UN high commissioner on human rights throws weight behind Apple in San Bernardino case
Apple on Friday picked up more high-profile support in its court battle with the FBI over unlocking the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, namely in the form of Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein, the United Nations' high commissioner for human rights.
"In order to address a security-related issue related to encryption in one case, the authorities risk unlocking a Pandora's Box that could have extremely damaging implications for the human rights of many millions of people, including their physical and financial security," said Al-Hussein in an official statement.
The commissioner suggested that there were other ways of pursuing the investigation without subverting iPhone security, and worried that criminals or malicious governments could potentially exploit any vulnerabilities in the platform, especially if a legal precedent is set.
"It is potentially a gift to authoritarian regimes, as well as to criminal hackers," he said. "There have already been a number of concerted efforts by authorities in other States to force IT and communications companies such as Google and Blackberry to expose their customers to mass surveillance."
Al-Hussein drew special attention to the fact that encryption is essential for human rights activists, journalists, whisteblowers, and political dissidents, and that lives could be threatened not just on an individual level but on the larger scale of national or international security, despite organizations like the FBI saying bypassing encryption is needed to prevent terrorism.
On Thursday Apple received a flood of legal support from corporations, security experts, and others. One backer was the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression issues, David Kaye.
Though the U.S. government has supporters on its own side as well, statements, letters, and amicus briefs should help Apple as it prepares for a March 22 court hearing, when the order for Apple to bypass the passcode limit on Farook's phone will be subject to review.
"In order to address a security-related issue related to encryption in one case, the authorities risk unlocking a Pandora's Box that could have extremely damaging implications for the human rights of many millions of people, including their physical and financial security," said Al-Hussein in an official statement.
The commissioner suggested that there were other ways of pursuing the investigation without subverting iPhone security, and worried that criminals or malicious governments could potentially exploit any vulnerabilities in the platform, especially if a legal precedent is set.
"It is potentially a gift to authoritarian regimes, as well as to criminal hackers," he said. "There have already been a number of concerted efforts by authorities in other States to force IT and communications companies such as Google and Blackberry to expose their customers to mass surveillance."
Al-Hussein drew special attention to the fact that encryption is essential for human rights activists, journalists, whisteblowers, and political dissidents, and that lives could be threatened not just on an individual level but on the larger scale of national or international security, despite organizations like the FBI saying bypassing encryption is needed to prevent terrorism.
On Thursday Apple received a flood of legal support from corporations, security experts, and others. One backer was the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression issues, David Kaye.
Though the U.S. government has supporters on its own side as well, statements, letters, and amicus briefs should help Apple as it prepares for a March 22 court hearing, when the order for Apple to bypass the passcode limit on Farook's phone will be subject to review.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Zeid_bin_Ra'ad
The UN's Ten Principles.
Human Rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Labour
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Environment
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.
Anti-Corruption
Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.
Where exactly is there any threat to US interests?
How would US isolationism, help in any of these principles? or promote American interests in the wider world?
Because fuck the UN. It has no legal jurisdiction anywhere. It’s a paper fruit fly. Why should we care about restricting American rights, and how would being subservient to someone else’s set of rights promote our own?
Read about the history of the formation of the UN and you’ll see why it never should have existed.
Are you the old GTR or an unrelated account?