Graham asks some great questions.
Senator Lindsey Graham questions Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Apple vs FBI iPhone case
Graham asks some great questions.
This argument about setting a precedent for other countries is dubious IMO. That’s like saying if Iran and North Korea can’t have nuclear weapons than no one else should be able to either. Poor argument. Comparing the United States to China is ridiculous.
There’s an elephant in the room here that they are both avoiding in public. The Chinese government spends a lot of money on cracking personal, corporate, and governmental systems of other countries. I mean, like a shitload of money. Northrup Grumman and Google would agree.
However the Chinese government would never exploit US sanctioned weakened systems because it would be ridiculous to compare them to the United States, right?
I haven’t really seen too many discussions about unintended consequences, other than the slippery slope argument.
Although slippery slope is certainly valid, I think law enforcement would ultimately make their own jobs harder if they were to succeed in this request.
If Apple is compelled to create a new OS that the FBI and other agencies end up using, do they really think terrorists will continue to use these devices? No, they most certainly will not. Instead, they’ll go to dozens of other manufacturers, or use dozens of other services to communicate.
Now instead of having many bad guys on a single platform, you get many bad guys on many platforms.
You essentially go from pouring significant resources into finding a way into an iphone, to playing whack-a-mole with many others.
The only thing this does is allow law enforcement to more easily capture evidence from stupid/amateur criminals, not the terrorists.
iPhones are the most common device in corporate US these days. Beyond making it easier to get at your personal information it would create a bigger attack surface for your bank, as an example.
It’s not dubious because it just recently was at the forefront of Chinese lawmaking. China ultimately backed away from requiring such technical backdoors because it did not want to be the first government to require them. Once the US government loses the high ground on technical backdoors by mandating them, it is already pretty much guaranteed other governments will follow suit.
It also begs the question of exactly what devices our own government agents would use that will provide the security necessary to prevent a breach. This imaginary world where only the good guys use the breach is at the heart of the problem for the other side. That world doesn’t exist, so why would we intentionally create a mechanism – that will become known – for breaching the security of a device containing so much information.
The FBI has done something Congress hasn’t been able to do in a very long time: Make senators and representatives look reasonable.
did you not see the headline about France drafting a law demanding the ability to break encryption?
it’s already happening.
You must be a low information citizen.
<
blockquote …………………………………………………………………………………………………>”my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….
<
blockquote>two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!535➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!535……….
The reason the Senate banned Huawei from bidding their network products for US government projects is because they have back doors. Lynch has to know this. She’s effectively asking Apple to forgo the Chinese market (assuming the Chinese would act the same way toward us, re: Huawei, that we have acted toward them).
It’s not dubious. Obama criticized Xi for trying to introduce the same legislation last year. Obama’s argument was that it would hurt their economy. There’s video of Obama saying this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-china-idUSKBN0LY2H520150302
If we do this, China can demand the same, it’s that simple. Apple will have no ability to tell China “no”. And, frankly, even if Apple does tell China “no”, then China will still be able to capitalize on the weaknesses that they’re forced to put into their phones.
Tech companies have been in an arms race against hackers since inception. The security updates on your computer aren’t a joke, they’re real. Computer engineers perform more critical security updates on computers that maintain your banking information, etc. Tech companies release security updates as soon as any vulnerabilities are identified.
Let’s say, hypothetically, a security flaw in some of Apple’s software is identified. Some hackers get access to users’ data via that flaw and post all the data on the internet. Nude photos, bank account info and the like. If Apple does not fix or respond to this flaw, nobody will buy Apple phones.
This is the type of weakness the government is asking Apple to put in its phones permanently. Once that is mandated by law, Apple won’t be able to continue innovating the security of their devices.
Lindsey Graham was against encryption initially, then changed his mind. He’s a republican senator from South Carolina. Watch this 8 minute video. It’s a very good example of someone doing their job within Congress. He’s also the highest ranking official, along with Ted Lieu, to understand the balancing factors at play.
https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s