Why the girl Versus FBI matter of debate in a globalized world

Lost among all holders of breath and hyperbole about Apple's debate against the FBI in recent weeks is the overall context in which this conflict against goliath goliath is happening. Global companies like Apple build products sold worldwide, which means that the FBI demands not only risk the credibility of Apple outside the US to present their products as devices for monitoring the US government, but if successful would also encourage repressive countries to demand the same capabilities, creating a race to the bottom in which American countries must produce backdoors its products for all major governments. Why this all matters.

A quick look at some of the quotes that define the debate shows is at stake both sides attributed the crash. Apple in particular has taken its case to the court of public opinion in an attempt to influence the FBI to retract his request. CEO, Tim Cook, lamented that "Apple is a unique company of America ... It does not feel right to be on the opposite side of the government in a case centered on the freedoms and liberties that the government intends to protect." In its legal filing, Apple also argued "There is nothing in federal law allows courts, at the request of prosecutors, that coercively replace Apple and other companies to serve as a permanent arm of government forensic laboratory."

While the FBI has repeatedly argued that are requesting access to only one phone, it is impossible to create a set of software tools that operate guy asked only one iPhone. Since there is nothing special about that particular phone, the software could be easily modified to operate on any iPhone. Put in simpler terms, the request is equivalent to asking a lock manufacturer to develop a master key that opens all locks to allow the government to open a particular door of interest. While the government could promise to destroy the key after the mere existence of a master key is capable of having the government to apply the same key every time you have a door to open and encourage Similarly all other governments to apply the same key to open all the doors that have an interest in in short, there is no way to make a back door that works only for this unique phone -. the process of creating the tailgate establishes a workflow model and endanger all iPhone.

In fact, after Apple noted "police officers across the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones who want Apple to unlock if the FBI win this case," FBI director acknowledged that "police departments and prosecutors around the country were also seeking a similar locked phones and encrypted conversations in ordinary criminal cases "and that a positive decision" will be instructive for other courts "access.

Noting open bets, Apple went so far as to wonder aloud "Should we allow the government to create other capacities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking?" As Apple sees it, if the FBI is able to legally force Apple to endanger one of your devices to allow their data to be downloaded, which would leave the FBI issuing a similar order to require Apple to microphone mute or allow GPS tracking interest on a phone? In fact, there is already precedent for this scenario - in 2001 the FBI ordered the manufacturer of a vehicle communications system important to mute in the built-in vehicle in order to spy on the driver microphone.

Apple is undoubtedly the illusion that their phones are absolutely undecipherable by a nation-state - rather than do not want to be responsible for creating the back door themselves. In fact, it turns out that the National Security Council of the United States and the task US government agencies last fall with the requirement to defeat the encryption and protection of consumer devices access. As shown by the revelations of Snowden, government intelligence agents are more than capable of developing highly sophisticated technological solutions themselves.

In fact, none other than Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and the NSA, argued against the effort, stating "I think ultimately that really affects the safety and security of the United States, although it could do the job [FBI] a little easier in some specific circumstances ". in an interview with US Today "Look, I used to run the NSA, OK? The rear doors are good. Lord observed Please, please, put back indoors, because I and a lot of other security services talented all the world - even though the back door was not meant for me. - the tailgate will make it easier for me to do what I want to do, which is to penetrate But when you step back and look at all the issue of safety and security of America with capital letters, are a safer, more secure without rear doors ... a lot of other people would take advantage of it. "in fact, juniper breach nation offers extreme lesson in rear doors can easily be exploited by adversaries.

Critics have pointed to the fact that only in the first six months of 2015, Apple "received about 11,000 requests from government agencies around the world with regard to information on approximately 60,000 devices ... [and] provides some data more or less 7,100 of those requests. " That makes for a compliance rate of 65%. However, these applications relate to data in the cloud of Apple, which is recognized by providing police when presented with a valid legal requirement. In fact, that was one of the purposes of creating an Apple smartphone safe - that users could restrict highly sensitive data to the phone itself, without uploading to the cloud.

Phones are increasingly acting as an extension of our body, recording our movements, health, shopping, records, communications, calendars and even our innermost thoughts. We took our phones all over the world to the extent that is increasingly used as substitutes for identification. What this means is that the search for a phone is much closer to the world of science fiction enforcement be able to search one's mind is to search among the papers in your own living room.

Why all this? From 2013-2014 I was the partner of Yahoo! in Residence International Securities, Communications and Technology of the global Internet in Edmund A. School of Foreign Service, where he was also an adjunct professor Walsh Georgetown University. As the name communion 's highlights, the Internet today is global and internationalized, ie conflicts such as the FBI vs Apple dispute play out in a global context.

In a globalized world, US companies make a growing portion of their business abroad. In Apple's case, more than two thirds of its income comes from outside the United States. It is hard to imagine that phone manufacturers outside the US flaunting their phones as "free back door" and the development of Apple products as surveillance tools for the US government, especially in light of the revelations of the NSA Snowden. Imagine the reverse - a major manufacturer of Chinese consumer products ordered by the Chinese government to develop a back door that provides the ability to circumvent encryption controls and access device. As in the cipher discussion, the idea of ​​creating a back door for the US government will not have a wider impact not recognize the global nature of trade and internet today.

Perhaps the deepest concerning about the current conflict is that in this globalized world, if the FBI prevails, it is almost certain that all other nations will demand the same level of access. As former Attorney General Ted Olson US gravely put it, "The implications of this are quite serious ... people in foreign countries will be very, very susceptible to invasion of privacy if Apple may be forced to change your phone." In fact, just last year, "Beijing backed several proposals that would have forced foreign companies to provide encryption keys for devices sold in China after heavy pressure from groups of foreign trade. However, an anti-terrorism law passed in December china requires foreign companies to provide technical information and to help with decryption when police demand in cases related to terrorism. "

As the New York Times put it, "China is closely following the dispute. Analysts say the Chinese government by the attitude of the United States when it comes to regulations encryption, and that the most likely demand of multinational companies offer similar to those of the United States accommodation. ... China also most likely to purchase any technology that allows you to unlock iPhones. Just after Apple introduced tougher standards encryption in 2014, Apple users China was the target of an attack that tried to obtain information from user access iCloud ".

Just yesterday an executive of Facebook was arrested by Brazilian police after the company was unable to provide decrypted of an alleged drug dealer communications, showing the stakes for American companies and governments around the world eyes types backdoor access required by the FBI.

In short, the debate Apple against FBI is more than one iPhone - it is the limits of the powers of the US government to require US companies to custom rear doors engineer products that defeat security consumers and how these limits affect products and employees of US companies worldwide. What the US government succeeds in claiming, all other countries will undoubtedly demand thus subjecting US companies to create backdoors charge for each government request. In the end, as with Internet freedom itself, privacy fade and citizens of the world will only "as free as free place at least in the world."

Related eXtra/News news News Today tech