Privacy | Information Security
Well. Who would have ever thought that people would EVER pay attention to privacy? I’ve been constantly amazed to see revelation after revelation over the past few years greeted with a bit of a collective shoulder shrug, and then on with business as usual.
I guess now, with Apple’s situation, the cat is out of the bag. Before any of this broke, I published an article on privacy that might be of interest - Does the Privacy of Your Personal Information Worry You?, and also did the short Slideshare below.
I’ve wondered for some time what it would take to get people to pay attention to this, and ultimately the equation turned out to be:
Apple + FBI + ISIS = front page and lead story visibility.
I was wondering what people in our community of information professionals thought about all of this, so I pinged my personal network to ask 42 information professional types what they thought. Here are the results of my little flash survey:
Question 1: Should Apple make changes in its operating system to allow the FBI to try to unlock the phone?
26.2% said YES, 71.4% said NO, and 2.4% (probably the most honest!) said NOT SURE.
Question 2: How much do you worry about the privacy and security of your personal information?
42.9% worry A LOT, 33.3% A FAIR AMOUNT, 19.1% A BIT, and 4.8% NOT AT ALL. So almost 80% of my little micro flash survey participants have significant concerns.
Question 3: When it comes to concerns about privacy and security, do you worry more about governments or corporations gaining access to private information?
28.6% DEFINITELY worry more about GOVERNMENT access, 50% ABOUT EQUAL, 16.7% DEFINITELY worry more about CORPORATE access, and 4.8%, Don't worry about EITHER.
Here's a bit broader sample from the always interesting Pew Research Center:
So with that as background, here are a few posts/articles worth reading to catch up on the controversy. Please feel free to post additional good links on both sides of this issue in the comments; the following is from a quick review.
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake. [excerpt from full article]
Apple's statement to Congress on the FBI warrant fight from TheVerge:
The FBI has asked a court to order us to give them something we don’t have. To create an operating system that does not exist — because it would be too dangerous. They are asking for a backdoor into the iPhone — specifically to build a software tool that can break the encryption system, which protects personal information on every iPhone.
As we have told them — and as we have told the American public — building that software tool would not affect just one iPhone. It would weaken the security for all of them. In fact, just last week, Director Comey agreed that the FBI would likely use this precedent in other cases involving other phones. District Attorney Vance has also said he would absolutely plan to use this on over 175 phones. We can all agree this is not about access to just one iPhone. [excerpt from full article]
And also from TheVerge -- Microsoft 'wholeheartedly' supports Apple in FBI encryption case:
Speaking at a congressional hearing today, Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith said that his company "wholeheartedly" supports Apple in the ongoing case that's pitted the iPhone maker against the FBI. "We at Microsoft support Apple and will be filing an amicus brief next week," Smith said. An amicus brief is a "friend of the court" filing that allows parties not directly involved in the case to weigh in. Before today, Microsoft had offered only tepid support for Apple's, but now it's getting behind the company in a big way. [excerpt from full article]
Apple, The FBI And iPhone Encryption: A Look At What's At Stake from NPR, @alinaselyukh and @camilareads:
Remember the cryptex, the little handheld safe from The Da Vinci Code where entering the correct combination will reveal the secret message and entering the wrong one will destroy it? Now replace the little safe with an iPhone, and instead of a secret message, it's holding evidence in a terrorism case. The critical combination? It's a passcode — one the FBI doesn't know, and one that Apple is reluctant to help the agency figure out. [excerpt from full article]
Inside the FBI's encryption battle with Apple from The Guardian:
For months, the FBI searched for a compelling case that would force Apple to weaken iPhone security – and then the San Bernardino shooting happened. Two weeks ago, the FBI called Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, California, with a jarring message: the agency wanted Apple to help them hack an iPhone. Apple refused.
The request stepped up a level on 16 February when a federal magistrate ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock a single iPhone – the phone belonging to one of the killers in the December mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Apple again refused.
But this carefully planned legal battle has been months in the making, US officials and tech executives told the Guardian, as the government and Apple try to settle whether national security can dictate how Silicon Valley writes computer code.
Both sides expect the ensuing legal battle to have far-reaching implications that will touch on encryption, law enforcement, digital privacy, and a 227-year-old law from America’s post-colonial days. [excerpt from full article]
Also from The Guardian -- FBI director admits Apple encryption case could set legal precedent:
The director of the FBI has conceded that future judges will look to his battle with Apple as a precedent for law enforcement access to locked or encrypted mobile devices, the first time the government has conceded that the implications of the case stretch beyond an investigation into the San Bernardino terrorist attacks.
The ultimate outcome of the Apple-FBI showdown is likely to “guide how other courts handle similar requests,” James Comey told a congressional intelligence panel on Thursday, a softening of his flat insistence on Sunday that the FBI was not attempting to “set a precedent.” [excerpt from full article]
And this -- Congress tells FBI that forcing Apple to unlock iPhones is 'a fool's errand'
The FBI Is Dead Wrong: Apple’s Encryption Is Clearly in the Public Interest from Wired:
Apple’s new encryption has prompted a breathtaking and erroneous scare campaign led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey. In a speech at the Brookings Institute this week, Comey went so far as to claim that Apple’s new system risks creating an environment in which the United States is "no longer a country governed by the rule of law."
This is absurd. The only actions that have undermined the rule of law are the government’s deceptive and secret mass surveillance programs. In the absence of any changes in the law to better protect Americans’ privacy, technology companies are responding to the demands of their customers and improving many security and privacy policies. [excerpt from full article]
Apple vs. FBI: A timeline of the iPhone encryption case from VentureBeat:
The Apple vs. FBI controversy going on right now is quite the techno-political drama. At the core of it is a topic that isn’t so simple — encryption — and it’s all unfolding very rapidly and from many corners of the Internet.
Some people have come up with a snarky shorthand for the case: FBiOS, a portmanteau of FBI and iOS that represents a version of the Apple operating system that would meet the needs of the FBI. Unfortunately, this encapsulation hides the complexity of the situation.
The outcome of the case may have staggering implications. It affects Apple, currently the most valuable company in the world, and it could change the way millions of people view their iPhones: trusted smartphone or potential government surveillance tool? [excerpt from full article]
N.Y. judge backs Apple in encryption fight with government from Reuters:
The U.S. government cannot force Apple Inc. to unlock an iPhone in a New York drug case, a federal judge in Brooklyn said on Monday, a ruling that bolsters the company's arguments in its landmark legal showdown with the Justice Department over encryption and privacy...His ruling echoed many of the arguments that Apple has made in the San Bernardino case, particularly his finding that a 1789 law called the All Writs Act cannot be used to force Apple to open the phone. Orenstein also found that Apple was largely exempt from complying with such requests by a 1994 law that updated wiretapping laws. [excerpt from full article]
