“The FBI’s stance on encryption benefits hackers, according to Apple senior vice president Eddy Cue, speaking yesterday about the ongoing legal battle swirling around the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters,” Rich McCormick reports for The Verge. “‘Of course that’s not the way they are looking at it,’ Cue told Univision in a Spanish-language interview. ‘But really that’s what is happening.'”
“Cue’s interview was conducted in Spanish, but Apple provided an English translation soon after, showing the company going above and beyond its usual efforts to get its message out to a wider audience,” McCormick reports. “‘The Secretary of Defense (Ashton Carter), who is responsible for the NSA, wants encryption to continue getting more and more secure. Because he knows that if we create some way to get in, criminals and terrorists will get in. They don’t want that.’ But the Apple executive said that the FBI wanted to both maintain encryption but be allowed in when required, two concepts that couldn’t co-exist. ‘You either have security or you don’t have security,’ Cue said.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Once again, encryption is either on or off. This is a binary issue. There is no in-between. You either have encryption or you do not.
There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys. — Apple CEO Tim Cook, December 2015
This is not about this phone. This is about the future. And so I do see it as a precedent that should not be done in this country or in any country. This is about civil liberties and is about people’s abilities to protect themselves. If we take encryption away… the only people that would be affected are the good people, not the bad people. Apple doesn’t own encryption. Encryption is readily available in every country in the world, as a matter of fact, the U.S. government sponsors and funs encryption in many cases. And so, if we limit it in some way, the people that we’ll hurt are the good people, not the bad people; they will find it anyway. — Apple CEO Tim Cook, February 2016
Oppose government overreach.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
SEE ALSO:
Obama Lists the ‘Tech Leaders’ Involved in new U.S. Cybersecurity Initiative and Purposely Snubs Apple – March 10, 2016
Snowden: U.S. government’s claim it can’t unlock San Bernardino iPhone is ‘bullshit’ – March 10, 2016
Apple’s Eddy Cue: Next the government will want to turn on your iPhone’s camera or microphone – March 10, 2016
FBI Director James Comey’s war on Apple and privacy is becoming a political problem for Obama and the Democrats – March 9, 2016
How Apple’s clarion call united the entire tech industry against U.S. government overreach – March 8, 2016
Apple CEO Cook decried Obama’s ‘lack of leadership’ on encryption during a closed-door meeting last month – February 29, 2016
Obama administration set to expand sharing of data that N.S.A. intercepts – February 28, 2016
Apple’s fight with U.S. could speed development of devices impervious to government intrusion – February 24, 2016
Petition asks Obama administration to stop demanding Apple create iPhone backdoor – February 19, 2016
Obama administration claims FBI is not asking Apple for a ‘backdoor’ to the iPhone – February 18, 2016
Obama administration wants access to smartphones – December 15, 2015
Obama administration war against Apple just got uglier – July 31, 2015
Obama’s secret attempt to ban cellphone unlocking, while claiming to support it – November 19, 2013
It’s the danger and distraction of ads that bothers me.
My ideal ad blocker would:
1 – completely block malware ads.
2 – stop all animated ads.
3 – display the non-malware ads and stilled animated ads at 50% opacity.
Well, that ended up in the wrong article. ?@#@??
Encryption benefits criminals because law enforcement can’t access the data on the phone…
Apple keeps simply using HYPOTEHTICAL arguments about what MIGHT happen in the future. OS X might be hacked tomorrow. All of our data may not be safe. iOS might be hacked tomorrow, we should be scared.
Everybody be afraid. Be fearful.
Shut up Eddie, you’re not fooling anyone you overly simplistic blowhard. Have another Big Mac.
And the Feds don’t resort to hypotheticals to ramp up fear to stampede the herd?
Water, oxygen and food benefit criminals, too, because law enforcement can’t control access to it. So they should be able to control access to all of the above to keep criminals from benefitting?
You’re looking at the problem from the wrong direction, at the very least, at an insufficient subset of it.
What are the risks of breaching security by encryption to the public as a whole? It looks to a lot of us that broken security caused by weakening encryption tools outweighs encryption’s benefits to criminals. That’s where your analysis fails.
Tim Cook for President.
I wonder why the FBI isn’t addressing this issue in any more depth. The extent of their arguments so far have been, “no one should be above law enforcement”.
Meanwhile, Apple and others have been able to come up with an extensive list of reasons that support strong encryption. Yet, the FBI hasn’t addressed any of these objections head on.
If the FBI was serious about this, they would be offering up ways to overcome the functional objections being put forth by Apple.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-government-calls-apple-rhetoric-210333490.html
Was that digital sarcasm breeze? I can’t tell if that link is supposed to be a funny response to michaeloftroy, or was meant seriously.
If serious, it is a perfect example of the Feds answers and retorts lacking in depth.
If funny, it’s a great example of what michealoftroy was trying to get across.
Finally Cue had something worth listening too! At least he’s worth some of the multi-millions Apple shareholders are paying him. Too bad he is spending his time defending against our government instead of fixing the broken Apple Music service.
Priorities, man.
“But the Apple executive said that the FBI wanted to both maintain encryption but be allowed in when required”
Yup that would benefit the criminals at the FBI.
They will keep using every sleazy trick in the book to strip encryption and take down Apple.
I think it should be worth noting that the FBI only wants Apple to ‘open the lock’ (so to speak) to allow them to brute force the passcode to the phone, thus allowing the FBI to decrypt the data on the phone. They don’t want to break the ‘encryption.’ They want a way to break the lock to find the next key.
But by doing that, they make it a lot easier to attack encryption of the information on the device.
Of course they want to break the encryption, currently they can’t get to it to apply their decryption tools.
druid54, the point is that the Feds are not the only ones capable of brute force attacks. It’s a security step back in time to before 2013. While 2013 security was state of the art in 2013, there have been a number of advancements in hacking and security since then that would make going back there a bad idea for everyone.
Señor Eduardo seems to speak fluent and flawless Spanish. Who knew…?
His parents emigrated from Cuba. He’s got an unfair advantage. :}
From reading this submissions title, that would just be the final proof that’s needed to prove that all of our elected officials, and their henchmen, are the criminals we know them to be.
Encryption is a tool which can be used for good and bad purposes.
Guns are tools which can be used for good and bad purposes.
If the government can make an excuse to ban encryption, that same reasoning should be used to ban guns.