Edward Snowden hails Apple as 'pioneering' for iOS 8 security measures
Whistleblower and former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden lauded Apple for enabling measures like default full-disk encryption in iOS 8, in a rare editorial published on Friday.
The piece for The New York Times noted that some progress has been made in reversing mass surveillance not just politically but technologically, through changes to devices and Internet protocols. Various governments, including the U.S., have been using weaknesses in high-tech infrastructure to spy on the public, but these are allegedly being closed.
"Basic technical safeguards such as encryption -- once considered esoteric and unnecessary -- are now enabled by default in the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private," Snowden said.
Apple has come under fire from various U.S. government officials for iOS 8's security. The most infamous example may be Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who in October 2014 claimed that Apple was marketing to criminals, and that its technology would one day lead to the death of a child, since police would not be able to extract needed iPhone data.
iOS 8 not only encrypts iPhone and iPad data by default, but gives Apple no access to encryption keys, meaning that the company can't help produce someone's data even when served with a warrant or pressured by intelligence agencies.
In March, a document leaked by Snowden revealed a Central Intelligence Agency campaign to crack the security of iOS, OS X, BitLocker, and other platforms. Although it's unclear to what extent the CIA and NSA may have broken through iOS 8, past versions of iOS have been vulnerable to spying tools.
Snowden's latest comments mark a turn from earlier this year, when his lawyer said that the whistleblower refuses to use an iPhone, since the device "has special software that can activate itself without the owner" and gather information. The lawyer did not elaborate on whether that meant spyware from intelligence agencies or more pedestrian data tracking, such as diagnostics.
The piece for The New York Times noted that some progress has been made in reversing mass surveillance not just politically but technologically, through changes to devices and Internet protocols. Various governments, including the U.S., have been using weaknesses in high-tech infrastructure to spy on the public, but these are allegedly being closed.
"Basic technical safeguards such as encryption -- once considered esoteric and unnecessary -- are now enabled by default in the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private," Snowden said.
Apple has come under fire from various U.S. government officials for iOS 8's security. The most infamous example may be Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who in October 2014 claimed that Apple was marketing to criminals, and that its technology would one day lead to the death of a child, since police would not be able to extract needed iPhone data.
iOS 8 not only encrypts iPhone and iPad data by default, but gives Apple no access to encryption keys, meaning that the company can't help produce someone's data even when served with a warrant or pressured by intelligence agencies.
In March, a document leaked by Snowden revealed a Central Intelligence Agency campaign to crack the security of iOS, OS X, BitLocker, and other platforms. Although it's unclear to what extent the CIA and NSA may have broken through iOS 8, past versions of iOS have been vulnerable to spying tools.
Snowden's latest comments mark a turn from earlier this year, when his lawyer said that the whistleblower refuses to use an iPhone, since the device "has special software that can activate itself without the owner" and gather information. The lawyer did not elaborate on whether that meant spyware from intelligence agencies or more pedestrian data tracking, such as diagnostics.
Comments
It's almost too good to be true that Apple is a rare corporate "good guy" that is actually fighting the tyranny of the US government...but even I am starting to believe it.
Good to know you are onboard.
How much additional revenue will Apple rake in if organized crime, child molesters, pedophiles, Mexican drug cartels, Russian and Chinese spies, white collar corporate VIP criminals all switch to iOS to protect their ‘privacy’ rights? Could be billions. Is Hillary’s iPhone on iOS 8 yet? How about Jeb’s?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/03/google-quietly-backs-away-from-encrypting-new-lollipop-devices-by-default/
As long as it's possible to encrypt your data and communications, the people with something important to hide will be doing it (unless they're completely clueless, I suppose). Having data encrypted by default protects the privacy of everybody else.
As much as I believe, Apple is still the only company that care much of personal privacy and fight for it. The rest of the world, not a bit, not even at all. This is why I rather pay premium price on a product that I can trust.
How much additional revenue will Apple rake in if organized crime, child molesters, pedophiles, Mexican drug cartels, Russian and Chinese spies, white collar corporate VIP criminals all switch to iOS to protect their ‘privacy’ rights? Could be billions. Is Hillary’s iPhone on iOS 8 yet? How about Jeb’s?
An absurd straw man argument.
Child molesters and pedophiles are caught by their actions and complaints about them, not by their phone calls. Mexican drug cartels and the like have operated and expanded long before the advent of iOS. Do you really think the Mexican and U.S. Governments don't already know about the cartels and their shipments? If searching trucks at the borders doesn't stop the flow of drugs, do you really think phone call metadata is going to?
In terms of terrorism, the U.S. Government can't point to a single case where terrorism was stopped due to NSA surveillance. In fact, the opposite is true: even when the NSA or FBI knew about a potential terrorist and was monitoring them to some extent, they failed to stop them from taking action. This was true with the Boston bombers as well as many other recent events. How is it that some of the 9/11 terrorists were permitted to go to flight school in the U.S.? Monitoring their phone calls wouldn't have helped anything.
Monitoring gun sales would be a much stronger indicator of intent, but the paranoia of the gun lobby won't permit that to happen in the U.S. Hell, we live in a country where many Texans truly believed that the recent military exercises in Texas were going to lead to the Federal Government "taking over Texas" and going house-to-house to take away people's guns.
