David:
The FBI is asking the government to force Apple to find a way to break into one of their own phones to help in the San Bernardino terrorist plot.
Who's right in this case?
Doug:
Apple is correct. If they make a backdoor, then you have no idea who is going to be going through it.
This is one area where Big Business can fight Big Government for the good of the people.
David:
Well, we finally found a topic we are in agreement on. Unfortunately, no one in the government listens to us.
In this case, however, the courts have initially sided with the FBI. Do you think this is a case where the technology is too far ahead of the justice system? Any predictions on how this will turn out in the end?
Doug:
I don't think that this has much to do with technology, except that it is about who controls the technology. The scary part is that Apple could already have a backdoor in their software, and we just don't know about it. I hope that we have more debates about control of our information and devices in the congress. It is a three-way tug-of-war between business, government, and the people.
David:
I'm a little bit biased, but hopefully, the government will butt out. I see big intrusions into our privacy, in the name of security, in our futures. Perhaps this case will help to stem that tide.
Doug:
How will it end? I think Big Business (if they appear to serve the people) will win this one.
David:
According to Apple's current court documents, they do not have a built-in backdoor. That's the problem. Unlike previous warrants, where the government can view documents, or look through your stuff, this warrant demands that Apple create a product that currently does not exist. This is new territory.
Doug:
According to The Washington Post: "The Justice Department sought and received an order from a magistrate judge in Riverside, Calif., last month directing Apple to disable a feature that deletes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. That way, the government can try to crack the password using “brute force” – attempting thousands or millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data." Apple has some interesting security technology in the iPhone, and this is just part of their system.
David:
But, according to Apple, the ability to disable this security feature is only functional if you enable it before the data is stored. In other words, even they can't go in after the fact and "unlock" the phone without losing the data. In an ironic twist, the particular phone in question was a government-issued iphone (the terrorist worked for the health department), but the security feature that would have allowed the FBI to access the data was not turned on. Now it appears it is too late.
Doug:
That's not "ironic"; that's called "security."
What is ironic is that on Tuesday, two pioneers in computing were award the highest distinction in my field (The Turing Award) for cryptography. At the same time, our government is attempting to make this kind of work irrelevant.
David:
Ahhhh. I love the smell of government bureaucracy in the morning...
The scary part is that the courts have sided with the government to demand that a company must create a product that expressly defeats a feature that makes their product valuable to consumers. They are being forced to weaken their product.
A different court case ruling may tip the balance in Apple's favor, at least for the moment:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/01/us-cannot-make-apple-provide-iphone-data-in-drug-case-ny-judge-says.html
Doug:
I agree.
David:
While I understand that the FBI wants to follow this one, single lead to look for possible future dangers, there is real danger in breaking down the encryption for millions of phone users.
This is over-reach by the government, using the sympathies and fears of the public to pressure a private company to give in to their whims, without concern for future problems their demands might create. Apparently it's working on the simple-minded, as Donald Trump is calling for a boycott of Apple "until they give in".
Doug:
I agree with everything that you said.
Except, I don't believe that this is an "over-reach by the government." The government is not a single agent with a desire to reach anywhere. The government is a complex machine with built-in checks and balances. Using the term "over-reach" implies agency where there is none. In this particular case, Congress should simply do what Apple suggests: hold some hearings and figure out where the line should be drawn.
David:
I would say that any time a governmental agency oversteps its bounds, it amounts to over-reach. (Like the IRS targeting conservatives, Common Core education standards, government control of the internet, certain aspects of the Patriot Act....)
Doug:
Any time the "government" goes beyond what you think they should do? There are times when the government does bad things (such as when the Supreme Court decided a Presidential election), but that isn't over-reaching---it is just a bad decision.
David:
We've seen what I would consider over-reach so much in the past ten years, that I think it encouraged the FBI to push some limits.
But I'll settle for the amount of agreement we have this time around! I'll call or text you later on your iPhone....
