Obama on ‘Fetishising Our Phones’
As might have been expected, president Obama will use the waning moments of his presidency to further attack individual’s rights to privacy.
Please consider Barack Obama warns over ‘fetishising our phones’.
Barack Obama has warned the tech industry against “fetishising our phones above every other value”, in the US president’s first comments on the encryption debate since Apple locked horns with the FBI last month.
Apple is engaged in an increasingly bitter legal fight with US authorities over whether it can be forced to help investigators break into the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. On Thursday, the Department of Justice accused Apple of using “corrosive” rhetoric to create a “diversion” from its legal responsibilities — which Apple later called a “cheap shot”.
Obama warned the tech industry that if it refused to make concessions, the US Congress may pass new legislation that Apple and its Silicon Valley allies would find even harder to stomach.
“If everybody goes to their respective corners and the tech community says, ‘Either we have strong perfect encryption or else it’s Big Brother and an Orwellian world’, what you’ll find is that after something really bad happens, the politics of this will swing and it will become sloppy and rushed and it will go through Congress in ways that have not been thought through,” Mr Obama said.
This week the head of the UK’s electronic surveillance agency urged tech companies to co-operate with law enforcement. Robert Hannigan, GCHQ director, said the debate over cyber security and privacy should not obsess over “backdoors or front doors. It is about whether entry into the house is lawful at all.”
Back doors, Front Doors, Government Entry
In essence, the president is stating “Give us your back door and your front door, or we will barge your doors down“.
Sadly, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have both sided with Obama. Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton appear wishy-washy, but I believe we know where they really stand.
Foreign Policy offers these snips in a post entitled Marco Rubio Sounds a Lot Like Hillary Clinton on Apple and Encryption
“I think Apple is absolutely in the wrong,” Trump told MSNBC this week. At a rally on Friday, Trump called for a boycott of Apple until they comply with the FBI’s demand. “How do you like that?” he wondered aloud. “I just thought of that.”
After acknowledging the privacy concerns of undermining encryption, Cruz told CNN this week, “I think law enforcement has the better argument.”
No matter who wins, prepare to have your front door and back door unlocked, or the government will open your doors for you, with force.
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: Constitutionalists Not.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
This is why you don’t want the OS vendors handling security. It becomes a single point of failure, both technically and legally. Instead, the OS vendors should provide hooks into a well-defined security library. Then third parties (hopefully including non-US companies or open source programmers) can supply the actual security libraries, in multiple versions.
This is the only hope for staying ahead of the NSA, foreign governments and criminal hackers. A monoculture controlled by a single company is a recipe for failure.
The entire internet could be secure using changing key end to end encryption for all send and receive. Government wants to spy and extort citizens, presidential candidates, supreme court justices, and legislators. Thus we have insecure banking systems and hacked data files everywhere on the internet.
—
To his everlasting credit they have no control of Donald Trump. NSA criminals are afraid of Donald Trump.
Old-fashioned typing machines might be valuable one day…
I am not happy of the thought of opening any doors to my privacy due to safety concerns. I do nothing illegal. I just don’t like any government granted access. Or anyone else by that matter.
This said, I very much believe they have the tools to do that and will use them at will.
Perhaps time for Apple and tech companies consider relocating somewhere else? 😀
How can we have a government with a central command and control without them knowing EVERYTHING we think and do? It’s their job. We hired them…to protect us. So we do not forget, the police state IS to protect its people.
“the police state IS to protect its people.”
Perfectly wrong. Did you drink the Kool-aid? The police state is to protect the police state, FROM the people.
What the government SAYS its reason are, are obviously NOT what its reasons ARE. Government seeks more and more power to sustain its claim of protecting us or making our lives easier and more secure, when in reality all it wants is the power. This power is best served by our dependency and that dependency is best served by our failure as a society to prosper or to see each other as an asset rather than a threat. Civilization is a choice, one that increasingly is a less apparent one.
Government, by continuing to lie to us, to obscure the truth, has effectively blinded us to risk. Our ability to accurately assess risk IS our only defense and provide our only ability to prosper. Our current blindness makes us distrust anything or person and we see that is reflected in our politics and especially our “investments”.
We are rightfully fearful of tyranny but even still cannot perceive WHO or WHAT is our true oppression.
We have lost our way.
Welcome to life in the government interface.
Government In Our Face
George Orwell had the right idea with the book 1984 except it will take a few more years to fully develop.
Give me liberty or give me death, even from a terrorist…
I don’t get it. Law enforcement gets warrants to search your house or phone records. Why is your phone different? I don’t hear anyone screaming that because law enforcement got a warrant to search a house it now means that everyone else’s house is less secure.
Apple can technically push an OS to the San Bernadino shooter’s employer’s phone that disables a couple of security features without disabling the features on everyone else’s phone. I don’t understand why Apple is making a big stand with this case and lying by saying that it will make everyone else’s phone less secure. It wouldn’t be an exposed back door or tool that could be used on any other phone without Apple implementing it.
Because there will be a hack that will push that fix to other iPhones. As long as Apple didn’t develop it that risk doesn’t exist.
