Apple rejects order to unlock gunman's phone

[imatfaal]

Unsure how long this link will stay up, but found this discussion between former head of the CIA, of the NSA, and four-star Air Force General, Michael Hayden and Bill Maher last night on HBOs Real Time regarding the Apple situation to be... interesting.

 

...

 

Thanks for posting that. In an era of sound-bites and simple take-home messages it is refreshing to hear answers that are neither. More people need to say things along the lines of "FFS - it's complicated and thus there is no simple answer I can give you in 15seconds" - and Gen Hayden's responses were like that.

 

We do, as a society, need to accept the complexity of our situation and that decisions will not be clear; the politician who gives a cast-iron answer in 30 seconds to a matter of serious debate will almost certainly be wrong. We see this situation in miniature everyday in our own scienceforum - posters asking why we cannot encompass General Relativity in a few simple pop-science articles and one misunderstood equation; because it is complicated! And - with respect to (and due to the work of) all the working physicists out there - GR is plain simple compared to international relations, society, and the human condition.

[iNow]

Interesting observation about our sound bite culture and the way it curtails nuance and complexity. Hadn't really considered that in this context, but agree fully.

 

General Hayden was on another show I watch regularly, Fareed Zakaria GPS, just yesterday and reinforced similar themes as in the video I shared here. He explicitly states that when you're in charge of an operation like the CIA or NSA you invariably live in a world of grey and few easy / simple choices.

 

More resonant with me, he explained that on balance we're much safer with end-to-end encryption and he cited recent testimony to congress from Director of National Intelligence, James Klapper, how cyber is our current biggest threat, not terrorism of the type we're seeking to prosecute and prevent in this Apple phone case. http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/cybersecurity/2016/02/04/cyber-bigger-threat-terrorism/79816482/

 

Hayden highlighted that it seems somewhat short-sighted and even silly to introduce an intentional weakness into our encryption that can be used by other organizations (not just the US). Without explicitly stating this, he strongly insinuated that doing this at a time when cyber attack is our single biggest challenge to national security is just dumb... a "don't miss the forest for the trees" type argument, but one that for me completely wins the day.

 

On another note, I also like how Hayden frames these arguments clearly and cogently, and does so completely in context of security itself. It avoids the less tangible and often contentious concept of privacy all while still leaving the privacy argument available to further support the premise later, if needed.

Edited February 29, 2016 by iNow

[imatfaal]

..

More resonant with me, he explained that on balance we're much safer with end-to-end encryption and he cited recent testimony to congress from Director of National Intelligence, James Klapper, how cyber is our current biggest threat, not terrorism of the type we're seeking to prosecute and prevent in this Apple phone case. http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/cybersecurity/2016/02/04/cyber-bigger-threat-terrorism/79816482/

 

Hayden highlighted that it seems somewhat short-sighted and even silly to introduce an intentional weakness into our encryption that can be used by other organizations (not just the US). Without explicitly stating this, he strongly insinuated that doing this at a time when cyber attack is our single biggest challenge to national security is just dumb... a "don't miss the forest for the trees" type argument, but one that for me completely wins the day....

 

Still slightly disingenuous for an ex-government official to call for strong encryption in a country which has laws preventing the cross-border use, distribution, and sale of high grade encryption. And for the head of an agency who were found to be placing backdoors in the Cisco hardware without even the manufacturers knowledge.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with what he said, and even his delivery which was refreshing and lacked the patronising manner of politicians under interview - but the position seems so far at odds with those he must have executed and promoted that there is a whiff of hypocrisy.

[swansont]

Apple just won a case in NY that's similar to the California case

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/02/29/intercept

[imatfaal]

As Gen Hayden said in the interview iNow quoted - the New York State Attorney saying that he had a whole roomful of phones that needed unlocking cannot have done anything other than strengthen apples case. Whether such considerations would be taken into account (either consciously or unwittingly) here we might be able to find from judgment (havent read it ) or maybe never know

 

[mp][/mp]

 

The judge does consider the 9 outstanding cases Apple have and the potential for increase

[StringJunky]

The FBI is now showing it's true colours, contrary to what it said before::

 

 

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey told a congressional panel on Tuesday that a court order forcing Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to give the FBI data from an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters would be “potentially precedential” in other cases where the agency might request similar cooperation from technology companies.

 

The remarks are a slight change to Comey's statement last week that forcing Apple to unlock the phone was "unlikely to be a trailblazer" for setting a precedent for other cases.

 

The issue of precedent is central in the public fight between Apple and the U.S. government over the shooter's iPhone, which Apple has cast as a pivotal case that could lead to loss of privacy for all its customers and should be decided by Congress rather than a court.

 

Comey acknowledged on Tuesday that the FBI would seek to use the same statute it is trying to apply in the San Bernardino case to compel Apple to unlock other phones, "if (the statute) is available to us."