IMO, the massive collection and analysis of data is counter-productive. It's looking for the needle in the haystack instead of using NSA resources to target those who are most likely to commit terrorism. If the NSA or FBI wants to target someone they can get a warrant. Someone who is engaged in serious criminality isn't generally stupid enough to use a cell phone in a way they can be tracked anyway. And can't the NSA still get cell phone metadata by going to the carriers anyway?
IMO, NSA's desire to consume every bit of data about us is not about fighting terrorism. It's a mad dash for power, resources and billions of taxpayer dollars. While the NSA budget is classified, it's been estimated at about $12 billion. The total 2012 intelligence budget was around $75 billion ($647 per U.S. household).
Besides, in terms of terrorism from outside the U.S., we change our minds every year about who are our friends and who are our enemies.
I read that the FBI has stepped up their "Apple is helping terrorists" rhetoric.
Sadly, in this case the ones who are helping the terrorists are the FBI. The end goal of the terrorists isn't to kill a bunch of innocent people--they don't care about those people at all, except as a means to an end. What they're trying to do is to get everybody else's attention and influence them by making them scared and uncomfortable. Every time you have to take off your shoes at the airport, it's a win for the terrorists. The same goes for the invasion of privacy. And when politicians invoke the threat of terrorism to sway voters, they're exploiting this terror to their advantage as well, and this is a win for the terrorists too.
From the way terrorism is usually discussed (and often our government's responses), it seems like few people even understand what terrorism really is.
(Newton, by responding to your comment I don't mean to imply that any of this is news to you, I'm just venting to the discussion board in general)
The defenders of pervasive spying on all citizens idea of freedom is a government issued padded cage with a water bottle and government issued food pellets dispensed to a feed bowl three times a day. If you're especially well behaved they might throw in an exercise wheel and let you watch two hours of government propaganda videos each day trying to convince you that you're now so much happier with complete absence of risk in your life.
An absurd straw man argument.
Missing the sarcasm?
Regardless, he's still a spy and should face treason charges.
More likely, encryption on an iPhone could keep many children from harm because criminals could not see family information on the stolen phone.
Raving snoop zealots like Cole are prime examples of the type of individuals who should not be in government.
An absurd straw man argument.
Child molesters and pedophiles are caught by their actions and complaints about them, not by their phone calls. Mexican drug cartels and the like have operated and expanded long before the advent of iOS. Do you really think the Mexican and U.S. Governments don't already know about the cartels and their shipments? If searching trucks at the borders doesn't stop the flow of drugs, do you really think phone call metadata is going to?
In terms of terrorism, the U.S. Government can't point to a single case where terrorism was stopped due to NSA surveillance. In fact, the opposite is true: even when the NSA or FBI knew about a potential terrorist and was monitoring them to some extent, they failed to stop them from taking action. This was true with the Boston bombers as well as many other recent events. How is it that some of the 9/11 terrorists were permitted to go to flight school in the U.S.? Monitoring their phone calls wouldn't have helped anything.
Monitoring gun sales would be a much stronger indicator of intent, but the paranoia of the gun lobby won't permit that to happen in the U.S. Hell, we live in a country where many Texans truly believed that the recent military exercises in Texas were going to lead to the Federal Government "taking over Texas" and going house-to-house to take away people's guns.
IMO, the massive collection and analysis of data is counter-productive. It's looking for the needle in the haystack instead of using NSA resources to target those who are most likely to commit terrorism. If the NSA or FBI wants to target someone they can get a warrant. Someone who is engaged in serious criminality isn't generally stupid enough to use a cell phone in a way they can be tracked anyway. And can't the NSA still get cell phone metadata by going to the carriers anyway?
IMO, NSA's desire to consume every bit of data about us is not about fighting terrorism. It's a mad dash for power, resources and billions of taxpayer dollars. While the NSA budget is classified, it's been estimated at about $12 billion. The total 2012 intelligence budget was around $75 billion ($647 per U.S. household).
Besides, in terms of terrorism from outside the U.S., we change our minds every year about who are our friends and who are our enemies.
You make good points, but you really think the NSA is going to release classified information on how or if it stopped a terrorist plot? The NSA played a part in the recent police shooting in Boston to stop a potential terrorist. How would you know if monitoring phones calls of the 9/11 attackers would have or not have helped? You don't know. That's purely speculation on your part.
As for your other points, I agree. It seems like its way more work trying to sift through data from every American. The government obviously doesn't have enough resources to do that. Phone carriers aren't going to give up data unless they have a court order. That could take a while. It does seem way more productive to target people who have potential to carry out attacks versus collecting data on hundreds of millions of people.
Apple seems to be listening to its customers even if U.S. Congress isn't.
But, Congress IS listening to its customers...
Your mistake is in assuming that that's the American people.
I agree with most of your argument, but I don't believe monitoring gun sales does anything to stop terrorism. Only law-abiding citizens purchase their guns legally and register/carry permits for them. Criminals and terrorists are not going to getthem through legal means thus limiting the effectiveness of such monitoring. Personal gun owners are just being hassled by these types of programs.