department is abandoning its bid to force Apple to help it unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack because investigators have found a way in without the tech giant's assistance, prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday". Washington Post link
Here is the court filing asking the court to vacate the court order.
This indicates to me that the FBI and the current administration realized that they would most likely lose the case against Apple. I am convinced that the purpose of the court order was to establish a precedent for future use in the courts. Accessing the IPhone has always been a possibility by private companies without Apple's help or support. One company in particular has been under contract with the FBI.
"The FBI "has been reportedly using the services of the Israeli-based company Cellebrite in its effort to break the protection on a terrorist's locked iPhone, according to experts in the field familiar with the case," Ynet reports. The Verge reached out to Cellebrite yesterday afternoon for comment and hasn't yet heard back". Cellebrite Under FBI Contract
Go Back
If like me, you are conflicted about the recent news about the FBI
request for Apple to create a backdoor, or entry to the IPhone of the terrorist from San Bernardino, I would suggest that you review the video below. It is a passionate defense of privacy by Ted Olson, who lost his wife in the 9/11 Terrorist attacks and is a former Solicitor General of the US.
I admit that my first reaction was that Apple was trying to protect our privacy. After a bit of thought, I came to the conclusion that it is protecting its reputation for having an unbreakable system on any IPhone. If we can calm down for just a minute, we may find that this is not as clear-cut as it may appear. Both the government and Apple are using the emotional response. The government is using the possibility of a major terrorist attempt with the details on the IPhone. Apple is using the emotional argument that you would be exposing all your private and personal data to the whim of anyone.
Both may be true, but the fundamental question is based on the law and not emotion. I have mixed feelings in this dilemma. Our system of laws is based on a rational approach to balance the often-conflicting issues of constitutional rights and public good. When we allow emotion to overcome logic, we are risk to losing our rights without due process.
Privacy is a matter of concern for both the guilty and the innocent. Two of the largest social networking companies, Google and Facebook, make their money by taking your "private" communications and searching it for clues to your interest. They then sell it or provide it to advertisers for profit or use it to present you with options of things that you may be interested in seeing. The difference is that you willing offer information by posting or commenting on their sites.
When you make a phone call or add a contact to you IPhone, do you have some expectation that it will remain private? The phone call is captured by the carrier of your choice. A court order can force them to provide the government with listing of your calls to and from but not the content.
I am not as naive as to think that anything in this life is private including my own thoughts. That is because; I sometimes do not use my internal filter before the thought comes out of my mouth. Later, I may have a faulty memory about whether I thought or said something.
So here is the central point of the matter for me. The resolution of this matter should be settled in the courts and not in the court of public opinion. The answer to your question is "Yes, I would want to know if some of the information on the phone would prevent another terrorist attack". My return question is: "Do I trust the government to only use this information and any other information it gets to track and prevent terrorism only"?
As long as humans have access to information, it will be misused and subverted to the whim of any clerk who has clearance to see and pass on that information. It could also be used to prevent a future terrorist attack.
That reminds me of a quote from the Absence of Malice. (1981) James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General:
"You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat".
As a society, we must eventually come to a resolution of this matter. The resolution should be based on a logical and legal application of the rights in our Constitution. Justice Scalia, who recently passed away, would have a reasoned opinion on this matter based on what the law says. Others may have an equally appropriate opinion based on the emotional need to protect the society from the menace of terror.
This will require some thought and we should not make a hasty decision on this one instance because there are thousands of other IPhones and Smartphones that may just have information that is not in the best interest of our society.
Other references for your review:
What is at stake
Tim Cook privacy is a human right
Tim Cook takes rivals to task
Public Opinion
UPDATE March 28, 2016
FBI has accessed San Bernardino shooter's phone without Apple's help
"The Justice Department is abandoning its bid to force Apple to help it unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack because investigators have found a way in without the tech giant's assistance, prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday". Washington Post link
Here is the court filing asking the court to vacate the court order.
This indicates to me that the FBI and the current administration realized that they would most likely lose the case against Apple. I am convinced that the purpose of the court order was to establish a precedent for future use in the courts. Accessing the IPhone has always been a possibility by private companies without Apple's help or support. One company in particular has been under contract with the FBI.
