Too late to use that explanation. Hearings with Rosenstein had already shown that those who were supposedly paranoid about the big brother and the govt overstepping the legal boundaries, were proven to be correct, as the govt can and did use its power to conduct illegal info gathering. It is a fact now. That moves this whole circus, from the realm of conspiracy theories and boogiemen to the realm of violating of what is guaranteed by the Constitution. That’s BAD. Like, really bad.
Services like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram also use end-to-end encryption, which law enforcement and spy agencies have complained are sometimes being used by terrorists and other criminals.
What if we resolved terror/crime by addressing the social, political and economic forces that give rise to it?
Because we don't even begin to understand the social, political and economic forces that drive crime and/or terror attacks.
Encryption is information protection, not a way to defeat law enforcement. Any back door that would break encryption means there would be no privacy protection at all. Apple always cooperates with law enforcement and gives as much information that it can to help law enforcement. Anyone with common sense knows that any back door would be a flood gate to break ins and privacy threats to everyone else.
Technology has enabled the government to monitor and store massive amounts of personal data “just in case it’s needed” in the future- all in the name of security.
Remember the brouhaha about the NSA and it's data collection practices in the United States? As it turned out, the only thing they were storing on government servers in mass quantities was landline metadata. The claims that they were storing mass amounts of U.S. origin cell phone and internet data turned out to be false. And it was then ruled in court that the government couldn't legally store the mass collected landline metadata on it's own servers anyway. All of this was confirmed in Congressional testimony by both the NSA and the private internet/phone companies that had to comply with warrants for data.
That doesn't mean that there is no concern when it comes to data privacy, but the whole "massive" amounts of data storage thing is misleading when it comes to U.S. communications. They have to use warrants and they have to get the data from the internet and phone company provider servers.
It is also worth remembering that General Hayden said, "We kill people based on metadata."
Defeating law enforcement is only a side-effect of doing the right thing, not their motivation. These "leaders" are clueless and feel victimized.
I think the single and only reason is Apple is trying to protect user privacy and security. And Apple has made this statement numerous times public. Why the AG choose to ignore it? At least he should make an argument why law enforcement is above user privacy and security.
He doesn’t ignore it. He fights it by presenting the nonsense he reported doing here. He is trying to shape the world around him, to suit his interests, by repeating ignorant (or even knowingly false) statements because it’s what the people hear the most that they believe; especially whatever is the most simplistic and emotionally charged. Outrage at corporations exists for good reason, and he’s trying to ride that wave. This is NOT one of the good reasons for outrage at corporations (at least not Apple in this context).
I’m not remotely against regulation. It’s necessary and corporations prove that fact time and again (looking at you, GM). This situation isn’t about regulating corporate misbehavior. It’s entirely about making things easy for paranoid national security types (who think that control of everything equates to safety), because they don’t want to learn technology, hire and pay quality tech people, or work hard at their jobs.
Rosenstein is a politician / political appointee. He is interested in growing his power base, and/or making his job easier. He doesn't care at all about citizens security or privacy.
The government has the legal right to enter your house and search every inch of it with a warrant but Apple's Cook says even with a legal warrant we will do everything in our power to stop the government from searching someone's stupid mobile phone?????? So if someone invents a "new technology house" that includes encrypted locks and a system that will destroy all the contents of said house unless you know the right password to enter it that's ok too??? For some reason people today feel that their phones are some how special and above the laws of this and other countries. I personally would much rather have the police search my phone than my entire house, car, ect. Hell the police can even get a warrant to search someone bank safely deposit box! But someone's iPhone is off limits. People keep saying their phone is personal so it's different. So your home, car, ect isn't personal?
The police already have the right to search phones. They don’t have the right to force you to give them the password. Go tell Congress if you don’t agree with the laws as they stand; it’s the very same government that’s complaining who also wrote the laws they’re complaining about.
The government also does not have the right to force you to open a safe they want to search. Nor does it force the manufacturers of safes to provide a backdoor method of opening the safe they produce. And yes, it would be perfectly legal to manufacture and sell safes that destroy the contents after a certain number of failed attempts to open using the combination.
Good comment. However: it’s not the same government. The government is composed of people, and the people have changed considerably since the relevant laws were established.
Every time a new administration comes along, there’s risk that they’ll tear up everything accomplished by prior administrations. Especially when one party controls multiple branches of government, is composed mostly of older privileged people seeking to maintain their position, and who have an axe to grind against their opposition’s prior accomplishments.
Shouldn't he be Acting AG Rosenstein? I thought Sessions was gone?
He SHOULD be, but Trump went out of the line of succession to appoint Sessions’ chief of staff Matt Whitaker as acting AG because he’s more likely to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
Sounds illegal. A historic 40 flipped seats in the House might have something to say about this.
"We need to place security on the same footing as novelty and convenience, and design technology accordingly," said Rosenstein
Novelty? Convenience? I don't think he assigns any importance to security at all.
And in case he has a short memory, this is what happens to "secure" items under government control. Do they seriously think they can protect backdoor keys, something that every cyber criminal will be looking to get their hands on?
In June 2015, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that it had been the target of a data breach targeting the records of as many as four million people. The final estimate of the number of stolen records is approximately 21.5 million
I think it was Ben Thompson who made the observation that security is most valuable to countries which produce technology (e.g. the USA, Japan, South Korea, etc), while it is of the least value to the lower tech countries (where many of the cyber criminal organizations live). If the US Government undermines the security of their companies by legislating back doors, the country most hurt by this action would be the USA, as those back doors would inevitably be compromised.
The reason you here govt departments / heads demand this, is that ultimately they are not concerned with the welfare of their citizens or even country - they are most interested in themselves (like all politicians and political appointees). Power and re-election is their focus.
Rod Rosenstein at best doesn't understand the issues and doesn't understand that he is literally contradicting himself. At worst, he's deliberately lying like James Comey did out of a tunnel vision that law enforcement needs to have its job made easier for itself by just tossing that troublesome Constitution and its namby-pamby protections for the rights of commoners.
Comments
I’m not remotely against regulation. It’s necessary and corporations prove that fact time and again (looking at you, GM). This situation isn’t about regulating corporate misbehavior. It’s entirely about making things easy for paranoid national security types (who think that control of everything equates to safety), because they don’t want to learn technology, hire and pay quality tech people, or work hard at their jobs.
Every time a new administration comes along, there’s risk that they’ll tear up everything accomplished by prior administrations. Especially when one party controls multiple branches of government, is composed mostly of older privileged people seeking to maintain their position, and who have an axe to grind against their opposition’s prior accomplishments.
The reason you here govt departments / heads demand this, is that ultimately they are not concerned with the welfare of their citizens or even country - they are most interested in themselves (like all politicians and political appointees). Power and re-election is their focus.