Julian Sanchez: This Is the Real Reason Apple Is Fighting the FBI »
1. This offers the government a way to make tech companies help with investigations.
2. This public fight could affect private orders from the government.
3. The consequences of a precedent permitting this sort of coding conscription are likely to be enormous in scope.
4. Most ominously, the effects of a win for the FBI in this case almost certainly won’t be limited to smartphones.
While most of tech companies seems to side with Apple in the San Bernardino case there also are other opinions…
Bill Gates is siding with the FBI and says Apple should unlock the phone of the San Bernardino shooter. In an interview with FT, the Microsoft founder simply reiterates the Justice Department’s claim that this is a one-off case and the FBI is not asking for a general unlocking tool.
Bill Gates Says Apple Should Unlock The iPhone »
As the standoff between the Department of Justice and Apple Inc. continues over an iPhone used by one of the suspects in the San Bernardino terrorist attacks, 51% say Apple should unlock the iPhone to assist the ongoing FBI investigation. Fewer Americans (38%) say Apple should not unlock the phone to ensure the security of its other users’ information; 11% do not offer an opinion on the question.
More Support for Justice Department Than for Apple in Dispute Over Unlocking iPhone »
While it might be understandable that many members of the general public have not realised the implications of such action – it is worrying that the man behind the world’s most widely used operating system have not.
The infotech war has begun, for real.
First we had the fight over illegal file sharing, creating a divide between Big Entertainment backed up by Big Government and a large portion of the general public. (Young people in particular.) Parallel we have had the fights between Big Telecom and activists campaigning for a free and open internet. And the struggle between Big Intelligence and civil rights / privacy advocates.
Then came Edward Snowden, providing actual proof of what our governments are up to. This created an even bigger splash, still causing ripples.
And with the San Bernardino iPhone backdoor/unlock case between the FBI and Apple the tech sector will have to choose between loyalty to its’ customers or abiding by overreaching anti-terrorism and anti-privacy legislation. That ought to be easy enough. The money is with staying loyal to customers and their right to privacy. But it’s not. Not even Silicon Valley might be able to stand up against the state monopoly on violence.
The stakes are sky high. The San Bernardino case is not just about that single case or even just about privacy. It’s about secure encryption – imperative for safe communications, online banking, medical records, confidential information, trade secrets and public affairs. Apple cannot back down on this one.
This might be what finally will unite all sorts of activists and the Valley. I rather hope so. Alone, it’s very difficult to stand up against the government (and related special interests). But if the Internet generation, net activists, civil rights defenders and tech companies stand together — we might stand a chance.
Unjust laws will stay unjust if no one stands up and fight them. Civil rights will be eroded if no one stands up to defend them. There are no limits to what governments will try to justify under the pretext of security — that, by the way, is an illusion.
The government will always try to “balance fundamental rights and security”, time and time again until there are no fundamental rights left.
Now is the time for activists (who know how to actually change politics) to team up with Silicon Valley (where the money needed to make campaigning effective is).
We can win this one — and at the same time establish a red line that governments will have to recognize.
But it will be dirty. It’s all about power and control.
/ HAX
Related: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector »
“This court order also begs the question: Where does this kind of coercion stop? Can the government force Facebook to create software that provides analytic data on who is likely to be a criminal? Can the government force Google to provide the names of all people who searched for the term ISIL? Can the government force Amazon to write software that identifies who might be suspicious based on the books they ordered?”
Update: FBI Admits It Urged Change Of Apple ID Password For Terrorist’s iPhone »
The ruling Chinese Communist Party has announced new regulations that will ban foreign companies from publishing online media, games and other “creative” content within China’s borders from next month.
The “Regulations for the management of online publishing services” also ban foreign-invested joint ventures from engaging in online content provision, according to a copy of the rules posted on the official website of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
And any Chinese companies wishing to produce online creative content, including audio, video, games and animations, must first seek official approval from the country’s media regulator.
This is big news — changing the situation in China from bad to worse.
Sign the petition!
Tell Netflix NOW: “Stand up to Big Media bullies and do not block pro-privacy VPN technology.” »
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake. (…)
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business. (…)
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable. (…)
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: A Message to Our Customers »
A must read!
With a public consultation, the British government now is one step closer to demanding age verification at internet porn sites.
This is a bad idea in itself. But what makes it even worse is that it will make anonymous porn surfing impossible (at least for the not so tech-enlightened).
BBC: Government launches porn site age checks consultation »
First of all, is it at all wise to ban people under the age of 18 from watching porn online? After all, they are allowed to enjoy sexual activities from the age of 16. But they shouldn’t be allowed to see depictions of other people fucking? Really?
Second, there is a strong case for anonymous porn surfing: Many people might want to explore alternatives to heterosexual missionary position sex. But they might not want the government, the ISP:s, the credit card companies or the site owners to know about it. And rightly so. People have a right to sexual privacy.
My third objection is about security. One of the options in the consultation is that people should have to check in to porn sites (even free porn sites) by using their credit card. Thus exposing themselves to obvious risks. This way porn sites (real ones, that can be hacked and fake ones, set up for skimming) will become a very popular tool for credit card fraud.
The whole project will become a morass of unintended and unwanted consequences.
/ HAX
A little more than a week ago, I wrote a blog post on the EU-US Privacy Shield. This is supposed to replace the fallen “Safe Harbour” agreement, protecting European personal data when transferred to the US. (The latter didn’t, that’s why the European Court of Justice invalidated it.)
But, as I wrote, the EU-US Privacy Shield is just a framework agreement, not a deal. No substance. Nothing. Everyone is just stalling for time.
And I’m not the only one to be suspicious. Today the weekly EDRi-gram from Brussels-based NGO European Digital Rights turned up in my mailbox. And they do take a swing against the Privacy Shield illusion:
What’s behind the shield? Unspinning the “privacy shield” spin »
Some quotes…
• If there is a deal, why was nothing published?
It is standard practice from the European Commission. When an agreement is reached, the Commission launches a press release, but not the actual agreement. In this way, the Commission can control the amount of information available to journalists and the general public. It then launches the actual document once the press cycle is over and the details are no longer newsworthy.
I couldn’t agree more. Things like this happen all the time. And the EU Commission seems to get away with it all the time. In this case, let’s keep an eye on the ball for a change.
• Was there a deal?
Actually, there was no deal. The Commission had to announce something on 2 February in order to prevent regulators from starting enforcement action against companies that were (and, today, still are) transferring data illegally to the United States.
Bulls eye, again. What we see is the EU political system trying to dodge the EU judicial system. I won’t quote the entire text, but I must direct your attention to this showstopper…
• Is it strategically wise to announce a deal before discussions have been completed?
For the US, definitely, for the EU, it was strategically disastrous. As the EU has announced a deal, European negotiators have absolutely no leverage in the discussions around the detail of the agreement. Politically, it is impossible for the EU to reject anything that the US now proposes, because it is politically impossible for the Commission to abandon negotiations after it announced the completion of an agreement.
Is this just mind-bending incompetence? Or outright political sabotage?
And so it goes on. You really should read the whole piece.
The European Parliament (that has demanded a suspension of the Safe Harbour agreement for years) ought to be very upset. And the European Court of Justice should treat this as contempt of court, if there is such a thing in its’ regulatory framework.
We really shouldn’t let the European Commission get away with this. European citizens deserve decent data protection.
/ HAX
