Manhattan district attorney grabs attention saying iPhone will become 'device of choice' for terrori
In a weekend conversation on radio station WNYM/970 AM, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. called the iPhone "the terrorists' communication device of choice," owing to the default disk encryption present in iOS 8.
"Apple has created a phone that is dark, that cannot be accessed by law enforcement even when a court has authorized us to look at its contents," Vance said during The Cats Roundtable, according to the New York Post. "That's going to be the terrorists' communication device of choice."
Vance further argued that because the issue hasn't raised widespread attention, it's up to police to pressure politicians into undoing the encryption efforts of both Apple and Google. Google has yet to implement default full-disk encryption in Android, likely because of reported issues for the performance of the Nexus 6 with full-disk protection on.
Developed in the aftermath of leaks by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden -- revealing mass surveillance programs, often with the collusion of tech companies -- and general concerns about smartphone theft and hacking, iOS 8's encryption is so tough that Apple claims even it can't help a law enforcement agency crack a device.
This has resulted in complaints from a number of politicians and law enforcement offcials, including US Attorney General Eric Holder, and British Prime Minister David Cameron. Some have argued that companies like Apple and Google must implement back doors for police and spy agencies, and that dire consequences could arise without surveillance being an at-hand tool.
"Apple has created a phone that is dark, that cannot be accessed by law enforcement even when a court has authorized us to look at its contents," Vance said during The Cats Roundtable, according to the New York Post. "That's going to be the terrorists' communication device of choice."
Vance further argued that because the issue hasn't raised widespread attention, it's up to police to pressure politicians into undoing the encryption efforts of both Apple and Google. Google has yet to implement default full-disk encryption in Android, likely because of reported issues for the performance of the Nexus 6 with full-disk protection on.
Developed in the aftermath of leaks by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden -- revealing mass surveillance programs, often with the collusion of tech companies -- and general concerns about smartphone theft and hacking, iOS 8's encryption is so tough that Apple claims even it can't help a law enforcement agency crack a device.
This has resulted in complaints from a number of politicians and law enforcement offcials, including US Attorney General Eric Holder, and British Prime Minister David Cameron. Some have argued that companies like Apple and Google must implement back doors for police and spy agencies, and that dire consequences could arise without surveillance being an at-hand tool.
Comments
Right. Because they couldn't just use another brand of phone or a custom app that uses different encryption if Apple allowed this.
http://graphics.wsj.com/documents/doc-cloud-embedder/?sidebar=1#1881486-a-wrinkle-in-time-excerpt
Given that that was just released, it seems appropriate. So, Mister District Attorney, stop the fearmongering, you greedy hack.
Government: "Let us spy on your customers' calls"
Apple: "No"
Government: "You are supporting terrorism"
Oldest scare tactic in the book.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. This is a user privacy issue.
Maybe we should route all phone calls, emails and texts with plain text files through NSA servers. We will also add meta tags to all our correspondence for easy sorting of "business", "personal", "sex", "selfie", "embarrassing", "potential blackmail" and "terrorism". Perhaps that will make these idiots happy.
For fringe libertarian privacy freaks, criminals, pirates, and drug pushers, or anyone who seeks to actively thwart the NSA, they'll use Blackphone:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackphone
Uh, nope. This guy is talking out of his ass.
For fringe libertarian privacy freaks, criminals, pirates, and drug pushers, or anyone who seeks to actively thwart the NSA, they'll use Blackphone:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackphone
I don't think they'd use any smartphone at all. Long before we had smartphones organized criminals or terrorists had no troubles communicating. Either behind closed doors or by using simple pre-arranged terms when talking on any phone (which they assumed would be recorded).
I think they'd use burner phones they picked up at 7-11 for simple communication, and anything that was truly sensitive would simply be passed along in person.
It's all Obama's fault. Now that they can't waterboard to get the password, they need Apple to give them the password.
Yes, I'd read that too. Disposable burner phones are used by terrorist. And high value targets don't even use cell phones, but hand-delivered messages via trusted couriers.
Blackphone is for off-the-grid paranoid types with something to hide, but still want to enjoy having a smartphone for other reasons. They aren't terrorists.
So you gov't hacks can't easily break in on us private citizens. That just makes me want to buy one even more. Just another example of the effect being the opposite of the one intended.
What an idiot. Also, for personal security turn off your iPhone's Touch ID for the phone unlocking function.
Invasion of user privacy takes four forms:
A. Direct or passive remote monitoring or intercept of user information and data — much like hackers do. Or, the NSA.
B. Active, targeted observation — e.g., wire taps (which are legal when authorized by a court), surveillance drones, wireless transmitters.
C. Active reading of phone or computer data via external electronic devices — the so-called mobile forensic devices police sometimes use to read smartphone data.
D. Physical access — whether by stolen password or court-ordered forensic examination.
What the DA is asking for is court-ordered access to examine the contents of a phone. This is no different than a court ordering you to turn over documents or computer files during a criminal investigation or for access to your telephone calls via a wire tap during an investigation.
It is not the wholesale invasion of privacy via the NSA or hackers that is happening everyday. It is targeted.
Your negative hue and cry is much akin to the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
What most of you seem to support is that, if the Tsarnaev brothers had communicated only on iPhones, and that was the key physical evidence of their conspiracy, they should go free. Is that really what you want?
Do you also want to do away with wiretaps as well? Or other court-ordered surveillance? And, if so, at what cost will you decide enough is enough?
I propose that video cameras be placed in doctors offices and residential fences be kept shorter than an average FBI agent's eye level so that poor prescription handwriting and trampoline safety are easier to monitor.