John McAfee blasts FBI for ‘illiterate’ order to create Apple iPhone backdoor

“Computer programming expert John McAfee has said the FBI would have to put a gun to the heads of all Apple programmers to get what they say they want, and that anyone who understands the issue stands with Apple, in an exclusive interview,” RT reports. “‘There is no question that what the FBI has asked Apple to do is create a backdoor,”‘ McAfee said to RT America’s Ed Schultz. He disputed the bureau’s argument that only one phone used by one of the San Bernardino mass shooters would be affected… ‘The very FBI,’ McAfee charged, ‘who says, ‘we will protect this software and only use it on one phone,’ that agency was hacked by a 15-year-old boy just last week, who walked off with all the personnel records including, [of] undercover agents.'”

“The FBI is ‘asking every owner of an iPhone to make their phone susceptible to bad hackers and more importantly foreign enemies of the United States like China,’ McAfee said,” RT reports. “‘I think Tim Cook has got some serious balls, if I can say that word on TV,’ McAfee said.” After all, McAfee considered, the FBI can’t do a whole lot about seeing that the court order is followed through in full. ‘They’re going to have to make his programmers create this backdoor. I don’t know how they’re going to do that. You say, ‘Sit down, do the coding, or we’re going to shoot you in the head?’ I don’t know,’ McAfee said.”

“But that wasn’t the worst of it for McAfee,” RT reports. “‘What frightens me even more about this is that a federal judge in America is so illiterate in cybersecurity that they would allow this order to go through.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The U.S. government specifically chose this case in order to play on emotion. They want emotion to overrule reason. Don’t let the government manipulate you. Don’t be the government’s pawn.

The family members of the San Bernadino terrorism victims should be incensed that the U.S. federal government is using those tragic deaths in a despicable ploy to sway a confused portion of the public to support the trampling of their rights.

Those who wrongheadedly agree with these disingenuous government hacks need to realize that they are working to deliver exactly what the terrorists wanted to achieve with their murderous rampage. Aiding the murderous jihadists isn’t a proper way to memorialize stricken terrorist victims.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

Visit the Apple-backed reformgovernmentsurveillance.com today.

SEE ALSO:
Some family members of San Bernardino victims back U.S. government – February 23, 2016
Apple supporters to rally worldwide today against U.S. government demand to unlock iPhone – February 23, 2016
U.S. government seeks to force Apple to extract data from a dozen more iPhones – February 23, 2016
Apple CEO Cook: They’d have to cart us out in a box before we’d create a backdoor – February 22, 2016
Tim Cook’s memo to Apple employees: ‘This case is about more than a single phone’ – February 22, 2016
Obama administration: We’re only demanding Apple hack just one iPhone – February 17, 2016

35 Comments

    1. As I said earlier today, it’s fairly easy to imagine scenarios. Imagine that the photos of a kidnapped child were posted from YOUR iCloud address after the kidnapper had hacked your phone… because Apple could not protect its users’ security. Further imagine that President Trump has instituted a policy of ignoring any civil rights that might conflict with the preservation of innocent life. Would you be willing to give up all of your rights to a fair trial after the police kick in your door and begin enhanced interrogation?

      Apple’s lawyer in this case is not insensitive to the rights of crime victims. His wife was on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

    2. Let’s see.

      McAfee claims that, technologically speaking, we are far behind China but forgets to mention that in terms of civil liberties, we are far ahead of China (for now).

      He also forgets to mention that under Chinese regime virtually all communications are monitored by the state (probably worse than the NSA)!

      Questions:

      1- Apple claims they sell iPhones in China. Does Apple provide special access to the Chinese government (i.e. “back doors” or otherwise) to their iProducts?

      2- If Apple refused to provide access (i.e. “back door” or otherwise) to the Chinese government, would they be able to sell their products in China?

      3- Is it simply that the Chinese government has already hacked into Apple’s so called “unhackable” suite of products all without Apple’s permission or consent?

      3- So assuming we close the technological gap to become as “far advanced” as China is, will we also have to sacrifice all our civil liberties to be more like China?

