Assuming that WhatsApp calls are VOIP and therefore, like iMessages on iOS, not the same as the traditional phone network.
There should absolutely not be available to government an absolute "right" (not the correct word, but close to the point I'm making) to tap any phone call or communication. The phone networks are the property of private institutions and of the people. Our government works for us, not the other way 'round.
He clearly just doesn't get it. This isn't about the FBI accessing my brokerage account information, bank accounts, credit card accounts or other personal financial information: it's criminals getting their hands on that information.
He clearly just doesn't get it. This isn't about the FBI accessing my brokerage account information, bank accounts, credit card accounts or other personal financial information: it's criminals getting their hands on that information.
Oh, he gets it. In fact, he counts on it. The more criminals get their hands on personal information, the more the government can justify having access to all electronic devices. Today, it's one device by court order, tomorrow it's every device in the world sold by U.S. companies. The government could care less about the loss of a few hundred million dollars in personal wealth of individuals in exchange for unlimited knowledge about EVERYONE's personal life. This has been the CIA's wildest wet dream for decades. Now the FBI has a chance of pulling it off.
This is what to expect when the political machine becomes powerful enough that they no longer have to answer to the people.
Wow...Obama has cemented his place in history as the worst president we have had.
FDR and Wilson, at least, are worse. happilyretired said:
Rest assured my fetish is with hot babes in sexy lingerie.
I have literally never understood lingerie. I don’t get the point. It feels like work to be sexy. Sexiness comes from the personhood–from the ideology, the humor, and the musicality. You want to do work to be sexy, get yourself dolled up in a conservative floor-length dress. I don’t see any of those these days.
He likened the intrusion to TSA checks at the airport, drunk driving road blocks or tax enforcement; all accepted policies that, while potentially unpleasant, are recognized as important to the greater good.
As some have pointed out, the TSA is a bad example. Indeed it's a bad choice for Obama to prove his point because it's a perfect example for why strong encryption must be allowed. The TSA are presumed to be the good guys and as in most law enforcement agencies, I believe most of the employees are, but there are unfortunate exceptions, there are bad cops, which is the crux of the matter here. This is not a technological problem, it is a human nature problem. There is an easy technological solution to this problem, a backdoor with limited access through a special key is easy to do, since it's been the norm for decades now, yet there are no technological solution to its consequences. In the simplest of words here is the issue : it is a simple technological task to give access using a key given to responsible good people doing a good thing for the benefit of all, we all want that, but there is no technology in the near or distant future that can or could detect if the key is actually being used instead by a bad person or by a good person doing a bad thing, and that’s what nobody wants.
"This notion that somehow our data is different and can be walled off from those other tradeoffs we make, I believe is incorrect," he said. "My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this. So if your argument is 'strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should in fact create black boxes,' that I think does not strike the kind of balance we have lived with for 200, 300 years. And it's fetishizing our phone above every other value, and that can't be the right answer."
Wrong again, our data is not different than any other information we could memorize or inscribe on paper in our own special secret code. IANAL but I believe that our secrets in any form are protected by the 5th amendment. Short of plea bargaining or torture, you can't be coerced in revealing something that can incriminate you. And I can only speak for myself but for the life of me I can't fathom fetishizing my phone, however I do hold the data on it above many other value. That's a terrible way of trying to prove a point.
"If everybody goes to their respective corners and the tech community says, 'you know what, either we have strong, perfect encryption, or else it's big brother and [an] Orwellian world,' what you'll find is that after something really bad happens the politics of this will swing and it will become sloppy and rushed," Obama said. "And it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through. And then you really will have a danger to our civil liberties because the disengaged or taken a position that is not sustainable."
A frightening scenario indeed, which is what Apple is trying to avoid without stooping to sophistry, demagoguery or bold legislative threats such as these. Stay classy.
Strong encryption prevents more crime than weak encryption would allow to be prosecuted. Weak encryption funds more terrorism than strong encryption enables.