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-apple-encryption-congress-idUKKCN0W35DU

[imatfaal]

The FBI is now showing it's true colours, contrary to what it said before::

 

 

Beginning to look as if the "screw-up" of backing up / updating password might have been deliberate! (Still think it was a cock-up) Let's face it this must have seemed like a prime case for govt to run with. Precedent is a only a matter of law - facts can always be distinguished case to case; thus any case asking the same question of law should give same result and set a valid precedent - but having a stonking fact set on your side can help too. The judges know this better than anyone - but it is still hard for them not to be swayed a little

[StringJunky]

 

Beginning to look as if the "screw-up" of backing up / updating password might have been deliberate! (Still think it was a cock-up) Let's face it this must have seemed like a prime case for govt to run with. Precedent is a only a matter of law - facts can always be distinguished case to case; thus any case asking the same question of law should give same result and set a valid precedent - but having a stonking fact set on your side can help too. The judges know this better than anyone - but it is still hard for them not to be swayed a little

I think they must have realised the people's BS meter was going into the red and decided to change tack. We still, unfortunately, need these people but I think the judges should enshrine tighter oversight, requiring explicit permissions into law. There should be sworn-in, qualified committees, unconnected to law enforcement, that are privy to their activities. I would draw the line at matters of national defence, nuclear stuff etc., because that information must necessarily be shared between as few as possible.

[iNow]

From a pure strategy standpoint, one rooted in their core mission to prevent and prosecute crimes, I can see why the FBI went about this the way they did (are?).

 

As a citizen who shares citizenship with those agents in the FBI who are actually doing this and driving this conversation forward, and with the mindset that we're all in this together / shouldn't sacrifice long-term security for short-term potential gain, I wish they'd handled this better.

 

They go to Congress now for them to decide since he courts shut them down, and we can always count on our congress to get it right! [/sarcasm]

[imatfaal]

...

They go to Congress now for them to decide since he courts shut them down, and we can always count on our congress to get it right! [/sarcasm]

Luckily the Congress who wrote the laws that are being enforced in the courts (ie the NY case) were written by a Congress that gets little criticism. The AWA - the All Writs Act - is part of the Judicature Judiciary Act passed in 1789 by the first Session of the first Congress; this is as foundational to the USA as any Act - Sandra Day O'Connor described it as being (along with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) one of the three documents that founded America.

Edited March 2, 2016 by imatfaal
got name wrong

[iNow]

Would be interesting to know how many of our currently serving senators and representatives have ever even heard of it, let alone read it.

[imatfaal]

And on more recent sittings of Congress - they have steadfastly declined to move closer to the Law Enforcement Agencies' desired position. This was part of Apple's argument in the NY case; Congress could have legislated and discussed legislating but declined to do so. The AWA is a gap-filler which means that congress can give an outline idea and the courts will amend and adapt as law enforcement, technology and the country in general changes - it doesn't allow the making of new laws but it does allow newer specific ideas to be couched in the more general outlines written by Congress

 

Congress had debated and not legislated. And in other laws Congress had deliberately removed Information Service Providers from the group of people to whom the law applied. Apple argued and the court held that this should be given weight in deciding if the action required of Apple did fall under the influence of the Act .

Would be interesting to know how many of our currently serving senators and representatives have ever even heard of it, let alone read it.

 

A frightening number are ex Pro-Wrestlers etc. but they are probably out-numbered by the law school grads*.

 

*Who probably wouldn't misremember the name like I just did

Edited March 2, 2016 by imatfaal

[iNow]

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/03/former-heads-of-nsa-and-homeland-security-unlikely-supporters-in-encryption-battle

At a panel discussion today at the RSA conference in San Francisco, Apple found two unlikely allies when the former heads of the NSA and Homeland Security threw their support behind encryption technologies.

 

Michael Chertoff, who was the head of Homeland Security under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and who helped author the USA Patriot Act, and former NSA head Mike McConnell both expressed strong support for encryption technology during a panel called “Beyond Encryption: Why We Can’t Come Together on Security and Privacy — and the Catastrophes That Await If We Don’t.”

[Moreno]

So, when Congress suppose to give an ultimate decision? Or there is not going to be any?

[swansont]

So, when Congress suppose to give an ultimate decision? Or there is not going to be any?

 

 

That's up to congress. They can act sooner, or act later, or not act at all.

[StringJunky]

If something like 9/11 happened now, at this period in the international discussion, that would be the perfect shoo-in for the governments to impose what they want. They might sit tight now until the next major incident that fits the bill for them..

[dimreepr]

I hate to jump into a thread this long in the tooth, without the time to read its entirety, but this seems to be an argument of who we trust more, Google and Apple have far more knowledge of individual citizens through encryption than does any government on the planet, a democratically elected government or a privately owned business?

 

Please forgive me if this question has already been addressed.

[StringJunky]

I hate to jump into a thread this long in the tooth, without the time to read its entirety, but this seems to be an argument of who we trust more, Google and Apple have far more knowledge of individual citizens through encryption than does any government on the planet, a democratically elected government or a privately owned business?

 

Please forgive me if this question has already been addressed.

The encryption is end-to-end. Apple in this case..