      McAfee claims that it is possible to strike a balance between privacy and security but he offers absolutely no insight as to how this can be achieved.

      And finally, McAfee tells us he plans to run for the presidency!

  1. It’s easy for me to imagine the coders in question resisting the order, should Apple lose in court.

    The government ordering me to use my skills against my will to build them something I believe is dangerous to millions/billions? Yeah no. Nope nope nope.

  2. There is an excellent blog written by a guy who does forensic investigation work on IOS to gather evidence for use in court.

    http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645

    There is a lot of information in that blog, but one important aspect is that the FBI are refusing to let Apple provide a service ( which Apple has done in the past ) to take the iPhone and give them a data dump of it’s contents. In this case they are demanding that Apple creates an instrument so that the FBI themselves can defeat the lock on this iPhone.

    The term instrument has a special meaning when it comes to forensics and he explains how such a device would need extensive testing in house, peer reviewed testing and then third party testing to ensure that it is reliable and cannot corrupt any data.

    One worrying aspect is that if such evidence were to be used in court, then the defence legal team would be able to demand that they too had access to this instrument so that they could independently verify it.

    The concept of making an instrument that will be used once and then thrown away is clearly untrue. Such an instrument would require a lot of people to work over a long period of time and then pass on that instrument to many other people, many of whom will neither be Apple employees or FBI staff.

    We remember how Samsung’s legal team disclosed highly sensitive information about Apple directly to Samsung, even though they were told very clearly that it was for their eyes only. It would be utterly naive to imagine that if such an instrument were created, it could be prevented from ever being circulated and once it’s out, it’s irretrievably out

    Additionally if such an instrument were created, Apple would be pressured to hand it over to countries such as China or else face tremendous penalties. Does America really want China to have that sort of capability? Apple can’t build an instrument for the U.S. and claim that it would be impossible to do so for anybody else. It’s better all round if such an instrument is never created.

    1. Excellent article. Apple probably doesn’t need to but they should hire Zdziarski to provide expert testimony. FBI overreach in this case is abhorrent and frightening. But predictable government behavior. “We want it. We’ll get it.”

  3. This is not surprising me in the least, the empire is crumbling to the point that the lipstick and bandages no longer apply. This empire is crumbling and will continue to crumble unless the people yeah the we the people do something very drastic about it.

    No need to thump chest and threaten that a line has been crossed, it was crossed a long time ago.

    Tim’s showing great leadership in the face of a government that looks corrupt to the core.

  4. Make no mistake, Apple has admitted working hand-in-hand with the Feds to hack iPhones. However, building a backdoor into every iOS device would leave every iOS user at risk.

  5. Let’s eliminate some of the hyperbole.

    Data from the phone will not lead to prosecution in a court of law. It’s spy data, top secret, (for good or bad, regusrdless of quality.) Therefor the condition by which a defense team might view Apple’s methods are remote, but not impossible, especially if the FBI used the method again, and again. It will catch up on them.

    Second, there will not be literal guns to the heads of programmers. If anything, a programmer will have an “accident.” Preferably one not key to producing the code.

    With that said, I do think we are dealing with an illiterate judge, or one who sympathizes with the FBI, and has little heart for the Constitution. I wonder, aren’t judges supped to take an oath to product/defend the Constitution? It would seem to me, this order is impeachable.

    1. It all depends how one interprets the constitution. Scalia strictly interpreted the constitution, taking the literalist opinion. Others believe the constitution is a “living” document with hidden and mysterious rights and powers exist between the lines that only they have the ability to read. It is not inconceivable that a “living” document interpretation would grant government more powers than are explicitly provided for the sake of “the greater good”.

      1. Cisco, “Others believe the constitution is a “living” document with hidden and mysterious rights and powers exist between the lines that only they have the ability to read. ”

        So you believe that only “men” have power under the constitution and that only the way it was worded before, cars, planes, internet, electric typewriters, etc would be applicable?

  6. It should be mandatory for any judge to be familiar, knowledgabe and fluent with the topics in dispute.

    Judges need to qualify becuase they have the intelectual capacity to aquire that knowledge voluminously.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.