"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." Scott McNealy, CEO Sun Microsystems
Apparently you have zero freedom as well, because the FBI is trying to force you to develop software to help them.
This isn't a story about privacy. The FBI has a warrant. They want Apple to compromise their own product.
They want Apple to compromise the privacy promised by Apple and implemented in the software of their product.
If I understand the issue correctly, the FBI is asking Apple to give them the means to bypass all locks made by Apple. So the issue is the privacy of all Apple users, not the privacy of deceased mass murderers.
I presume that Apple would be willing to deliver the contents of the phone.
Right. But my feeling is that the FBI really wants the technical ability to do it whenever they please without going back to Apple every time.
If the government cannot figure out how to carry out their job, can they now force any private company or citizen into helping them?
The idea is that the government is the custodian of the common good.
Yes, but my understanding is that that isn't the issue here. You can't easily alter software without the source code, so it would be difficult to impossible for the government to reverse engineer the iPhone operating system. Apple can do it easily.Shall citizens be reduced to involuntary servitude any time the government has a technical problem or security need it cannot solve?
I don't know if that is true or not, but apple did specifically attempt to design the phone so they couldn't, so they would never have to respond at all to such a warrant.If Apple had the encryption keys to this guys phone they would hand them over when presented with a warrant.
I don't know if that is true or not, but apple did specifically attempt to design the phone so they couldn't, so they would never have to respond at all to such a warrant.
Substantial civil liberties issues aside, there is a pragmatic aspect to this private/government tug of war. A recent interview of Jason Healey from Columbia University talked about his study of the long-term impact of cyber (in)security. His worst case scenario was a totally insecure Internet, with wild-west like culture, that might cause ordinary users to stop using the Internet so much. He estimated that would cost the world economy $90 trillion by 2030. Interestingly, he estimates the effect of over-policing to be symmetrical; $90 trillion dollar impact also. Over-policing can be defined as government turning the Internet into a tool to spy on people to the extent that ordinary users lose faith in their ability to communicate confidentially by electronic means.
McAfee offers to hack it for free. Now it really gets interesting.
It seems yesterday I read a news article saying the FBI had gained the right to use the fingerprint of a corpse to bypass security measures.
I respect a company that has and is willing to stand up for principles, especially when it comes to their customers' rights and promises they made to protect their interpretation of them. Though this may be as much about keeping the can of worms closed to spare their own pain.I'm very interested to hear what the PF community thinks of this story
Here is the story
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/
Here is the letter Tim Cook sent out
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
That doesn't follow logically at all. The situation is not logically reversible.Good Lord. That means if I utilized fingerprint protection, I would be giving the gov't a motive to want me dead.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-fbi-syed-farook-editorials-debates/80572492/So the matter of Syed Farook's modern device raises difficult age-old issues about the tension between privacy and security, issues that are far more complex than the partisans on both sides of the debate like to admit.
Reflecting that complexity, the USA TODAY Editorial Board failed to reach consensus after lengthy debate about Apple's defiance. No one had any interest in guarding the privacy of a mass murderer or giving haven to future ones. The stumbling block was whether Apple's compliance could unleash a genie that might make smartphone users in the U.S. and around the world easy prey, for reasons good or bad.
Does such a right exist and is it at issue here? You can't get out of a search warrant by claiming a right to privacy except in rare/specific circumstances such as spousal priveledge that don't apply here (nor is there anyone who has standing to make such a claim in this case anyway!). I don't think we'd be having this discussion if Apple hadn't tied this logical knot. Tech companies generally comply with mundane search warrants.It is truly sad that US citizens must go to such lengths in an attempt to defend their privacy against their own government.
I agree. That's why I started my sentence with "Substantial civil liberties issues aside," Privacy has economic impact but it is not only that.I reject the idea that privacy has value only in terms of its economic impact. That is the least of my concerns.
Does such a right exist and is it at issue here? You can't get out of a search warrant by claiming a right to privacy except in rare/specific circumstances such as spousal priveledge that don't apply here (nor is there anyone who has standing to make such a claim in this case anyway!). I don't think we'd be having this discussion if Apple hadn't tied this logical knot. Tech companies generally comply with mundane search warrants.
Heck, the guy didn't even own the phone. His employer would have a solid case for joining the lawsuit with the FBI!
Does such a right exist and is it at issue here?
Dr. Courtney's concern, which I shared, is presumably addressed by Point 5: "Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of providing this service." (Although technically, I suppose, the FBI can say they won't pay.)