Exactly. Both the technology and civil liberty worlds know this but it would be helpful for the other side to see actual numbers. Although many have probably also seen the horrific numbers of deaths by guns compared to terrorism yet have a greater and visceral fear of the unlikeliness or being a victim of terror and still won't give another thought about the fact that it was still guns that killed and hurt those unfortunate people, not a phone or the presumed information it could hold. If only legislators and whoever people they cater to cared as much about their private information as they did for their guns we might not be in this mess. Yes, I did say 'might', because, well, here's a visual reminder :
Although many have probably also seen the horrific numbers of deaths by guns compared to terrorism...
There’s nothing to refute here, and I certainly don’t take the side of the authoritarians vis a vis theft of personal data in some blind attempt to stop something that is statistically small, however:
Acting as though terrorism is so meaningless that steps should not be taken to subvert it is the same as saying foreign aid makes up a statistically insignificant portion of the budget, therefore we shouldn’t care about ending it.
Although many have probably also seen the horrific numbers of deaths by guns compared to terrorism...
There’s nothing to refute here, and I certainly don’t take the side of the authoritarians vis a vis theft of personal data in some blind attempt to stop something that is statistically small, however:
Acting as though terrorism is so meaningless that steps should not be taken to subvert it is the same as saying foreign aid makes up a statistically insignificant portion of the budget, therefore we shouldn’t care about ending it.
That's a fair point, though in this case tighter gun control may have prevented a lot of deaths through gun crime as well as the act of terrorism in San Bernadino.
There’s nothing to refute here, and I certainly don’t take the side of the authoritarians vis a vis theft of personal data in some blind attempt to stop something that is statistically small, however:
Acting as though terrorism is so meaningless that steps should not be taken to subvert it is the same as saying foreign aid makes up a statistically insignificant portion of the budget, therefore we shouldn’t care about ending it.
That's a fair point, though in this case tighter gun control may have prevented a lot of deaths through gun crime as well as the act of terrorism in San Bernadino.
Well the terrorists didn't purchase the rifles themselves and straw purchases are already illegal.
That's a fair point, though in this case tighter gun control may have prevented a lot of deaths through gun crime as well as the act of terrorism in San Bernadino.
Well the terrorists didn't purchase the rifles themselves and straw purchases are already illegal.
But the guns were bought without any difficulty from a high street family store. With guns so freely available I think that going after the phones us simply drawing attention away from the real problem.
Obama shouldn't really be holding up the TSA as an example of his secure 'master key' policy; it not only shows his lack of understanding, but his lack of knowledge of current events.
The TSA master suitcase key has been freely available to anyone for some time now. You can even download it as instructions for a 3D printer.
The position the Obama administration is taking on the encryption debate is incorrect. Right at the top with ISIS, cyber threats are the other major risk for the US according to James Clapper and the only line of defense against cyber threats is unbreakable encryption and endpoint protection schemes. Apple is keeping us safe. Once encryption is undermined, it cannot be undone for the iPhone. The Obama administration wants to take away our only safety net despite expert advice from peofessionals in the area. This is unacceptable. Apple must push back and come on top for all of us.
Strong encryption prevents more crime than weak encryption would allow to be prosecuted. Weak encryption funds more terrorism than strong encryption enables.
Exactly. Both the technology and civil liberty worlds know this but it would be helpful for the other side to see actual numbers. Although many have probably also seen the horrific numbers of deaths by guns compared to terrorism yet have a greater and visceral fear of the unlikeliness or being a victim of terror and still won't give another thought about the fact that it was still guns that killed and hurt those unfortunate people, not a phone or the presumed information it could hold. If only legislators and whoever people they cater to cared as much about their private information as they did for their guns we might not be in this mess. Yes, I did say 'might', because, well, here's a visual reminder :
You have just received: One Million Points
If the US as a whole can get itself out of this govt power vs. Govt protection of Liberty, with Liberty intact, I will be impressed.
I have a serious question I hope someone can answer. Say the government and FBI fight all the way to SCOTUS and win. They get to tell Apple a Blackfoot must be created. Apple still refuses. Then what? Are they just fined every day? Would someone go to jail? Could the government shut down Apple? On the flip side, say SCOTUS upholds the FBI and Apple DOES make a backdoor-- and then proceeds to make a different, even tougher encryption which their backdoor can't access. Then what?