Edited March 6, 2016 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

I hate to jump into a thread this long in the tooth, without the time to read its entirety, but this seems to be an argument of who we trust more, Google and Apple have far more knowledge of individual citizens through encryption than does any government on the planet, a democratically elected government or a privately owned business?

 

Please forgive me if this question has already been addressed.

 

 

Sorry, I meant despite...

[StringJunky]

 

 

Sorry, I meant despite...

The Devil or the deep blue sea....I'll toss.

[Genecks]

If the government messed up in data retrieval, I see no reasonable need for Apple to provide a resolve. I don't think Apple should need to provide a resolve, anyway, because they didn't initially have the resolve or allege to have a reasonable resolve to the issue prior to the case. As such, they did not have the key to the lock but simply a lot of locks without a single key to open them. No, I don't think it's Apple's responsibility at all to provide or design a key.

 

Honestly, I think this is a stupid and petty issue. No, Apple should not have to do the work. What the government ought to have done was privatize the issue to Apple rather than harass Apple with magical beliefs about reality.

 

The courts are inspired by greed and sociopathy. They are the reptilian complex at its finest. They wish to be an entity upon their own. Legalism. Personally, I think they're hardcore delusional.

 

lol @ a frightening number of them being ex-pro wrestlers: Idiocracy.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Genecks

[imatfaal]

The courts are inspired by greed and sociopathy. They are the reptilian complex at its finest. They wish to be an entity upon their own. Legalism. Personally, I think they're hardcore delusional.

 

I tend to view the court in the same indulgent manner that the NRA view guns - "guns don't kill people - people kill people"; the courts are a tool that can be used for good or for ill. For all the negative actions of the US courts one must hold in mind some of the amazing positive actions taken by those courts when the executive and legislature were too craven to act or unwilling to advance a progressive positive agenda.

 

From personal experience I would disagree utterly with the notion that they wish to be an entity detached from the other wings of government - the people of the court love the rarefied simplicity and deliberate constraint; they will answer very simple questions using elaborately complex protocols but run in fear if you ask them to answer anything complex in and of itself. It is both mark of the success of the court and will be the root of their failure that this excessive simplification of real life to a series of questions amenable to resolution has spread to the world outside the courts. The more the courts have to deal with, and the more law has to engage with everyday questions then the less those within the courts can hide behind their protocols and rules and the more accountable they can be held for procedurally correct but substantively wrong decisions.

 

 

lol @ a frightening number of them being ex-pro wrestlers: Idiocracy.

 

I think a classics scholar would interpret "Idiocracy" as rule by that which is not known or rule which pertains only to the individual case - both of which are entirely apposite

[Genecks]

There is no sense to be made from the legal system: It's all illusion. The trick is getting people to believe that something is being accomplished. In that, members of government are arguably engaging in criminal fraud. The government wants people to see itself as God in order to create "meaning" for people and establish order through law. And what happens in society makes sense because "they say so." However, the end-game is all for naught, I believe, because society eventually decays: So, the persistent motive of the legal system is to take advantage of people in the name of greed, while seeking rewards for itself and punishment for others due to a retributivist policy. Were it really about being pro-social, the politicians would bear the weight of the metaphysical issues, making it easier for those dealing with legal matters to re-integrate into society without much of an issue. I say politicians, because it would appear that "average" people are either too ignorant, stupid, or stubborn to bear the weight of the metaphysical issues, such as blame, responsibility, and culpability. The government wants a system where nobody questions their authority and simply accepts it.

 

I was referring to Idiocracy, the movie. I'll interpret that you have not seen it. The U.S. president in the movie is/was a wrestler.

 

No, Apple owes the government nothing, especially the delusional, schizoaffective government as it exists. The All Writs act is hearsay. The government is going to do what it wants in the court of law, possibly strike, seal, expunge whatever it wants in the court of law, and so forth. There is no contract or U.S. Constitution except the "illusion" of the contract. Contracts exist in weapons, who can pull more of his, her, or its weight in the fight for the monopoly on violence. Apple has a lot of money, as did Microsoft back in the 1990s. That translates to work rather than violence, so Apple would more than likely lose if the government keeps pushing.

 

In the past few months I was reading about red-light cameras and their legality. If you want to talk about B.S., what the courts and other members of government (whoever passed the bill) did was some B.S.. Cops were presenting the evidence, but it was considered to be hearsay by the attorney who got the red-light ticket (they needed the company to authenticate it). The government ended up passing a bill to make the hearsay legitimate, thus not needing authentication. A bill was passed that was unconstitutional. Actually, a lot of stuff keeps getting passed into law that is unconstitutional, such as negligence laws. Actually, every law is ex post facto, thus unconstitutional: Philosophy of law. "This is the law, because I have more guns than you."

 

What the government is doing with Apple is a clear sign that the government is starting to do whatever it wants.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Genecks

[Moreno]

So, McAfee didn't secceed in breaking the Apple phone as he promiced?.. Then he has to eat its own shoe...

[swansont]

Actually, every law is ex post facto

 

 

Oh, baloney.

 

(Not that the rest of the post was OK)