Mark Zuckerberg voices support for Apple in encryption row, but FBI is winning public mindshare
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg added his name to the list of tech leaders rallying behind Apple in its encryption debate with the Justice Department, but a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center suggests the FBI is winning over public sentiment.
Speaking at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, on Monday, Zuckerberg said Facebook believes in encryption, adding that software backdoors are not effective and ethically dubious, reports Re/code.
"We're sympathetic with Apple on this one," Zuckerberg said. "I expect it's not the right thing to try to block that from the mainstream products people want to use. And I think it's not going to be the right regulatory or economic policy to put in place."
While siding with Apple on the overarching issue of strong encryption, the social media guru hedged his bets and pointed out Facebook does its part by complying with warranted law enforcement data requests. As Apple is currently locking horns with the DOJ over an iPhone tied to last year's San Bernardino shooting, Zuckerberg's comments on Monday had bearing on the government's anti-terrorism cybersecurity campaign.
"We certainly do have very strong policies on this that if there's any content that's promoting terrorism or sympathizing with ISIS or anything like that, we'll ... get those people off the service. We don't want people that are doing that stuff on Facebook," he said.
Being the world's foremost social network, Facebook has obvious skin in the game when it comes to protecting its users' data. Aside from user-based targeted advertising, the company's WhatsApp messaging service uses end-to-end encryption technology similar to Apple's iMessage, meaning it might see similar government pressure if the DOJ is able to set precedent with Apple.
Zuckerberg's appraisal of the developing situation comes days after other influential tech personalities like Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and entrepreneur Mark Cuban voiced their support of Apple's fight for encryption. However, the Justice Department is waging its own PR battle for favorable public opinion, and it appears to be going well.
In a Pew Research Center poll conducted late last week, 51 percent of respondents said Apple should "unlock the iPhone" used by San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, while 38 percent said the company "should not unlock" the handset. The remaining 11 percent did not offer an opinion. The exact questions posed to poll takers was not revealed, but it seems U.S. sentiment is, for the most part, in agreement with the DOJ.
It should be noted, however, that Apple is not being asked to unlock the iPhone 5c, but rather provide a software workaround that bypasses a passcode attempt counter, thereby allowing FBI agents to conduct a brute force attack on the device. The company is not being asked to unlock a single phone, but rather supply a proof-of-concept tool capable of breaking a major facet of iOS encryption.
The FBI, as well as the White House, has stated on numerous occasions that the Apple-created forensic tool would only be used to crack Farook's iPhone 5c. On the other hand, security experts and Apple itself claim the creation of such a bypass inherently weakens iOS encryption, threatening millions of iOS devices.
Speaking at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, on Monday, Zuckerberg said Facebook believes in encryption, adding that software backdoors are not effective and ethically dubious, reports Re/code.
"We're sympathetic with Apple on this one," Zuckerberg said. "I expect it's not the right thing to try to block that from the mainstream products people want to use. And I think it's not going to be the right regulatory or economic policy to put in place."
While siding with Apple on the overarching issue of strong encryption, the social media guru hedged his bets and pointed out Facebook does its part by complying with warranted law enforcement data requests. As Apple is currently locking horns with the DOJ over an iPhone tied to last year's San Bernardino shooting, Zuckerberg's comments on Monday had bearing on the government's anti-terrorism cybersecurity campaign.
"We certainly do have very strong policies on this that if there's any content that's promoting terrorism or sympathizing with ISIS or anything like that, we'll ... get those people off the service. We don't want people that are doing that stuff on Facebook," he said.
Being the world's foremost social network, Facebook has obvious skin in the game when it comes to protecting its users' data. Aside from user-based targeted advertising, the company's WhatsApp messaging service uses end-to-end encryption technology similar to Apple's iMessage, meaning it might see similar government pressure if the DOJ is able to set precedent with Apple.
Zuckerberg's appraisal of the developing situation comes days after other influential tech personalities like Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and entrepreneur Mark Cuban voiced their support of Apple's fight for encryption. However, the Justice Department is waging its own PR battle for favorable public opinion, and it appears to be going well.
In a Pew Research Center poll conducted late last week, 51 percent of respondents said Apple should "unlock the iPhone" used by San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, while 38 percent said the company "should not unlock" the handset. The remaining 11 percent did not offer an opinion. The exact questions posed to poll takers was not revealed, but it seems U.S. sentiment is, for the most part, in agreement with the DOJ.
It should be noted, however, that Apple is not being asked to unlock the iPhone 5c, but rather provide a software workaround that bypasses a passcode attempt counter, thereby allowing FBI agents to conduct a brute force attack on the device. The company is not being asked to unlock a single phone, but rather supply a proof-of-concept tool capable of breaking a major facet of iOS encryption.
The FBI, as well as the White House, has stated on numerous occasions that the Apple-created forensic tool would only be used to crack Farook's iPhone 5c. On the other hand, security experts and Apple itself claim the creation of such a bypass inherently weakens iOS encryption, threatening millions of iOS devices.
Comments
Oh, and Apple should make devices uncrackable to themselves in the first place, otherwise it is just security through obscurity.
If the polls are true, they're winning. In fact, we have one such moron right in this comments thread: note the boot-licking, pants-peeing, liberty-hating Bdoober.
I agree slippery slopes seldom are. However, the one place that is absolutely not true is when it comes to legal precedent.
We're not gonna live in fear!
Seems like a whole lotta people already do, though.
If the feds win, Apple will undoubtably work around it to ensure security for us after they are forced to pay for creating a once-off operating system on the slim chance that any of the infi in the phone is 1) in existence 2) relevant and 3) not six months or more out of date.
What a faff!! Can't these people find something more productive to do, like institute gun ownership education programs and removing US forces from foreign soils?
I guess not >:(
The FBI is willing to mail the iPhone in question to Apple. When that happens, The only way Anyone can get technical know-how is if Apple
includes a copy of the software... Perhaps on a flash drive, when it's returned.
Also you made mention that John McAfee is interested in supporting Apple. Actually, he is willing to lead the team of hackers to helps the FBI if Apple is unavailable or otherwise flippant in the following the court order.
Apple's response is actually more of a dog and pony show. Maybe Tim's response was written when Bruce Sewell was at hitting the trails Vail Resorts or smoking dope on the ski runs. Either way, Apple is retaining terrible legal counsel! I wonder if compensation is based on performance bonuses. If so, Apple has just created a lot of work for its legal team. Might be time to consider investing in other companies.
Logic 101 would dictate that if Apple is compelled to write a weaker security version of iOS that could be force loaded on the phone then this ruling will be used by every police department in the country to gain access to it, then open to hacking while on their systems. The other relates to the fact that once created it other countries like China will demand a copy if they are to still operate in their country. Remember they tried to demand their code a few years back but Fortunately Apple won that case. This would undermine that win and throw them back into court.
What they do not have the authority to do is go to the company that produced the safe and REQUIRE them to create a device that lets the court open my safe after they find out that they can't do it by themselves.
That's judicial overreach by the court, and that's what Apple is protesting. The slippery-slope arguments are after the fact (though no less "real" because of it).
Though the government claims otherwise, everyone pretty much understands that the "We only want it once for this one phone. Honest!" claim by the FBI exists solely to set a precedent. Should Apple cave, the government will apply the same criteria to the next case. And the next. And the next.
As will the governments of China, India, Saudi Arabia, and everyplace else Apple sells iPhones. Terrorist? Murderer? Pedophile? Homosexual? Dissident? Member of an opposing political party? So sorry, but we need to search your phone.
This is precedence. Now it's just one phone, how many more phones will the FBI send? Today it's terrorism, tomorrow it's political enemies.