Just like in Wargames, it seems the only solutions is not to play. Sadly, the government does not like to appear weak
Apple will not resort to civil disobedience. Flouting a SCOTUS decision will crater Apple's business. They have shareholders. There is a law that requires management to act on the best interest of shareholders. Apple management is not stupid.
Too bad there isn't a set of laws the govt must adhere to!
Oh, wait....
wtf is going on with the fbi in this situation? I'd like to know that.
I believe this is less about the President and more about FBI director James Comey. This public grandstand by the FBI and the DoJ is turning into an embarrassment for the administration. I think Comey started this, and that the President is now stuck having to support the FBI – reluctantly.
Why did Comey do this? There is strong evidence that, unlike the FBI, the NSA has the budget and the capacity to "break" strong encryption now. And that FBI director James Comey's reason for grandstanding publicly at this particular moment was that the FBI was in fact right in the middle of requesting to increase their budget by more than double.
Mr. Comey essentially wants to make his job easier. And his strategy appears to be to either get Congress to change the law to force the device makers to give the FBI – and ostensibly all other law enforcement agencies – easier access, or to give the FBI the capability (like the NSA) on their own – with a vastly bigger budget for more manpower and super-computers to brute-force the encrypted devices.
The WSJ reported in Feb: "The FBI this month was asking Congress for $69 million to "counter the threat of "Going Dark"– being unable to access data because of encryption and other techniques.The bureau currently devotes 39 people and $31 million to this effort."
In other words, the FBI is using the Apple iPhone "access" demand to convince Congress to more than double their budget from $31 million to $69 million "this month".
To those who do not believe the NSA has the capability to break encryption, read this article "NSA is Mysteriously Absent From FBI-Apple Fight"
My conclusion: This is a power play and money grab by FBI director James Comey. His history points to this – he was part of the Bush Administration and is one of the architects who helped write the 'Patriot Act', before being appointed as FBI Director in 2013. So he is a very experienced Washington insider. I also happen to believe he is an authoritarian zealot masquerading as a law enforcement bureaucrat. When he states that 'this is the hardest thing he's ever done', I would take that literally – it is indeed very hard to get your way in Washington and convince Congress to make new law. Mr. Comey's entire agenda is to make his job (and law enforcement) easier. When he uses 'double-speak' and says things like "personal privacy and liberty are very important to me", what he really means is it is very important to him because the FBI wants unfettered access around it. George Orwell is turning over in his grave.
Thanks. Your explanation makes sense. What I don't understand is that I perceive Coney as making unconstitutional requests. How can this be a platform from which to demand a bigger budget? Great article - thanks again!
Obama shouldn't really be holding up the TSA as an example of his secure 'master key' policy; it not only shows his lack of understanding, but his lack of knowledge of current events.
The TSA master suitcase key has been freely available to anyone for some time now. You can even download it as instructions for a 3D printer.
Simple solution: Apple moves all operations to China. the USA loses all revenue from Apple, the USA realizes they played hard ball and lost. The USA begs apple to come back.
I'd like to see that, actually I'm sure ms and goog would be throwing parties - at first.
Simple solution: Apple moves all operations to China. the USA loses all revenue from Apple, the USA realizes they played hard ball and lost. The USA begs apple to come back.
I'd like to see that, actually I'm sure ms and goog would be throwing parties - at first.
You can't be serious. China would freely install a camera and tape recording device in apple employee bedrooms, lunchrooms, and anywhere else they felt like.
Well the terrorists didn't purchase the rifles themselves and straw purchases are already illegal.
But the guns were bought without any difficulty from a high street family store. With guns so freely available I think that going after the phones us simply drawing attention away from the real problem.
Obama is aiming at the guns. He's got his priorities right.
I believe this is less about the President and more about FBI director James Comey. This public grandstand by the FBI and the DoJ is turning into an embarrassment for the administration. I think Comey started this, and that the President is now stuck having to support the FBI – reluctantly.
Why did Comey do this? There is strong evidence that, unlike the FBI, the NSA has the budget and the capacity to "break" strong encryption now. And that FBI director James Comey's reason for grandstanding publicly at this particular moment was that the FBI was in fact right in the middle of requesting to increase their budget by more than double.
