'Apple does not keep copies of the message unless one of the users loads it into iCloud, where it is not encrypted.'
What does this mean? How do users load messages into iCloud?
What does this mean? How do users load messages into iCloud?
2
Would the government allow 'us' access to their privacy without encryption?Would Microsoft,Google or Apple? or any other corporation in America allow us to access their computers?Defense system,companies,FBI,NSA,Monsanto, chemical companies,ect.?No probably not...Thank You Edward Snowden
This sounds like a constitutional issue for the the right of privacy of people in America. Should we also grant ,in the future,new high tech innovation the same intrusions the government started with land phones? How far do we let the governing forces intrude on our privacy?
This sounds like a constitutional issue for the the right of privacy of people in America. Should we also grant ,in the future,new high tech innovation the same intrusions the government started with land phones? How far do we let the governing forces intrude on our privacy?
4
By betraying the trust placed in them by the People, the US Government has created this problem for themselves, and therefore endangered the safety of this nation. There is a balance to be struck between privacy and security, but that balance is not to secretly trample civil liberties. Had the NSA not immorally obtained private information of regular Americans there would have been no reason for Apple to develop a secure technology for it's customers.
So, good job, USA. We've made the world a better place for terrorists, again.
So, good job, USA. We've made the world a better place for terrorists, again.
4
A WEAPONIZED INTERNET Wake up US Homeland Security! The next war is going to be fought in cyberspace. If we get caught up in fiddling while data crunches, we're going to lose that war! I hope that someone who has Obama's ear will tell him that there is an absolute need to protect national security by issuing Executive Orders that encryption software decoding be provided immediately the NSA. We gotta know if those guys are trying to move kilos of cocaine or radioactive materiel!
Microsoft is the NSA's dog, just look at all the deliberate holes in Windows 10. They must just want more money to comply with the requests, and nice fat immunity to lawsuits for violating their contracts.
4
Would the government like to give its citizens a rough idea of just how many terrorist and other activities have been thwarted by them having access to electronic messages and emails in the past? No, thought not.
Is it thousands of thwarted attacks, one, none? The Boston bombing occurred following specific warnings from Russia. I wonder whether the government might do better by "sticking to the knitting" instead of attempting to gather everything from everyone from everywhere.
Is it thousands of thwarted attacks, one, none? The Boston bombing occurred following specific warnings from Russia. I wonder whether the government might do better by "sticking to the knitting" instead of attempting to gather everything from everyone from everywhere.
6
To quote the UK PM David Cameron "Do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”
The NSA, GCHQ, BND etc. efforts to snoop and spy on all the people on this planet is more horrible than the worst nightmares of George Orwell.
They should go after the baddies and leave the rest of us alone.
I'm glad that Apple, Microsoft, Google and other companies are trying to protect us against the prying eyes of our governments. It's a bizarre situation.
The NSA, GCHQ, BND etc. efforts to snoop and spy on all the people on this planet is more horrible than the worst nightmares of George Orwell.
They should go after the baddies and leave the rest of us alone.
I'm glad that Apple, Microsoft, Google and other companies are trying to protect us against the prying eyes of our governments. It's a bizarre situation.
8
I am most certainly not a criminal or law breaker to any extend of the imagination, however, I fear that I might be subjected to surveillance by the "government". One logical conclusion from the Snowden revelations have been the large private interests masquerading as public government interests in the realm of digital data, digital privacy, and digital security. I think this is the shoe that wasn't explicitly dropped, but I think lots of interchange is happening between specific corporate interests and government officials to target specific individuals such as those involved in litigation such as lawyers, plaintiffs and defendants etc... More digital privacy and encryption is the key to more secure and safer public and private lives. If history serves as any lesson on how privacy and first amendment rights have been decided, it's highly likely these companies will win out if they decide to stand up the government to ensure proper encryption to their customers.
4
A Democracy is not predicated on and cannot be sustained by solely allowing the Electoral (voting) process to continue. The Secret and known Federal Judges, and all the Federal Elected Official's must either uphold the Constitutional/Bill of Rights Freedoms or just "Flush the Constitutional/Bill of Rights Freedoms" as being irrelevant "Museum Pieces" and openly acknowledge that America is an Oligarchy...
7
I don't get some people they act like they want privacy yet they use Android devices. Android is the least "private" operating system around. Google collects your data and sells it to the highest bidder. Google would even help the government get full access over a user's phone for the right price (atm the government doesn't wanna pay the cost). Apple however doesn't sell your data at all thus iDevices are the best choice if you truly care about your privacy.
3
The government knows that (For now) paying the price on the upfront would make google a state actor and invalidate any evidence obtained.
Google at this point sees no value in selling potentially INCRIMINATING data to someone with the legal power to act on it be it the government or a copyright mobster. I am sure that this is subject to change in the future, but for now they sell advertising tracking garbage which is white noise to the NSA types.
