Mozilla sides with Apple against FBI -- proposes basic principles for government surveillance
The ongoing dispute between the FBI and Apple is absolutely chilling. It shakes me to my core to think our government wants to force a company to write code under the guise of anti-terrorism. Quite frankly, the oft-argued opinion that supporting Apple in this regard is anti-American is not only wrong, but insulting. My soul still aches from 9/11, and I love America, but I also support Tim Cook and the company's fight to protect our civil liberties.
But forget my opinion -- major tech companies, such as Google and Microsoft, are standing up and pledging support for their competitor, Apple. Now, open source darling, Mozilla, is voicing its support too. Taking it a step further, however, the Firefox-maker is also proposing basic principles for government surveillance -- sort of like a bill of rights for encryption and surveillance.
Tim Cook goes off-script describing FBI iPhone backdoor request as 'cancer'
Say what you like about Apple, one thing is for sure -- it is one of the most scripted and tightly-controlled companies in existence. Everything is stage-managed to within an inch of its existence. Leaks about upcoming releases are rare, and there is a tight rein on the media and who has access to its products for review. So when the FBI asked Apple to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter it was hardly surprising that the company was a little shaken and unprepared.
This was a media situation Apple was not in control of. Tim Cook has gone on the offensive in recent days, defending his company's decision not to help the FBI, and in a new interview with ABC News the CEO referred to the request to unlock the phone as requiring "software that we view as sort of the equivalent of cancer" -- something of a shocking thing to say when you consider the cause of death of his predecessor, Steve Jobs.
Bill Gates is wrong
I see something disingenuous about Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates supporting the government's demands that Apple selectively unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif. shooters. The former CEO turned philanthropist spoke to the Financial times in an interview posted today. The implications for Microsoft cannot be overstated, and the company's current chief executive should state corporate policy.
Gates' position aligns with the government's: That this case is specific, and isolated, and that the demand would merely provide "access to information". Here's the thing: The interviewer asks Gates if he supports tech companies providing backdoors to their smartphones. The technologist deflects: "Nobody's talking about a backdoor". Media consultants teach publicly-facing officials to offer non-answers exactly like this one. The answer defines the narrative, not the interviewer's question.
Thanks to encryption, UK efforts to block torrent sites are pointless
In the UK, ISPs are required to block access to a number of big-name torrent sites -- the thinking being that sites such as The Pirate Bay are used primarily for (gasp!) downloading pirated material. Despite the government's desire to control what people can access online, good old HTTPS means that people are able to very easily bypass any blocks that may be put in place.
There are all manner of proxy services and mirror sites that provide access to otherwise-blocked content, but these are really not needed. With the likes of The Pirate Bay and Kickass Torrents offering secure, encrypted connection, accessing the goodies they contain could involve little more than sticking an extra 's' in the URL.
Why Apple's shameless fight with the FBI is all about ego, not just cause
After spending the last few days soaking up as much as possible on the Apple-FBI San Bernardino iPhone spat, the evidence -- in my eyes -- has become crystal clear. Apple's planted itself on the wrong side of history here for numerous reasons, and is using nothing less than a finely scripted legalese tango in defending its ulterior motives.
As a part time, somewhat auxiliary member of the tech media at large, I'm a bit embarrassed at how poorly this story has been covered by my very own colleagues. Many of those who should undeniably have a more nuanced, intricate understanding of the technical tenets being argued here have spent the last week pollinating the internet with talking point, knee-jerk reaction.
Syed Farook's iCloud password was changed by officials; Trump proposes Apple boycott
Apple is standing fast on its decision not to help -- publicly, at least -- the FBI to gain access to the iPhone owned by Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino terrorists. In the latest twist in the saga, Apple has revealed that the password for the Apple ID associated with the phone was changed whilst Farook was in custody.
Apple says that this closes off another route to accessing the data the FBI seeks. Had the password not been changed, the company says, it may have been possible to retrieve backup data without the need to create a backdoor into the suspect's phone. Meanwhile, wading in to the Apple/FBI debate with all of the elegance of an epileptic elephant, serial buffoon Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple products -- despite tweeting from an iPhone himself.
Apple is using a straw man argument to fight the FBI
Listen to Tim Cook and you’d be forgiven for thinking that Apple was standing up for the little guy, sticking up for the likes of you and I in fighting the FBI. The FBI, Apple would have you believe, wants Apple to break encryption, thereby weakening security for everyone. But that's not really the case at all.
