Apple gets the debate it asked for on Court Order to help FBI access terrorist's iPhone - here's my contribution
Friday, 19 February 2016
I was a senior executive at Telstra in the 1990s. Every single service we launched had to be capable of interception by government authorities. I know that the launch of GSM mobiles was delayed until call interception capabilities were established by a government agency. ISDN was delayed on my recollection for about one year on that issue.
I ran Telstra's global satellite business (with responsibility for Australia's investments in the UN IGO Inmarsat's constellation and business) and was later the Asia Pacific Vice President for Stratos Global Corporation, the world's then leading mobile satellite service provider. At Stratos we purchased the Motorola Iridium constellation of Low Earth Orbit satellites - it was a background issue, like having a driver's licence, that no satellite service could be launched or operated by a business with a presence in the Western democratic free market world without interception capabilities available to authorities.
To me, this is a simple regulatory hygiene issue. Nobody wants their private information snooped on. But nobody in their right mind wants to go to a Christmas Party only to see the faces of evil through the sights of an assault weapon.
The issue for me is the extent to which we exercise control and oversight of our security agencies. It's up to legislators and the Courts to ensure that the guards are well guarded. It's not up to corporate entities to usurp that role by deciding which Court Orders and laws they will or won't comply with.
Apple is more than entitled to create unbreakable encryption keys and systems to its heart's content. But in order to sell its products under licence in the free markets of the world, it like all businesses has to comply with the law. If it's ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction to find the key to a door, we should expect that it will do so.
I am much more concerned about Google, Apple and other immensely powerful trans-national cyber businesses which have very limited corporate personalities in markets like say Australia. It is almost impossible to find a competent Google corporate structure to sue or bind by regulatory edict here. Google has unimaginable market power - those of you who recall the masked bandit cartoon from Google which replaced my webpage for the week around Gillard's appointment as Chair of the GPE will know what I mean.
There is no Google entity in Australia to sue for that act of targeted bastardry, nor is there an entity to properly tax, nor to regulate. Less power to them, not more please.
Keep this issue in the open. Don't let corporations become the law. Guard the guards exceedingly well. And don't give an inch to terrorists.
Michael Smith
ENDS
Brigette Gabriel's ACT for America is circulating this note requesting its followers to contact Apple. You should make your own mind up about the ACT call, I'm publishing Brigitte's note for you - personally I don't think we should do anything more to stroke Apple's corporate ego or to reinforce its view about its "right to decide".
Apple Should Comply with Court Order in Terror Case
Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people in December at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California. Farook had an iPhone issued to him by his employer San Bernardino County and this one phone alone could hold plans for the next deadly terrorist attack.
At a time when ISIS is working on developing chemical weapons and encouraging its members in the U.S. to carry out attacks against innocent civilians, now more than ever we need every tool we have to protect the lives of millions of Americans.
Apple is protecting the privacy of a dead terrorist while endangering the lives of Americans. With American companies like Apple protecting ISIS, who needs enemies?
Apple’s CEO Tim Cook released a statement on Wednesday saying, "Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone."
But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)
Since 2012, Apple has been providing its customers’ information to the FBI and the NSA via the so-called PRISM program, which operated pursuant to court orders.
In other words, Apple’s position in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that CEO Tim Cook claims it is.
To be clear, we at ACT for America respect and honor our constitutional right to privacy, however, we strongly disagree with Apple's response in this specific national security-related matter. Americans deserve better from such a powerful and prosperous entity.
Let's be clear. The FBI wants the information from this single phone. They do not care if Apple takes it to a private room at the bottom of the Dead Sea to extract the data and then destroys the phone. All the FBI wants is the information that could lead to other terrorists operating in America or to foil another plot that could be in the planning now.
Apple should work to unlock this specific phone in the interest of national security — and provide its contents to law enforcement.
National Security is at risk and we need the tools to help us prevent another terrorist attack. This could save countless lives down the road.
Apple has no problem sharing your private information with other companies, tracking your every behavior, and the clicks you make to any company on the Internet. Yet, they complain about protecting your privacy when it comes to dead terrorists who died trying to kill Americans? The hypocrisy!
When it comes to the security of our nation, we must come together to help prevent the next terrorist attack against our nation and its citizens. We must balance our right to privacy with plain old common sense.
Sincerely,
ENDS
Here's Donald Trump - the Daily Mail reporting.
Donald Trump SLAMS Apple for refusing court order to unlock iPhone of San Bernardino terrorist who killed 14 people
- Donald Trump has attacked Apple and CEO Tim Cook over their decision to refuse to unlock the iPhone of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook
- A judge ruled Apple had to unlock the phone for the FBI, which was owned by Farook's employer, who consented to the search
- 'But to think that Apple won't allow us to get into the cellphone. Who do they think they are?' said Trump
- 'We should find out what happened, why it happened, and maybe there's other people involved and we have to do that,' added Trump
- Cook has argued that if Apple unlocked the phone it would create a backdoor for the FBI to get into other phones
- Apple has five days to appeal the court decision
Donald Trump did the unthinkable on Wednesday by siding with President Barack Obama and his administration.
The presidential hopeful blasted Apple after the company refused to unlock the iPhone of San Barnadino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook who, along with his wife Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people in December.
A federal judge had ruled on Tuesday that Apple must unlock the phone for the FBI to investigate, which did not even belong to Farook but rather his employer San Bernardino County - who consented to the search of the device.
'I agree 100% with the courts,' Trump said during an appearance on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning.
'In that case, we should open it up. I think security, overall, we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense.'
He went on to say; 'But to think that Apple won't allow us to get into the cellphone. Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it up.'