Saturday, February 27, 2016
Apple Vs. The United States
I’ve never been a big fan of Apple, but in the current controversy over whether the Cupertino, Ca.-based tech company should or shouldn’t give in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s demand to break the encryption on the iPhone used by the San Bernadino shooters, I find myself decidedly in Apple’s camp.
And you should be too.
Here’s why.
Because despite what the government promises us, this won’t be just a one-time thing.
It just can’t.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s out for good.
Look, I’m not some tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist nor am I a “slippery slope” evangelist. I’m a realist, and know that despite the best intentions of the FBI and all our assorted law enforcement agencies, the congress, the president and even the Supreme Court, there is no way they can control what goes on beyond our borders.
When foreign governments, who may or may not be so friendly to us and our ideals, see this is possible, there is nothing stopping them from demanding Apple do the same for them. After all, if Apple did it once for the United States, how could they then refuse when Russia, China, North Korea or any other repressive state asks them to break into the iPhone of a dissident who they claim is a “a national security risk” for them?
Remember the uproar when Google caved in to China’s demand to censor its Chinese sites back in 2006 after refusing to allow the U.S. Department of Justice to take a peak at what our citizens were searching for here at home?
Yeah, it’ll be exactly like that.Only worse.
Even if Apple refused to cave to foreign governments, those governments could then turn around and forbid Apple from selling their products and/or services within their borders. Worse yet, countries like China which have a track record of ignoring patents, could turn a blind eye to enforcing Apple’s trademarked technology, leading to a flood of cheap knock-offs on the market. So in essence this decision by our government could drastically curtail Apple’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, which in this case equates to its being a profitable company.
If the government were trying to infringe on the rights of an individual from making an honest living this way, everyone would be up in arms about it. Well, since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations essentially have the same rights as individuals in the Citizen’s United case, the government shouldn’t be allowed to do this to Apple either.
Whether you agree with this line of reasoning or not, you have to admit that the government also doesn’t have control over the hacker community.
Whether state sponsored like China’s elite unit of military hackers, PLA Unit 61398 ; gangs of tech-savvy criminals from Russia and Eastern Europe, or even the media-popularized image of some maladjusted, teenage-computer wizard working out of his parents’ basement or garage, once hackers know a backdoor into the iPhone is possible, they will stop at nothing to try and recreate it.
The potential for profit is just too rich for them to ignore. With over 700 million iPhones sold world-wide hackers would have a virtual shmorgishborg of victims to pray on, pillaging their data for use in identity theft rings, blackmail or ransomware attacks where hackers could break into a user’s phone, re-encrypt it with only a password they know and demand a ransom to unlock the phone.
Don’t think that’s possible?
Neither did Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, until cyber-crooks broke into their computer network and locked them out of all their files until they paid a $17,000 ransom.
If that’s still not enough to convince you, remember that the German Enigma Code was deemed impossible to crack during World War II, until Alan Turning and his cohorts at Bletchley Park in England figured out how to crack it. And that was 70 some years ago. Now, just imagine how much quicker cyber-thugs could do the “impossible” with today’s technology.
Now tell me how far-fetched it sounds?
Look, I’m not totally unsympathetic to the government’s side. I understand they have a duty to keep us safe and I want them to do that that. I have no desire to be blown up or gunned down by an extremist of any nationality, religion or view while living my day-to-day life. But unlike the scenarios spun by the popular Fox TV show “24,” there is no ticking time-bomb here. The FBI has already admitted that the San Bernadino shooters acted alone and weren’t part of some bigger foreign terrorist network operating inside the U.S. Any threats from these two terrorists died back on that sad day back in December.
If there was any concrete evidence that they were apart of some bigger threat and more shootings or bombing were imminent, I might reconsider my stance. But as it appears now, what the FBI wants is akin to a “fishing expedition,” which as anyone who has watched even one episode of “Law and Order” or any other TV police procedural knows, is illegal.
If Apple gives in, or is forced to give in to this order, then this will be a victory for authoritarian leaders around the world such as Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un and a huge erosion of the freedoms we, as citizens of the United States, are promised under the bill of rights.
Like Benjamin Franklin before me, I whole heartily agree that “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So say we all.
ReplyDeleteI armed the "self-destruct" feature on my iPhone right after Apple made its stand.