"The FBI "has been reportedly using the services of the Israeli-based company Cellebrite in its effort to break the protection on a terrorist's locked iPhone, according to experts in the field familiar with the case," Ynet reports. The Verge reached out to Cellebrite yesterday afternoon for comment and hasn't yet heard back". Cellebrite Under FBI Contract
Comments
|
Update
FBI Says It May Be Able To Access Shooter's iPhone Without Apple's Help www.npr.org BT Disclaimer: I keep adding these updates because it is your and my privacy at stake. I believe that the FBI is not actually asking for access to the information but is trying to set a legal precedent for forcing a company to create something that the government should be able to do on its own with proper search warrant protections. |
|
|
More attacks coming after biggest hacker breach in Apple app store
"Apple's (AAPL) iPhone app store was penetrated by hackers who infected hundreds of apps with malware -- including the Chinese version of Angry Birds 2 and WeChat -- but the malevolent programmers didn't actually crack Apple's security, they bypassed it". finance.yahoo.com |
|
|
There is apparently a legal way to obtain the information from this IPhone but I have my concerns on the basic premise of the government forcing the manufacturer to provide a mechanism to defeat one of its features. That makes the manufacturer responsible for the use of something that is nothing more than a tool. Many will interpreted my opinion as opposed to breaking into the phone. That would be incorrect; I am more concerned about the principal. If there is data on that phone that is relevant to future actions, I am sure it will have been altered or changed by the potential terrorist because it is compromised.
What would be next, knifes, scissors, or rocks. There is a parallel to the torture of prisoners to gain information. No matter how important the information is the end may not justify the means without full due process under the law. It is not a small step after that to require the gun and ammunition manufactures to be responsible for the use of their product. I am in 100% percent support of cracking the IPhone but it should not be the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide the mechanism. I am sure there is enough hackers around who could jailbreak this phone and like I mentioned below, the Chinese may already have methods at hand defeat any encryption. I pay close attention to the legal arguments regarding this as opposed to the emotional appeals about the possible outcome. We are on slippery ground when we bend any constitutional prohibitions in the name of safety. Maybe we can get Diane Rufino to weigh in on this matter. |
|
I am not a phone guy. As a tool that I have to have, I have become a pretty good computer guy. I use it to create stuff.
As one who is code empathetic, I believe that we have much to learn, and I believe that there is a way to serve both needs - code safety and national security. |
|
|
Here is some more ideas for thought. The Iphone is made and assembled in China. The CPU used in the IPhone is designed by Apple but built and assembled in China. It would be easy to hardwire a backdoor in the CPU that can bypass the security of the operating system. I am way out of my element here but I have found that for every software problem there is a solution. One of the few things I trust less than my own government is the Chinese government. It is possible that they have already hardwired a backdoor into the chips that they can access at will by a special security code only they know.
There are two arguments here in my mind. 1) Does the American Government have the right to require a private company to create a bypass for a product they created when one of it's major selling features is an encryption of the data and security from hackers? One of Steve Job's pet believes was that the IOS is closed sourced. Only approved applications can be loaded on an Iphone where as Android and Windows are open sources with the operating system subject to manipulation. 2) Has there ever been any system that is not breakable? Just because I am paranoid, blah, blah, blah. See the link below on the Manufacturer of the Iphone chipset. en.wikipedia.org |
|
|
Great post Bobby Tony - Really lays it all out.
It is a real 'header scratcher' of an issue - civil liberties vs civil protection. It just seems that if there are terrorists, there could be security protocols put into place, where code could be written in a secure place that would stay there, thus discovery could be made from that safe place. You know, I forgot about the Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, and her followers, who believe that a Democrat can be president without being a patriot. How safe would that code be with Hillary or fellow non patriot Hussein at the wheel? And then the conundrum becomes more complex. |
| Do Roy Cooper, Deborah Ross and Other Democrats Want to Bring Terrorists to North Carolina? | Views from the Right Seat, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics | You Gain From New Businesses |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
In 2014 the NSA agency's Michael Daniel Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator released the following information. It is barely possible that the FBI may have to disclose to Apple how it hacked the IPhone. I would not hold my breath but Apple could contract the same company the FBI used to find out how they broke the system.
"This spring, we re-invigorated our efforts to implement existing policy with respect to disclosing vulnerabilities – so that everyone can have confidence in the integrity of the process we use to make these decisions. We rely on the Internet and connected systems for much of our daily lives. Our economy would not function without them. Our ability to project power abroad would be crippled if we could not depend on them. For these reasons, disclosing vulnerabilities usually makes sense. We need these systems to be secure as much as, if not more so, than everyone else."
www.whitehouse.gov