Apple emphasizes need for encryption and gives middle finger to the US government
https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
If you haven't seen this yet.
Edward Snowden is now backing Apple in fighting the FBI: http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/17/technology/apple-fbi-phone-unlock-edward-snowden/
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I'm glad for once Apple can be useful. Without Snowden and his PRISM revelations they could hide behind plausible deniability and nobody would care.
I am a translator!
hahaha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
Do you know what are the first 6 words of Microsoft's privacy policy?
Your privacy is important to us.
From what I understand based on the EFF's post on this issue, Apple is protesting the government forcing them to add on new backdoors. They are right that this is not something the government should be doing, but it does not mean that Apple is taking a stand against surveillance. They seem to be fine with voluntarily putting malicious features like spyware and backdoors into their operating systems.
Now cryptography is the perp. This is war on encryption.
At least some people higher up get the message and understand the ramifications.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/13/technology/nsa-michael-hayden-encryption/
Something that didn't occur to me that my dad brought up: apparently, what's being demanded of Apple is to add in a backdoor which can bypass some sort of encryption. Apple is not saying that they can't do this, only that they don't want to, implying that they can. But the phone in question is not currently in use by its owner; the FBI has it. In other words, for some reason, whether it's an already existing master key held by Apple, or whether the key is stored somewhere in a way that makes it possible for Apple to retrieve it, or whether the encryption isn't actually encryption at all, or whether it's something else, the encryption in question is weak against an attack performed by Apple. That means the "security" features in question are insecure by design. This may be something interesting to point out to any Apple fanboys who use this as an example of Apple being secure or good for privacy or something like that.
This particular phone is locked and requires a passcode to open. The Feds want Apple disable the autowipe function which clears the crypto keys if a wrong passcode is entered enough times. The Feds want to brute force the device and for this they need Apple to get an unlimited number of tries.
Of course, they don't need this phone for anything other than to establish an antecedent. They want to be able to get at any device protected. It's aimed at journalists and whistleblowers. Laura Poitras and Greenwald would be likely victims of government seizure if the judge prevails.
Huh, well, that puts Apple in an even less positive light. So basically, the FBI is just demanding that Apple make use of the universal backdoor already present in iOS to make a change to the system that makes cracking it easier, then? In that case, Apple is seriously misrepresenting the situation. After all, if they hadn't put a universal backdoor into iOS in the first place, Apple wouldn't have the power to do this.
So, if an Apple fanboy tries to use this incident as evidence that Apple is good, countering their point is even easier. Just mention that this is only an issue because iOS already has a universal backdoor making it possible for Apple to remotely install any changes it wishes to make in any device running iOS, without the nominal owner's consent.
So you hope that Apple fails in this instance and admit they are evil? I think it's common knowledge already. I don't have to use their products. I can use all the help to set the record straight and defend encryption I can get. Then we can go on and ignore Apple, as we usually do anyway.
Who said anything about hoping for anything? I agree that Apple shouldn't be compelled to do malicious things on behalf of the FBI. I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't a saint, because I don't want people to take home from this the message that Apple is good for your privacy and security, which I'm sure Apple wants people to do. Ultimately, they are responsible for this even being an issue. If iOS was libre and didn't contain a universal backdoor, Apple wouldn't be able to compromise the "security" of the phone in the first place.
I'm not saying that I like Apple or approve of their methods. But... this is a fight that it is important for them to win.
What I don't understand is why Snowden is backing Apple on this. Apple was clearly part of the PRISM program. The documentation proved that. I think they have been coming out strong for encryption because they were found out to be working with the NSA to begin with. This sounds to me more like a PR decision rather than them caring about the rights of the US Citizens. An interesting tidbit, if you look at when Apple Joined the PRISM, it was after the death of Steve Jobs. A year after precisely.
He thinks he's backing encryption, not Apple.
Just because they were wrong on one issue, doesn't mean they are wrong on every issue. It would be a logical fallacy to assume that.
Apple is in this fight because currently one of their top selling points is unbreakable encryption and no backdoors. Whether or not this is the case is up for debate, but that is the public opinion. So if they lose this fight, they lose a major selling point.
This guy has it right on:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/48mhsp/whos_wrongly_portrayed_as_a_hero/d0kvt6h
I think it's 'compromise' we are afraid of. Nothing short of the full monty satisfies us.
This is typical in combat situations everywhere. The good and the bad are easily distinguishable only in propaganda and if you think shallow in two colours -- black and white.
The enemy of freedom is now the friend of privacy (/s). Apple emerging as a champion of privacy is the unfortunate but probable outcome. However, this could be a good battle if you pick your fights well. The war on privacy is yet to be won on all fronts. The genie is out of the bottle and it's on our side.
France wants to fine Apple €1M each time it refuses to decrypt an iPhone
https://bgr.com/2016/03/01/apple-iphone-encryption-fine-france/
http://www.numerama.com/politique/149077-lutte-contre-le-chiffrement-ciotti-surencherit-et-veut-interdire-liphone.html
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/amendements/3515/AN/221.asp
This is a nice gesture, but that's all it is. Apple is perfectly capable- more capable than most- of building a phone that it can't decrypt after the end-user configures it. Until they take that step, I'm not convinced they care about privacy.