OK, so I think it’s safe to come out of the woodwork and say what I think, even if it rocks the boat a bit and ruins a good love-in.
I should qualify first by saying that I’m not American and therefore don’t enjoy the benefits of whatever “Precedent” is set by this case. Nor do I believe that the U.S. sovereignty is indicative of any real trend; at best it is a matter for western “Democracies”, and I daresay you can guess how I feel about those. I don’t even believe the U.S. is safe, given what we now know is possible, following the revelation of the specifics. This article, by a Canadian, captures my feelings very well: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/why_tim_cook_is_wrong_a_privacy_advocates_view/ In summary, I agree with the judge. I believe this was a PR campaign intended to attract public support for Apple’s business practices, regardless of Cook’s genuine ethical alignment on the issue. I believe Apple would have acceded to the demands, had they been filed under seal, as Apple had initially requested, and that Apple’s plea was necessary as a response to the FBI’s refusal. I think this firmware hack qualifies as legal assistance—particularly horrible legal assistance, but assistance nevertheless, made more than possible by the ineffectual security of these devices—and that the case for proper security far exceeds any question of legal precedent, particularly when the search was legitimate and would otherwise have been authorised without Apple’s assistance. Clearly, the fact that the judiciary can ask for the data is the vulnerability here, and not that they can compel a manufacturer to exploit a weakness in their products. Therefore, the only defence is cryptography; anything less is mere security by obscurity. We must have cryptography that works, is provable and is verifiable. The iPhone does not provide this: Apple maintains the key for the software upgrade process, and that process exposes the weakness of the cryptography now in use to any person in possession of it, including but not limited to the U.S. judiciary courtesy of Apple itself. Between Apple’s hubris and the need for user convenience, Apple is using the court to defend the indefensible, and are fighting entirely the wrong fight. We need cryptography, under our control, and without the threat of trivial circumvention. Until this changes, Apple’s appeal to the court and the public is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. So Apple should accede to the FBI, as ordered. It’s the best thing that privacy advocates could hope for. Next time, Apple will have got it right, and their responses to requests for legal assistance will be much shorter. There! Don’t you feel much better now? :) -- The following information is important for all members of the Mac Visionaries list. If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself. Your Mac Visionaries list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at [email protected] The archives for this list can be searched at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
