Did anyone ever hack into Apple's data prior to encryption? Just because a backdoor is created it doesn't automatically mean it's hackable. Apple can make that backdoor harder to crack than the current encryption. Just because you're able to open a door doesn’t mean anyone else can.
If there's a backdoor, then it is either hidden, locked, or both. If hidden, someone will find it and exploit it (especially if it's known that there is one). If it's locked, that means there's a key. If there's a key it can be stolen, especially if that key is digital.
The security of any key is dependent on limited access to that key. If only one person has it, that key is very secure (if it's a good key). Each additional person with access to a key lowers the security of that key. Giving an organization the size of government law enforcement the key all but guarantees that key will be insecure.
I have yet to see anyone who actually knows how encryption works say otherwise.
Oh for crying out loud, President Obama didn't submit it as a treaty, it's an Executive Agreement.
In that event, it is not binding on any part of the government, not even the President. Simply pointing that out in a letter is not "treason" or illegal. Calling it an "Executive Agreement" is an attempt to make an end run around the Constitution's requirement that the Senate must sign off on the President negotiating with other nations.
I wonder if they ever could make machine to read your mind if it would be legal? How far should the total information society go? I would bet every single republican canidate for President would say it is necessary in the interest of national security. Pretty sure Old Bernie wouldn't put up with it! Best of luck to all in this New Age of total awareness.
In a statement issued on Monday, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, criticized Tim Cook for his defense of strong encryption during a 60 Minutes interview, claiming that the Apple CEO had "omitted critical facts."
"As a society, we don't allow phone companies to design their systems to avoid lawful, court-ordered searches," Cotton said in the statement. "If we apply a different legal standard to companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, we can expect them to become the preferred messaging services of child pornographers, drug traffickers, and terrorists alike -- which neither these companies nor law enforcement want."
During the 60 Minutes piece, Cook argued against government-mandated backdoors in encryption. The executive maintained a long-held position that if Apple coded deliberate holes for U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies, those holes could also be exploited by malicious hackers, including governments wanting to use the Internet against their own citizens.
Apple and other corporations have come under increasing fire from U.S. government officials concerned they will no longer be able to intercept communications from criminals or terrorists. The encryption present in iOS 8 and 9, for instance, is so strong that Apple says it can't break it, even when served with a warrant.
One of the most vocal critics of Apple's policy has been FBI director James Comey. His efforts suffered a setback when the Obama administration decided not to force decryption, although during an October hearing, Comey said that talks with corporations had become "increasingly productive" and less venomous.
Ya, like we can trust our Government. They've shown time and time again they can't be trusted. You get people with this kind of power and they let it go to their heads. Time and time again government sites get hacked. Look at the Health Care site, look what Hillary did with government data. I don't trust government officials, Dems or Reps with having a back door into my data and I especially don't trust FBI or CIA. If they get a back door into my data so will the bad guys which some of them are bad guys I trust Tim Cook much more. Apple has shown time and time again that they can be trusted and as Tim Cook stated they don't have our data. Apple can't get to our data. The people of America need to speak against what government officials want.
I thought this was laid to rest during the Clinton administration when the so-called Clipper chip was hacked before it could even be put into production.
The fact is that this is absolutely unfeasible. Even if you were to implement it what makes you think pornographers and terrorists and drug dealers are going to use apps with backdoor encryption? Silly rabbit, they will just use apps with strong encryption from outside the US.
Meanwhile law abiding US citizens will be hacked en masse through the back doors so thoughtfully required by Congressional Idiots like Mr. Cotton.
The world's leading experts in the field recently updated their classic 1997 proof of the fallacy of this approach in the following:
Did anyone ever hack into Apple's data prior to encryption? Just because a backdoor is created it doesn't automatically mean it's hackable. Apple can make that backdoor harder to crack than the current encryption. Just because you're able to open a door doesn’t mean anyone else can.
If there's a backdoor, then it is either hidden, locked, or both. If hidden, someone will find it and exploit it (especially if it's known that there is one). If it's locked, that means there's a key. If there's a key it can be stolen, especially if that key is digital.
The security of any key is dependent on limited access to that key. If only one person has it, that key is very secure (if it's a good key). Each additional person with access to a key lowers the security of that key. Giving an organization the size of government law enforcement the key all but guarantees that key will be insecure.
I have yet to see anyone who actually knows how encryption works say otherwise.
Who says you have to give anyone the key? Is it any different than when the police execute a search warrant on a home? They're allowed in but that doesn't give them the key to the residence nor permission to go back in whenever they feel like it.
This guy apparently doesn't know that the phone companies still required there to be a court order in place before they handed over anything or allowed authorities to listen in, etc. (Whether they followed that or not is another thing; the law required legal authorization.) What he and other politicians and government personnel (like FBI Director Comey) are asking for is something entirely diferent: free and open access to our stuff.