The FBI has not asked for encryption to be broken; it wants access to data on the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, and it wants to do so by using the (as yet unknown) PIN that has been used to lock it. Get it wrong too many times and the device is wiped. The FBI wants custom firmware to be made available that would allow it to brute force the PIN. It's nothing to do with cracking encryption, but that's not what Apple wants you to believe. It's an exercise in misdirection and a classic straw man argument. The problem is, if the straw man goes up in flames, will Apple too?
Poll: Should Apple help the FBI unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
The US courts say Apple should help the FBI access the contents of an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters, but Apple is refusing, on the grounds that it doesn’t want to erode the security of Apple customers.
I’m personally on Apple’s side, as is my colleague Joe Wilcox, but Donald Trump wants Apple to use "common sense" and open its phone up, while John McAfee is claiming he can help the FBI unlock Apple’s device within "three weeks", primarily through the use of social engineering. The FBI for its part says it doesn’t want Apple to create a backdoor in all iPhones, just unlock the one belonging to the killer.
Tim Cook is absolutely right
Some documents are historically significant. They mark moments, comment on them, in manner demanding future citation and even use in courts or classrooms. That's how I read Apple CEO Tim Cook's "Open Letter to Our Customers", about breaking iPhone encryption. His exposition spotlights seminal moment in the United States of America: Government's further expansion of powers encroaching indiviuals' rights to privacy and one company standing up and saying "No".
Some people will scoff at my comparison, but it truly is what I see. Cook is like Rosa Parks, refusing to take a seat at the back of the bus—or in this instance behind one court judge and the FBI. Cook and Apple stand up for us all. I applaud law enforcement's efforts to protect us from terrorism but tyranny shouldn't be the means; taking away Constitutionally-given freedoms to protect them. Tim Cook is right.
Why Apple is right to reject the order to unlock a killer's phone
Apple has been ordered by the US courts to help the FBI gain access to data on an iPhone belonging to San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook. Farook and his wife killed 14 people in the California city late last year before being shot dead by police.
The FBI says the phone contains information crucial to the investigation, and needs Apple’s help to unlock it. Data on Apple devices is encrypted by default -- and has been since September 2014 -- which means no one, other than the device owner, can access it. And that includes Apple itself.
Mozilla wants to educate us all on encryption
Terrorists use encryption. They also breathe air, drive cars, and drink water. What do I mean by saying this? Well, just because a bad person uses something, doesn't make the thing they use evil. In fact, encryption is not evil at all -- it is a tool to protect the privacy and communications of all people.
Sadly, not everybody understands encryption. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject -- not everyone can be knowledgeable about everything. With that said, some politicians and other decision-makers could enact policy about encryption due to knee-jerk reactions to things they don't understand. Luckily, Mozilla has a new initiative aimed at educating people as to what encryption actually is.
Gmail now warns you if your emails are not TLS encrypted
To celebrate Safer Internet Day the other day, Google gave away an extra 2GB of cloud storage to anyone who completed a simple security audit of their account. At the same time the company also introduced a couple of important security enhancements to Gmail.
The first change sees the appearance of a simple indicator that makes it clear when an email is received through, or is about to be sent through, a service that doesn’t support TLS encryption. A broken padlock icon indicates that TLS encryption is not available, serving as a warning that there is the potential for the email in question to be dangerous or for the message to be intercepted.
Security solution RapID wants to kill the password
At a time where cyber security is infiltrating the consciousness of consumers and businesses alike, finding the right balance between security and convenience has never been more important.
To that end, digital identity and credentials firm Intercede has launched RapID, a new security solution that delivers password and token free access to cloud services from mobile applications.
Industry's reaction to Europe's new EU-US Privacy Shield
After months of negotiations, this week saw the European Commission (EC) announce a replacement to Safe Harbor after it was declared invalid in October 2015.
The new framework, dubbed the EU-US Privacy Shield, has been put in place to protect the rights of Europeans when their data is transferred to the United States and ensure legal certainty for businesses.
It's all a facade: Encryption may do nothing to reduce surveillance or increase privacy
Living in a technological age where there is a near-fanatical obsession with privacy, a move towards encryption seems to make perfect sense. While there have been calls from some governments to ban encryption and demands for decryption keys to be handed over, there is a drive by companies and online services to try to increase security and privacy with encryption.
But a new report (Don't Panic: Making progress on the encryption debate) from Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society suggests that encryption may be all but pointless when it comes to curtailing surveillance. While governments and surveillance agencies may balk at the idea of people using encryption to 'go dark' online, and many people embrace the idea as a means of increasing their privacy, the report suggests that the task of surveillance is not going to be made impossible, and could be helped by the Internet of Things (IoT).
Recent Headlines
Most Commented Stories
© 1998-2025 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. About Us - Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy - Sitemap.