Tim Cook: Privacy Is Worth Protecting
iPhone Encryption: 5 Ways It's Changed Over Time
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)Posted on 08/15/2016 9:11:07 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple caused quite a stir earlier this year when it refused a request from the US Department of Justice to unlock a suspected terrorist's iPhone. At the time, Apple argued that the request would affect more than a single smartphone, that it was unconstitutional, and that it would weaken security for everyone.
Now, Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, tells The Washington Post that the issue boils down to civil rights.
In a wide-ranging interview that covers host of topics, the Post's Jena McGregor dug deep on the FBI's fight with Apple and Apple's response.
"We knew it was going to be very, very difficult. And that the cards were stacked against us," responded Cook. "But we spent a lot of time on 'what is right here?'"
First, Apple set out to determine if it even could unlock the iPhone per the FBI's request. Cook explains that exploring the technical issue helped determine its response to the FBI. As Cook told the Post:
The lightbulb went off, and it became clear what was right: Could we create a tool to unlock the phone? After a few days, we had determined yes, we could. Then the question was, ethically, should we? We thought, you know, that depends on whether we could contain it or not. Other people were involved in this, too -- deep security experts and so forth, and it was apparent from those discussions that we couldn't be assured. The risk of what happens if it got out, we felt, could be incredibly terrible for public safety.
Cook goes on to suggest that people should not need to be computer experts to set up privacy and security protections -- including ones from the government. From that point of view, consumers and businesses rely on companies such as Apple to do some of the work for them. Apple provides the encryption and iPhone owners are then allowed to create their own key.
(Image: Peter Burnett/iStockphoto)
Apple doesn't believe the government should have access to that or any other key.
"In this case, it was unbelievably uncomfortable and not something that we wished for, wanted -- we didn't even think it was right. Honestly? I was shocked that [the FBI] would even ask for this," explained Cook. "That was the thing that was so disappointing that I think everybody lost. There are 200-plus other countries in the world. Zero of them had ever asked [Apple to do] this."
The FBI eventually figured out how to unlock the iPhone in question without Apple's help.
Privacy is a right to be protected, believes Cook: "In my point of view, [privacy] is a civil liberty that our Founding Fathers thought of a long time ago and concluded it was an essential part of what it was to be an American. Sort of on the level, if you will, with freedom of speech, freedom of the press."
Clearly there is room to disagree with Apple's stance, as the FBI did.
The argument takes on a more interesting color when one considers how it should apply to the phones owned by businesses and used by executives.
Everyone knows smartphones contain hordes of personal and business data. What if the government wants or needs access to a phone that contains trade secrets or other sensitive company information?
Should the phone maker be beholden to give that data to the government? Is it possible to protect business data while complying with law enforcement requests?
It's certainly a topic IT and company leadership should be prepared to discuss.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
If I recall correctly the feds were pressuring Apple to give them the ability to unlock all iPhones. Worse, the particular iPhone used by the feds as a Trojan Horse could have been unlocked by its local government owner at any time until some idiot changed the password. And finally, I do not see here nor recall any mention of a warrant.
Though the article alludes to it, nowhere does it specify that pesky Fourth Amendment. But who am I to believe that the Constitution still has any force in America?!
Tim still doesn’t get it. Sometimes it’s right for private companies to help law enforcement.
Apple was assisting law enforcement until the FBI changed the AppleID on the iPhone and then wanted Apple to create special universal software to unlock iPhones and supply it to them. That, they said "NO!" to doing. Rightly so. You are the one who does not understand what was at risk.
Other could have been slaughtered by surprise as well.
There ought to be some common sense invoked where possibly the lives of unknown nbrs of innocents could be protected.
Who really believes that a dead mass murderer is entitled to privacy?
“The privacy of a dead murderous terrorist is probably not where Apple should have taken this stand.”
Bullshit. The feds wouldn’t look at that woman’s facebook page out of concern for her privacy. They ignored a million warnings. Then they whine that they don’t have the tools to keep us safe because of apple? Not buying.
And the feds didn’t want THAT phone opened. They wanted Apple to supply them with a tool they could use without limit. This was another FBI con game trying to expand their already disgusting levels of power and surveillance domestically.
You seem to be the one that doesn't get it.
You don't take it for a Sunday school teacher, Radix. It means nothing there. Protection for the encryption is either all, or it's nothing. That is the problem. You provide a backdoor for the good guys today, and it is guaranteed that the bad guys will have it by the end of the week.
Blackberry RIM discovered that to their dismay several years ago when they volunteered to give the Backdoor key to allow the police to access a Blackberry owned by a pedophile to get a conviction on the guarantee that it would not be released and used only that one time. When it went to trial, the judge ruled the defense was entitled to see all the evidence and how it was attained.
The police and prosecutors were ordered to release the RIM code to the defense and their IT team to assure that the evidence, thousands of kiddy porn videos and pictures, could not have been "planted" by the police on the Blackberry phone. The DA's IT guy kept a copy of the code for himself ("Never know when it might come in handy?" So did the police.) and the IT guy for the defense gave copies out to his buddies. At the end of the trial, the news media petitioned the judge, claiming the "public's right to know" and the judge agreed, and ordered the code released to the press, even though the judge had agreed it would NEVER be released, as well. So much for RIM's proprietary, "secret" secure encryption and privacy on their phones. RIM had to scramble to create a new approach to secure all of their existing and new phones at great cost to them and their customers, not to mention risk to the companies and governments who relied on their assurances of security!
If Apple had made the unlocking software available to the FBI as the Magistrate Judge ordered under the All Writs Act order, and it resulted in arrests, the SAME THING would have happened under the rules of discovery. There is no way it could not happen under our rules of jurisprudence! Ergo, the only safety lies in never creating the backdoor or any unlocking software in the first place.
Apple’s privacy is worth protecting, and so is Tim Cook’s. Not yours. All your Apple info was sold to the Chinese long ago.
Source? Or are you just making up facts as you go along?
The alternative to iOS is Android, made by Google and distributed for "free". When a product is given away for "free", make no mistake about it; YOU are the product. Apple makes money off the hardware, that's why they fight to keep their users information private. That is the deal.
Ever heard of the 4th amendment, No? I didn't think so.
On the subject of the Constitution, I have a modest suggestion. Ask yourself, “How long is the Constitution? (Answer: 4000 words, about 20 typed pages).Now ask yourself, “How many Democrat voters have never read the Constitution, and think of it as great big black box?” IMHO, the answer to that would be a clear majority.
I put it to you that any broadcaster who is licensed by the FCC to broadcast “in the public interest as a public trustee” should be pressed to promote the knowledge of the compactness of the Constitution, and its accessibility. Voters should be challenged to read it.
Especially, as of this writing, the part that says
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
The Chinks have every back door there ever was, is and will be to every Apple product. Plus all the information Apple has on you and everyone else. Apple is more than happy to hand this over to the Chinks in return for access to their vast pool of slave labor. It’s the price of doing business with Chinks.
If that were so, there would be iPhone and iMac clones all over the place. Know any other lies you want to spout?
Oh, you did have some more lies to tell. Microsoft handed over the entire SOURCE CODE to the Chinese. Apple refused. You really do not know what you are talking about.
Lol, sure.
And some "freepers" don't get the Constitution...
That is an established historical fact, for all your LOLing. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.