I suspect one day his private communications will be compromised and, after being drummed out of politics for whatever hypocrisy it reveals, he'll be crying a different tune.
Did anyone ever hack into Apple's data prior to encryption? Just because a backdoor is created it doesn't automatically mean it's hackable. Apple can make that backdoor harder to crack than the current encryption. Just because you're able to open a door doesn’t mean anyone else can.
Apple's iCloud was hacked, as you well know. I know of no hacks of iPhones that occurred without giving root access to the hacker via social engineering.
So which party hacked iCloud.
I believe it wasn't a hack more like someone who was able to figure one plus two is three with the right password and got into those accounts.
If there's a backdoor, then it is either hidden, locked, or both. If hidden, someone will find it and exploit it (especially if it's known that there is one). If it's locked, that means there's a key. If there's a key it can be stolen, especially if that key is digital.
The security of any key is dependent on limited access to that key. If only one person has it, that key is very secure (if it's a good key). Each additional person with access to a key lowers the security of that key. Giving an organization the size of government law enforcement the key all but guarantees that key will be insecure.
I have yet to see anyone who actually knows how encryption works say otherwise.
Who says you have to give anyone the key? Is it any different than when the police execute a search warrant on a home? They're allowed in but that doesn't give them the key to the residence nor permission to go back in whenever they feel like it.
You need an encryption key for digital devices because battering rams have a way of making digital data unrecoverable.
Extremely laughable, PGP and other tools make this argument useless. (Mr Zimmerman - the creator of PGP, was extremely harassed the US government, but he succeeded to keep the tool free for all.) Mr Cook should have mentioned the fact that encryption is a basic human right and as such cannot be forbidden or withheld.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying and am completely in favour of Tim Cooks stance on encryption, but this statement, "... encryption is a basic human right and as such cannot be forbidden or withheld" is absolute nonsense of the highest order.
There is no "basic human right" in the USA or even in the more progressive countries to encryption technology. There is not even a "basic right" to privacy in the sense that you are describing it here. Add to that, the ridiculousness of arguing that such rights as might exist are somehow absolute or immutable and you have a big pile of nonsense.
All rights are subject to the rights of others and none of them are absolute in the way you see to imagine.
Encryption is a human right in the sense it is the product of thought, which itself is so basic to humanity it is senseless to even consider it a right.
All encryption other than one time pads and any equivalents may well prove to be moot anyway since Australian researchers recently showed how to implement quantum computing cheaply in silicone.
In a statement issued on Monday, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, criticized Tim Cook for his defense of strong encryption during a 60 Minutes interview, claiming that the Apple CEO had "omitted critical facts."
"As a society, we don't allow phone companies to design their systems to avoid lawful, court-ordered searches," Cotton said in the statement. "If we apply a different legal standard to companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook, we can expect them to become the preferred messaging services of child pornographers, drug traffickers, and terrorists alike -- which neither these companies nor law enforcement want."
During the 60 Minutes piece, Cook argued against government-mandated backdoors in encryption. The executive maintained a long-held position that if Apple coded deliberate holes for U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies, those holes could also be exploited by malicious hackers, including governments wanting to use the Internet against their own citizens.
Apple and other corporations have come under increasing fire from U.S. government officials concerned they will no longer be able to intercept communications from criminals or terrorists. The encryption present in iOS 8 and 9, for instance, is so strong that Apple says it can't break it, even when served with a warrant.
One of the most vocal critics of Apple's policy has been FBI director James Comey. His efforts suffered a setback when the Obama administration decided not to force decryption, although during an October hearing, Comey said that talks with corporations had become "increasingly productive" and less venomous.
Ya, like we can trust our Government. They've shown time and time again they can't be trusted. You get people with this kind of power and they let it go to their heads. Time and time again government sites get hacked. Look at the Health Care site, look what Hillary did with government data. I don't trust government officials, Dems or Reps with having a back door into my data and I especially don't trust FBI or CIA. If they get a back door into my data so will the bad guys which some of them are bad guys I trust Tim Cook much more. Apple has shown time and time again that they can be trusted and as Tim Cook stated they don't have our data. Apple can't get to our data. The people of America need to speak against what government officials want.
Ya, we can't trust the government, so let's get rid of it. Anarchy is much better, because you can always trust people who are not governable.
...Him and 46 other Republican senators subverting the President while in critical negotiations with a foreign power those senators consider "the enemy." This is what passes for patriotism in the GOP today.
Let's leave specific political parties out of this. The Donkeys are just as guilty of expanding Big Brother as the Elephants are — yes, even on the military front. There can be no debate about that at all. Furthermore, traditionalist Republicans (i.e., Goldwater style Libertarians) like Ron and Rand Paul never have supported this kind of thing, have actually been vocally against it, and they are both in the Elephant party, proving the entire GOP cannot be entirely cast in the ideological fire.