Mr. Comey essentially wants to make his job easier. And his strategy appears to be to either get Congress to change the law to force the device makers to give the FBI – and ostensibly all other law enforcement agencies – easier access, or to give the FBI the capability (like the NSA) on their own – with a vastly bigger budget for more manpower and super-computers to brute-force the encrypted devices.
The WSJ reported in Feb: "The FBI this month was asking Congress for $69 million to "counter the threat of "Going Dark"– being unable to access data because of encryption and other techniques.The bureau currently devotes 39 people and $31 million to this effort."
In other words, the FBI is using the Apple iPhone "access" demand to convince Congress to more than double their budget from $31 million to $69 million "this month".
To those who do not believe the NSA has the capability to break encryption, read this article "NSA is Mysteriously Absent From FBI-Apple Fight"
My conclusion: This is a power play and money grab by FBI director James Comey. His history points to this – he was part of the Bush Administration and is one of the architects who helped write the 'Patriot Act', before being appointed as FBI Director in 2013. So he is a very experienced Washington insider. I also happen to believe he is an authoritarian zealot masquerading as a law enforcement bureaucrat. When he states that 'this is the hardest thing he's ever done', I would take that literally – it is indeed very hard to get your way in Washington and convince Congress to make new law. Mr. Comey's entire agenda is to make his job (and law enforcement) easier. When he uses 'double-speak' and says things like "personal privacy and liberty are very important to me", what he really means is it is very important to him because the FBI wants unfettered access around it. George Orwell is turning over in his grave.
Thanks. Your explanation makes sense. What I don't understand is that I perceive Coney as making unconstitutional requests. How can this be a platform from which to demand a bigger budget? Great article - thanks again!
Comments
There should absolutely not be available to government an absolute "right" (not the correct word, but close to the point I'm making) to tap any phone call or communication. The phone networks are the property of private institutions and of the people. Our government works for us, not the other way 'round.
This is what to expect when the political machine becomes powerful enough that they no longer have to answer to the people.
happilyretired said:
I don’t like that word, either...
As some have pointed out, the TSA is a bad example. Indeed it's a bad choice for Obama to prove his point because it's a perfect example for why strong encryption must be allowed. The TSA are presumed to be the good guys and as in most law enforcement agencies, I believe most of the employees are, but there are unfortunate exceptions, there are bad cops, which is the crux of the matter here. This is not a technological problem, it is a human nature problem. There is an easy technological solution to this problem, a backdoor with limited access through a special key is easy to do, since it's been the norm for decades now, yet there are no technological solution to its consequences. In the simplest of words here is the issue : it is a simple technological task to give access using a key given to responsible good people doing a good thing for the benefit of all, we all want that, but there is no technology in the near or distant future that can or could detect if the key is actually being used instead by a bad person or by a good person doing a bad thing, and that’s what nobody wants.
Wrong again, our data is not different than any other information we could memorize or inscribe on paper in our own special secret code. IANAL but I believe that our secrets in any form are protected by the 5th amendment. Short of plea bargaining or torture, you can't be coerced in revealing something that can incriminate you. And I can only speak for myself but for the life of me I can't fathom fetishizing my phone, however I do hold the data on it above many other value. That's a terrible way of trying to prove a point.A frightening scenario indeed, which is what Apple is trying to avoid without stooping to sophistry, demagoguery or bold legislative threats such as these. Stay classy.
Acting as though terrorism is so meaningless that steps should not be taken to subvert it is the same as saying foreign aid makes up a statistically insignificant portion of the budget, therefore we shouldn’t care about ending it.
The TSA master suitcase key has been freely available to anyone for some time now. You can even download it as instructions for a 3D printer.
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-luggage-keys-leaked-photos/
One Million Points
If the US as a whole can get itself out of this govt power vs. Govt protection of Liberty, with Liberty intact, I will be impressed.
Oh, wait....
wtf is going on with the fbi in this situation? I'd like to know that.
Thanks. Your explanation makes sense.
What I don't understand is that I perceive Coney as making unconstitutional requests. How can this be a platform from which to demand a bigger budget?
Great article - thanks again!
I'm sure ms and goog would be throwing parties - at first.