Not true. Apple would have to digitally sign the new OS to push it to other phones. It’s impossible for someone to push this new hack to other phones without (1) the source code, and (2) Apple’s digital signature key. Apple is the only one who can do this.
If Apple continues to resist, the courts could order that Apple hand over their digital key so the FBI could hack it themselves. This is a far worse scenario — there’s no guarantee that the FBI could keep Apple’s key secure.
They do not require all home builders to use locks to which the government has the key. That is the difference. Home builders are not being forced to carry out measures on behalf of the government on their own dime.
And if the security on your device were set up properly, it would be impossible to tamper with it physically or logically (software) without compromising the credential store and thereby forever losing access to the encrypted data on the device. (And it would be impossible to push OS updates without your permission).
And police are not routinely monitoring everybody who goes through the door (long before you are even a suspect — just to be safe, everybody’s door all the time). These are levels of surveillance that no totalitarian regime in history could even dream of.
Bad analogy. The FBI doesn’t need a key to search your house. They break the door down.
In this case, the FBI isn’t asking for a key to unlock all doors or to provide a back door to all phones. In this case, the front door is booby trapped and will blow up all information if the wrong password is entered 10 times. They want this booby trap disabled so they can try all 10,000 possible 4 diget passcodes and a way to try the possibilities faster. This is in an effort to break down the front door — the discussion so far is not about back doors or handing over any keys.
‘They break the door down’ – good, then there is no question with an act like that that judicial authority and oversight is not first sought. The analogy is wrong though, because it is an overt action, not sneaking in to rummage through the place without the owner knowing. You would not want to find evidence appear as if by magic in your home I think, for example.
In this case the FBI is obliging a software company to as good as open a particular door for it, so that the contents, the property of an individual, are not destroyed in the process. The individual, for whatever reason, does not wish for the contents to be accessed by another. He understood that they were protected by the software of the software company, now he finds the software company has a key to open his data to itself or a third party.
Should the software company open the door?
Then should the software company open the door every time the FBI presents a judicial order, without the knowledge of the individual?
Goodbye software company – from now on as far as the public are concerned software company is subject to a secret judicial authority, and so is their data. That means, quite simply, that their data may be accessed without their knowledge, by people they don’t know, and software company will help that to happen, and there is nothing they will be able to say about it as it will be legal.
Well… I had police in EU force through a door I had my foot behind and would not open without them showing a warrant ( pre-planned not hot pursuit, and 0 to do with me ). They arrested me before my family, freaked out the whole household, and locked me up for a morning. They would not release me until I signed a waiver that I would not prosecute them for their behaviour ( there were no charges laid against me, they acted illegally ) .
I have also had the threat of force used against me at various times – it is very unpleasant knowing you are targeted by authority as you realize there is NO ONE WHO WILL HELP YOU IF AUTHORITIES DECIDE TO PERSECUTE YOU.
I have reached the conclusion that the framework is more psychological than practical, the idea that authority has total domain is what is being installed, and it IS effective. It is effective not to the degree that it might disrupt illegal activity, it is instead effective to the degree that authority feels empowered to command, and it is effective to the degree that citizenry may feel intimidated and disrupted, that they experience uncertainty and unease if so desired.
Those, though they seem almost trivial in comparison to various other trials of mankind, are actually very powerful tools. When those you have respected one day turn on you for reason unknown, you realize that the less power conceded to them, the better.
Limits are always pushed, so keep the limit hard. Your data and information is not agreed to to be accessed by OS manufacturers, and therefore they should have no key to it. If they do hold a key, then they are guilty by intent. That simple.
Crysangle, in response to your 3:24 post, it’s not like the FBI doesn’t have any judicial oversight in this specific case — in fact they have a court order. Please understand that any suggestion that governments have the ability to snoop on any person’s phone without a warrent and with Apple’s consent is purely theretical and is not a reality at this point. Moreover, the owner of the phone has given consent to search the phone. The phone is in fact the property of the shooter’s employer, and was never the property of the shooter. When using the property of your employer, there is no expectation of privacy.
I understand that there are a lot of bigger issues that need to be discussed for future situations, but IMHO, this specific case with Apple is a slam dunk for the FBI.
Ash this is not about a company denying the FBI access to the data on the phone, but wanting apple to build a permanent back door to all phones. This is what it is all about. The FBI finally admitted they screwed up trying to hack the phone. You have 9 tries on the IPhone to open your phones and if you fail the phone will automatically wipe all the data. The FBI has already used the 9 tries and if they try one more time the phone will wipe. The FBI refuses to hand over the phone to Apple to get the Data. John McAffrey offered his services as well to open the phone in three weeks but the FBI would have to hand over the phone, something they refuse to do. Regardless of the court order the FBI is basically asking apple for a permanent back door to their encryption data and building a new OS to open al apple phones. Totally illegal invading everyone’s privacy when they darn well please. And yes the government does this at their leisure. Do not believe me check out Kapersky site where they discovered a hardware back door built into IBM servers. IBM is not losing money and foreign companies are no longer buying their servers because of this.
They were basically spying on anyone with IBM servers, I do not remember the model. So I am all for Apple’s resistance to the FBI wanting free rain with back doors. At one time I could encrypt my data and secure it and now it is illegal to do this in many cases because the government want free access to your computer and any other digital device.