Apple is right. Big Brother is wrong. What must we do? Vote against any Donkey and Elephant that stands in the way of Liberty and Justice for all. Big Brother is not the LORD ALMIGHTY. Government can never make you 100% safe and secure. The reason shows like the X-Files were so popular is that most of us have never really trusted government in the first place. Look elsewhere for your security while at the same time work toward a smaller government, one that doesn't stick its nose in other countries' business trying to police the world or change regimes we disapprove of. Love your neighbor and want to help them? Don't use government to play Robin Hood and redistribute wealth. Use private charities and churches instead. Liberals and Conservatives need to unite on LIBERTY, the very foundation of America. Only then can be assured of a better tomorrow.
And since VOTERS are responsible for Government, we ourselves are our own demise.
THINK DIFFERENT!
If there's a backdoor, then it is either hidden, locked, or both. If hidden, someone will find it and exploit it (especially if it's known that there is one). If it's locked, that means there's a key. If there's a key it can be stolen, especially if that key is digital.
The security of any key is dependent on limited access to that key. If only one person has it, that key is very secure (if it's a good key). Each additional person with access to a key lowers the security of that key. Giving an organization the size of government law enforcement the key all but guarantees that key will be insecure.
I have yet to see anyone who actually knows how encryption works say otherwise.
Who says you have to give anyone the key? Is it any different than when the police execute a search warrant on a home? They're allowed in but that doesn't give them the key to the residence nor permission to go back in whenever they feel like it.
And I think this is Comey's argument: upon issuance of a warrant, get the individual to decrypt the covered data, and hand that data over to the Justice Department. That way, the user's key is never divulged to anyone.
Except...that raises a fifth amendment question that hasn't been settled yet.
I understand why Comey feels strongly in his position as Director of the FBI, but I fully support Tim Cook's views on the issue. While the "right to privacy" isn't specifically stated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court found the right in some of the "penumbras" and "emanations" such as the 4th amendment and the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Over a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote about a right to be left alone. It's something that's applicable now more than ever.
Comments
The security of any key is dependent on limited access to that key. If only one person has it, that key is very secure (if it's a good key). Each additional person with access to a key lowers the security of that key. Giving an organization the size of government law enforcement the key all but guarantees that key will be insecure.
I have yet to see anyone who actually knows how encryption works say otherwise.
In that event, it is not binding on any part of the government, not even the President. Simply pointing that out in a letter is not "treason" or illegal. Calling it an "Executive Agreement" is an attempt to make an end run around the Constitution's requirement that the Senate must sign off on the President negotiating with other nations.
How far should the total information society go? I would bet every single republican canidate for President
would say it is necessary in the interest of national security. Pretty sure Old Bernie wouldn't put up with it!
Best of luck to all in this New Age of total awareness.
The fact is that this is absolutely unfeasible. Even if you were to implement it what makes you think pornographers and terrorists and drug dealers are going to use apps with backdoor encryption? Silly rabbit, they will just use apps with strong encryption from outside the US.
Meanwhile law abiding US citizens will be hacked en masse through the back doors so thoughtfully required by Congressional Idiots like Mr. Cotton.
The world's leading experts in the field recently updated their classic 1997 proof of the fallacy of this approach in the following:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/97690
I believe it wasn't a hack more like someone who was able to figure one plus two is three with the right password and got into those accounts.
All encryption other than one time pads and any equivalents may well prove to be moot anyway since Australian researchers recently showed how to implement quantum computing cheaply in silicone.
You are more far more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.
I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists and have rock solid encryption available.
Apple is right. Big Brother is wrong. What must we do? Vote against any Donkey and Elephant that stands in the way of Liberty and Justice for all. Big Brother is not the LORD ALMIGHTY. Government can never make you 100% safe and secure. The reason shows like the X-Files were so popular is that most of us have never really trusted government in the first place. Look elsewhere for your security while at the same time work toward a smaller government, one that doesn't stick its nose in other countries' business trying to police the world or change regimes we disapprove of. Love your neighbor and want to help them? Don't use government to play Robin Hood and redistribute wealth. Use private charities and churches instead. Liberals and Conservatives need to unite on LIBERTY, the very foundation of America. Only then can be assured of a better tomorrow.
And since VOTERS are responsible for Government, we ourselves are our own demise.
THINK DIFFERENT!
Hard truth: if Obama wanted to present a unified front to the Iranians, maybe should have shorn up support in the Senate first.
Except...that raises a fifth amendment question that hasn't been settled yet.
Over a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote about a right to be left alone. It's something that's applicable now more than ever.