Apple denies FBI request – Encryption and Security is not a variable. The security and privacy exits or not. There is no variables in this no matter the reason and I must conclude that i am very sad to say this because FBI request is a legitimate one but Apple stand is legitimate too as they have obligations to their customers and to their brand.
Also the right to chose your privacy and to feel and be private is the basic human rights of all. And this should not being breached in any way by no one. Just remember the Snowden Era and what happened then. Apple and Google along others had many and any reason to do this and they have done it properly. They where forced to do it because what has happened has being outrageous and it should not be allowed to happen again. Because if Apple or Google fails to win this battle the demage for Global privacy is going to be greater and more irreparable then ever.
Yes government should fight crime and terrorism but it is not Apple or Google job it’s governments. Governments job is also to make rest of us feel safe and enjoy our basic human rights for privacy and security that no government should be allowed to overstep.
And last but not least the goal of terrorism and crime is to destroy our way of life. So if we chaneg our way of life for sake or excuse to battle the terrorism or crime in a way that profoundly changes or hurt our basic human rights. Our way of life.
Then the terrorists and criminals have already won. We should give them the keys anyway not to bother and hide our ambivalence towards humanity.
What have Apple and Google done explanation in details:
And what the US Government is trying to do:
Obama War Against Apple and Google
But let’s try to explain to everyone what is happening right now and why TBU NEWS thinks that Apple and Google should not give in to the pressure:
Written and source by TBU NEWS
Apple says it will fight order to unlock shooter’s iPhone
Such a move would undermine encryption by creating a backdoor that could potentially be used on other devices, Tim Cook said.
The iPhone 5C, released in 2013, originally featured a version of Apple’s iOS operating system that was relatively easy to hack. But since 2014, Apple has released two upgrades, iOS 8 and iOS9. These programs encrypt all data stored on the phone and on newer models, using a system so tough it’s supposed to be unbreakable — even by Apple itself.
The second piece of Apple’s security is the passcode. The operating system has a feature that limits the number of incorrect numerical codes that can be entered. Punch five incorrect codes into your iPhone, and you’ll have to wait one minute before trying again. As an even tougher option, users can set a self-destruct feature. At 10 misses, all files are deleted. (The FBI has no way of knowing whether Farook turned on this option.)
In October, in response to a similar demand filed by FBI agents in a New York drug investigation, Apple said that it couldn’t possibly comply. “For devices running iOS 8 or higher, Apple would not have the technical ability to do what the government requests,” according to a document filed by Apple’s legal team.
The California court order suggests this wasn’t quite true, or that the government has recently uncovered a weak spot in the iPhone’s defenses. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym’s order indicates that she believes Apple can crack its own phones, and it lays out a plan of attack.
Pym wants Apple to create a customised version of its operating system, designed to run on Farook’s phone and no other. This software will be somehow injected into the phone without interfering with any other data stored on it. It will then deactivate the feature that limits the number of incorrect passwords that can be entered.
The judge also wants Apple to add software that lets the FBI rapidly feed multiple passwords into the phone. Apple would retain a fig leaf of credibility, because the company wouldn’t actually crack the iPhone’s encryption, which scrambles data so that it can’t be read by hackers. Instead, it would lower the phone’s passcode defense, so the FBI could launch a “brute force” attack — trying millions of possible passwords until something clicks.
In an open letter published on Apple’s website Wednesday, vowing to appeal the court order, Cook never denies that Apple is capable of doing what the court demands; he merely warns that such a program is “something we consider too dangerous to create.”
And Cook is right.
Does anybody believe that this tool will be used just this once? The USA Patriot Act, created to fight terrorism, was deployed against all manner of common criminals. Create an iPhone hacking tool, and every police force in America will want a copy. Why would any judge refuse?
For years, US technology companies have resisted demands from thuggish nations like China that want backdoor access to their products, so they can spy on subversive citizens. If companies give in over here, expect similar pressure from over there.
If Pym’s order stands, every US tech company is one court order away from sacrificing its customers’ privacy. American firms could lose billions in sales as consumers worldwide seek out alternative products from companies that US courts can’t touch. The popular secret-message program Telegram, for example, comes from Germany; the file encryption software maker Silent Circle is based in Switzerland. Good luck with those subpoenas.
The files on Farook’s phone may or may not contain valuable evidence. But the phone has already told investigators who Farook called and when, as well as the Internet sites he visited. That data, which could identify other terrorists, is on file, unencrypted, at the phone company, available to any police officer with a court order.
The Apple-FBI clash looks like the biggest pitched battle yet in a decades-old conflict between tech innovators and police. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration tried to outlaw encryption altogether, giving up only when it saw that such a ban wasn’t enforceable. More recently, the FBI has begged Congress for laws requiring “back doors” in encryption software, to let the agency monitor suspicious communications that would otherwise be indecipherable.
But the techies rightly reply that back doors swing both ways. They’re open to police, but also to vandals, criminals, even terrorists. A court order forcing Apple to crack open its system would make iPhones less secure. And legally, it could set a precedent from which our digital privacy may never fully recover.
SOURCE by Boston Globe
Also TBU NEWS will give you the second also one legitimate reason why Apple and Google do this:
The situation that Apple finds itself in this time, however, is quite different from those routine law enforcement requests of big companies. In this case, the encryption-based privacy capabilities of the iPhone are an integral part of the products that Apple sells to its customers. And an essential characteristic of those products is the fact that even Apple itself doesn’t know – and furthermore, doesn’t have the ability to know – what data customers have in the private areas of their iPhones.
What’s so remarkable about this fact is just how rare it is for a large consumer brand to build such a feature into its products, and furthermore, how important such a feature is for its customers. Your credit card company, after all, will only keep your secrets to a limited extent – reporting to credit bureaus is routine, and they’ll acquiesce to any legal subpoena without so much as an eye blink. We as consumers take such limits of corporate secret-keeping for granted.
Apple, in contrast, isn’t simply promising to keep its customers’ secrets. It’s promising to prevent itself from ever knowing its customers’ secrets – and then it’s selling that promise to its customers as a feature of its products.
It’s time for other enterprises to take note of this important distinction – because it’s clear today’s customer understands, and is willing to pay for the difference. The definition of digital is the fact that customer desires and preferences are driving enterprise technology decisions, and how to handle your customers’ secrets is one of the most important decisions your company will ever have to make.
Given this digital context, Apple’s battle with the FBI takes on new meaning. While Apple’s motivations may seem altruistic – and of course, in many ways they are – what Apple is really doing is protecting their brand.
A brand, after all, is the promise to customers that the quality and features of products will live up to customer expectations. Apple’s relinquishment of its ability to know customers’ secrets, for better or worse, is now part of that brand promise. In such a light, Apple has no choice but to fight the FBI. Does your company have the same courage?
Intellyx advises companies on their digital transformation initiatives and helps vendors communicate their agility stories. As of the time of writing, none of the organizations mentioned in this article are Intellyx customers.
SOURCE by Forbes
What to say more than Go Google and Go Apple ! join forces in this one it is way important to let this pass by.
(this time) Best Regards A & G
TBU NEWS