Apple knows if they just hand over a new OS they will be out of business. They have cooperated in the past with requests from governments to crack phones, but the phone hand to be handed over to the company and they handed back the data. It should remain this way and not handing over to the government back doors because they want it period!
Anon, so many false statements in your post.
In THIS CASE, the FBI is not asking for a permanent back door. You’re going to have to provide something specific to claim otherwise (and Apple’s fear mongering rebuttal to the FBI’s request doesn’t count).
It
Anon, too many false statements in your post to let it slide.
In THIS CASE, the FBI is not requesting a permanent back door to Apple’s phones. You’re going to have to provide something specific and credible to state otherwise (and Apple’s fear mongering rebuttal to the court order doesn’t count).
It would be impossible for Mr. McAffrey or anyone else to disable the security features or open the phone without Apple’s digital signature key. Also, the court order gives Apple the option of installing the software within their own facilities. I think they could even do the brute force password attempts in their facility as well. Once created for this specific phone, it would be impossible for someone other than Apple to push this security disabled software onto any other phone.
I suggest you read the court order instead of spreading misinformation.
Apple’s best argument against complying with the court order seems to be “we don’t want to and you can’t make us.”
Just out today, if Apple continues to refuse to comply with the court order, the DOJ may request the iOS source code and Apple’s digital signing key so they could hack the phone themselves. THIS IS THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. If this happens, the government could hack any phone they want whenever they want. Also, if they fail to keep them secure, hackers could potentially steal these and have access to any phone they want. Finally, if the US DOJ is able to obtain them, other foreign governments will request them as well. This is a completely unacceptable outcome.
Apple, please comply with the court order, and keep the security of your source code and digital signing key in your own hands.
It doesn’t sound like any of the candidates, including Trump, have thought this one through to its logical conclusions. They all seem either too in love with themselves or power via a totalitarian political apparatus. At least Trump admits that for him it is top of the head mouthing off.
All these steps towards a more Totalitarian government will ultimately weaken and hasten the eventual downfall of the USA welfare-warfare nation-state. But none of this is about logic. It is about macho chest beating, of the same variety as saying you are for bombing other countries to rubble (e.g. Bill Clinton with Serbia, Bush II with Iraq War II, Hilary with Libya and murdering its leader, McCain with bombing Syria and Iran, Christie with shooting down Russian jets).
I personally stay away from cell phones, because as Edward Snowden pointed out the government or other sources can remotely turn even turned off cell phones into microphones for monitoring purposes; some people have told me the Apple phone is the exception, but I wonder. Mostly I consider cell phones an unnecessary expense and prefer the peace and quiet of not being on call all the time; and my reasons for not buying Apple products predate this controversy.
Terrorists, drug dealers, et al. could all function perfectly well without cell phones, and certainly did so before the invention of low-cost portable phones. The 9-11 terrorists did not rely on phones, nor did Japan need them to bomb Pearl Harbor (in fact, they maintained radio silence). It is not really a privacy issue. It seems more about Delusions of Power by obsessive control freaks who are in control of usa.gov policy. It is about the illusion of total control and being all powerful, like gods.
This is how the US government bullies companies to “cooperate”. When I lived in communist Hungary there was no actual institutional censorship. But all journalists knew what they may or may not say and it was self imposed, ie voluntary and “patriotic”.
If Apple caves on this issue, they cave completely. Not going to happen.
I don’t know why they are making such a big deal over this phone. Don’t they already record
all our calls? Didn’t we just pay billions for a facility to store all this data? It may be encrypted but they should know where the calls went.
Does this new facility work like the new jet fighter we just bought? The pilots were passing out from lack of oxygen. It’s guns don’t work, it don’t work well in the rain and the carrier designed for it can’t take the heat from the engines.
Oh, that is right the low bidder built them.
>> Fetishising Our Phones’ >> >> I think that was him that was totally attached to his Blackberry when he was first elected… >> ”Autres temps, autre moeurs” >
Fetish:
“material object regarded with awe as having mysterious powers or being the representative of a deity that may be worshipped through it,”
I guess they want to be the ones at the other end.
“On Thursday, the Department of Justice accused Apple of using “corrosive” rhetoric to create a “diversion” from its legal responsibilities…”
No banker has been criminally prosecuted by the Department of Justice, for crimes related to the housing bubble.
Resistance is futile…..that is our government’s message. Do not question their methods or even objectives. Fall in line. Submit. Obey.
When Bush was president Hillary told us to resist, to question government was the epitome of patriotism. Not so much now.
If I understand correctly, democide (for example, the Tuskegee experiment, the Trail of Tears, the Downwind experiment, Black Lives Matter deaths) historically outweigh military deaths 6:1.
The only protection against democide is government not having power.
Nor has our government batted an eye about slaughtering our youths in war for lying causes (no cause).
I’m going to call Treason. By Obama, by Trump, by Cruz.It’s time to start using the T word. Regurarly.
By all means, buy billboards and use it.
Every argument Obama put forward for requiring government back door access to all devices could just as easily be used to justify torture.