The FBI is asking the government to force Apple to find a way to break into one of their own phones to help in the San Bernardino terrorist plot.
Who's right in this case?
Doug:
Apple is correct. If they make a backdoor, then you have no idea who is going to be going through it.
This is one area where Big Business can fight Big Government for the good of the people.
David:
Well, we finally found a topic we are in agreement on. Unfortunately, no one in the government listens to us.
In this case, however, the courts have initially sided with the FBI. Do you think this is a case where the technology is too far ahead of the justice system? Any predictions on how this will turn out in the end?
Doug:
I don't think that this has much to do with technology, except that it is about who controls the technology. The scary part is that Apple could already have a backdoor in their software, and we just don't know about it. I hope that we have more debates about control of our information and devices in the congress. It is a three-way tug-of-war between business, government, and the people.
David:
I'm a little bit biased, but hopefully, the government will butt out. I see big intrusions into our privacy, in the name of security, in our futures. Perhaps this case will help to stem that tide.
Doug:
How will it end? I think Big Business (if they appear to serve the people) will win this one.
David:
According to Apple's current court documents, they do not have a built-in backdoor. That's the problem. Unlike previous warrants, where the government can view documents, or look through your stuff, this warrant demands that Apple create a product that currently does not exist. This is new territory.
Doug:
According to The Washington Post: "The Justice Department sought and received an order from a magistrate judge in Riverside, Calif., last month directing Apple to disable a feature that deletes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. That way, the government can try to crack the password using “brute force” – attempting thousands or millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data." Apple has some interesting security technology in the iPhone, and this is just part of their system.
David:
But, according to Apple, the ability to disable this security feature is only functional if you enable it before the data is stored. In other words, even they can't go in after the fact and "unlock" the phone without losing the data. In an ironic twist, the particular phone in question was a government-issued iphone (the terrorist worked for the health department), but the security feature that would have allowed the FBI to access the data was not turned on. Now it appears it is too late.
Doug:
That's not "ironic"; that's called "security."
What is ironic is that on Tuesday, two pioneers in computing were award the highest distinction in my field (The Turing Award) for cryptography. At the same time, our government is attempting to make this kind of work irrelevant.
David:
Ahhhh. I love the smell of government bureaucracy in the morning...
The scary part is that the courts have sided with the government to demand that a company must create a product that expressly defeats a feature that makes their product valuable to consumers. They are being forced to weaken their product.
A different court case ruling may tip the balance in Apple's favor, at least for the moment:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/01/us-cannot-make-apple-provide-iphone-data-in-drug-case-ny-judge-says.html
Doug:
I agree.
David:
While I understand that the FBI wants to follow this one, single lead to look for possible future dangers, there is real danger in breaking down the encryption for millions of phone users.
This is over-reach by the government, using the sympathies and fears of the public to pressure a private company to give in to their whims, without concern for future problems their demands might create. Apparently it's working on the simple-minded, as Donald Trump is calling for a boycott of Apple "until they give in".
Doug:
I agree with everything that you said.
Except, I don't believe that this is an "over-reach by the government." The government is not a single agent with a desire to reach anywhere. The government is a complex machine with built-in checks and balances. Using the term "over-reach" implies agency where there is none. In this particular case, Congress should simply do what Apple suggests: hold some hearings and figure out where the line should be drawn.
David:
I would say that any time a governmental agency oversteps its bounds, it amounts to over-reach. (Like the IRS targeting conservatives, Common Core education standards, government control of the internet, certain aspects of the Patriot Act....)
Doug:
Any time the "government" goes beyond what you think they should do? There are times when the government does bad things (such as when the Supreme Court decided a Presidential election), but that isn't over-reaching---it is just a bad decision.
David:
We've seen what I would consider over-reach so much in the past ten years, that I think it encouraged the FBI to push some limits.
But I'll settle for the amount of agreement we have this time around! I'll call or text you later on your iPhone....
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!