Ringside Seats to the Apple/FBI Battle
-
The gloves have been tapped, and two major forces are about to square off. In one corner is Apple, and in the other is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It all comes down to an iPhone that belonged to one of the San Bernardino shooters, but may turn out to have far-reaching implications for the entire tech industry. Indeed, it was a topic of discussion during last night's Republican debate!
The Situation
A court has ordered that Apple assist the FBI in opening up the iPhone, specifically through the use of a password crack. According to Wired, this would involve Apple writing code for a new tool that would be able to subvert or eliminate security controls put in place on the iOS operating system. You may think that while this is technically complicated, it shouldn’t be a problem for a non-Apple group to overcome, given appropriate time and resources—things that the FBI certainly has access to. However, iPhones only accept updates to their firmware if they are digitally signed by Apple, so in order for the FBI to have access, they need Apple to provide their digital key to sign that software. This would essentially communicate that this is an Apple-approved piece of software, an endorsement that Apple does not agree with.
Furthermore, if the FBI tries to tamper with the encrypted phone too many times, a built-in security feature will wipe all the data from the device.
The FBI Perspective
The FBI believes the encrypted data on this phone is critical in the fight against terrorism, and is a matter of national security. It has asked for narrow assistance in the matter, which it states pertains only to this iPhone. It highlights the growing propensity for technology to collect more and personal data and the growing urge for collaboration between the government and companies that collect that data. Government organizations intend to use it for the purposes of keeping the country safe.
In its case, the government is invoking the “All Writs Act,” an 18th century statute that compels private companies to assist law enforcement investigations. According to NPR, Apple has received orders to help unlock 12 other devices as well.
The Apple Perspective
Apple has refused to comply with these orders, stating a number of reasons. At the core of these arguments is the idea of the “slippery slope” in terms of cracking encrypted devices. Currently, as long as Apple refuses to compromise their encryptions, they state that personal information is essentially safe. However, if a backdoor were to be created, that compromise is out there, and Apple is wary to release that out into the world.
Apple is expected to defend its position by invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution, where it was established years ago that code is protected as free speech. This may be important in respect to the digital signature that Apple has been asked for, because this would essentially be an endorsement on behalf of Apple, and it may be construed as compelled speech.
Keep reading! -
@MKM8DY said:
Apple is expected to defend its position by invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution, where it was established years ago that code is protected as free speech.
I should be a tech lawyer, I had already stated that without hearing it from any external source
-
What do you think about this push for a encryption committee?
-
@GlennBarley said:
What do you think about this push for a encryption committee?
Honestly I think it is a farce. It's a binary debate - privacy or not, there isn't a middle ground. Are the citizens subjects of the government or is the government subject to the citizenry. Having a group to produce a compromise is like compromising on the death penalty - no matter what decision is reached, one side wins and one side loses.
-
Good quote from the article: "We don't require the people who manufacture paper shredders to have a chip that records and scans that document so it's recoverable," he said. "The piece of technology that has destroyed more evidence than any other ... is the flush toilet, and yet we realize the benefits of indoor plumbing to our society outweigh the fact that certain evidence is going to be beyond the government's reach."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
"We don't require the people who manufacture paper shredders to have a chip that records and scans that document so it's recoverable,"
Not yet...
-
Next week a new product shows up on amazon "Scan your documents as you shred them! Keep your information safe!
-
I also read an interesting article on how the 5th amendment can be applied to this case also.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I also read an interesting article on how the 5th amendment can be applied to this case also.
I'd not be surprised.
-
-
I'd be on the side of the FBI were it not for all the NSA spying bull that Snowden leaked and setting a precedent that will inevitably be abused.
-
@MattSpeller said:
I'd be on the side of the FBI were it not for all the NSA spying bull that Snowden leaked and setting a precedent that will inevitably be abused.
Huh - I could never be on the side of the FBI, even if only for what possible hackers could do with the information, let alone the government.
-
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
I'd be on the side of the FBI were it not for all the NSA spying bull that Snowden leaked and setting a precedent that will inevitably be abused.
Huh - I could never be on the side of the FBI, even if only for what possible hackers could do with the information, let alone the government.
Honestly I think "hackers getting a hold of the code" is a remote possibility.
I already mentioned my lack of trust in the gov but there's ways to do it safely, this is not some super secret 007 heist.
Clarity: Not advocating for it, just pointing out some of the FUD that's circling this debate.