Google at this point sees no value in selling potentially INCRIMINATING data to someone with the legal power to act on it be it the government or a copyright mobster. I am sure that this is subject to change in the future, but for now they sell advertising tracking garbage which is white noise to the NSA types.
2
Like almost all civilians in the U.S., you have no idea at all what Apple is or isn't doing in that regard. I don't know either.
All I know for certain is that Apple has been trying to get the government to buy lots of their products for decades, and if handing over the keys to the kingdom is what it takes to make that happen, you can bet Tim will be running down the street with a wheelbarrow of your private communications on his way to the FBI/CIA/NSA/DEA and anyone else who wants a taste.
This country's oligarchs have sacrificed the Constitution to increase shareholder value, which is now the new god. People need to wake up to that fact.
All I know for certain is that Apple has been trying to get the government to buy lots of their products for decades, and if handing over the keys to the kingdom is what it takes to make that happen, you can bet Tim will be running down the street with a wheelbarrow of your private communications on his way to the FBI/CIA/NSA/DEA and anyone else who wants a taste.
This country's oligarchs have sacrificed the Constitution to increase shareholder value, which is now the new god. People need to wake up to that fact.
4
I would not mind monitoring of my personal communications if the government doing the monitoring was on my side - politically speaking. When the government is not on my side - politically speaking, I am vehemently against monitoring. The best decision is to not let a government you do not trust monitor your communications. The same can be said for data stored on personal computers. One government might consider my data to be just fine while another could consider my data to be criminal. Here again, the best course of action is to not allow access by government through encryption. PC's are quickly becoming an extension of the human mind and the collection of data contained within them might easily be misinterpreted by a law enforcement agency, or government, with an agenda. Raw, unprocessed data existing within a PC can be interpreted in a negative way and used against you (example: I'm doing an article on Child Pornography). Allowing access to PC's and what has become an extension of the human brain would be like letting government surgically access your biological brain matter to get information. This is an invasion of privacy. Government or law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to filter through my raw data without them having bias in thought........and this makes them unable to interpret data the same as my mind would interpret that data. Government is best kept out of collecting personal data it cannot interpret correctly.
10
Why is Obama and his administration fighting so hard to get our private information?
7
<i>"<b>ResearchGate</b>"</i> is helping end tyranny because it offers critics and editors of mainstream research journals, the news media, leaders of federal research agencies and the scientific community an opportunity to DOWNLOAD, READ & RESPOND <i>in public, <b>affirming</b> or <b>denying</b> precise experimental data and observations</I> that
1. Assure us the pulsar-centered Sun controls the solar system, and
http://tinyurl.com/pycofx4
2. Fear is a tool of tyrants pretending to control Earth and its climate
http://tinyurl.com/na7exfc
1. Assure us the pulsar-centered Sun controls the solar system, and
http://tinyurl.com/pycofx4
2. Fear is a tool of tyrants pretending to control Earth and its climate
http://tinyurl.com/na7exfc
It may be because the spook community lies to him constantly about imminent danger and he believes them, even though their performance in the Boston marathon bombings was beyond pathetic, just as it was on 9/11. Obama's performance in this area has been an immense disappointment - he's even crazier about spying on every American than Bush was.
How much more intel do these people need than "Bin Laden is planning to attack the U.S. using commercial airplanes!" and "There will likely be a terrorist attack at the Boston marathon!"?
Neither of those warnings came from spying on Americans. Both were ignored by the spooks. Both incidents were devastating. They're wasting billions of dollars and defecating on the Constitution for nothing.
How much more intel do these people need than "Bin Laden is planning to attack the U.S. using commercial airplanes!" and "There will likely be a terrorist attack at the Boston marathon!"?
Neither of those warnings came from spying on Americans. Both were ignored by the spooks. Both incidents were devastating. They're wasting billions of dollars and defecating on the Constitution for nothing.
5
Bravo! Bravo! Its about time.
There can be no compromise when end users correctly use strong crypto. Not because Apple and Microsoft are inflexible but because strong crypto works, as the FBI knew decades ago when it hounded and harassed Phil Zimmerman, aka Mr. PGP, and when it first proposed "weak crypto" Fortezza, Clipper and key escrow. (Google these terms to see the governments heavy handed attempts to outlaw strong crypto).
As a simple matter of technical architecture, the Internet should have gone dark decades ago. Not as a moral imperative, but because its so easy to do. Encryption and privacy are technologically "free" value-added services that can be implemented at every level of every digital storage and transmission technology from disk drives, to data bases to networks to chat programs. It's a no brainer. What's surprising is how long commercial products have stayed with clear text.
The Feds are two faced about it. They want to keep their communications secret, but don't want us to use the same tools to do the same. And they say they oppose cyber crime, but don't want companies to truly protect our private info.
So, hooray for Phil Zimmerman, and Diffie Hellman, and RSA, Bruce Shneier, and the many mathematicians and others and now Apple and those who brought us the tools and methods we can now use to preserve our own privacy.
And shame on any Federal Government which believes that a Right shouldn't be a Right because bad guys can mis-use it.
There can be no compromise when end users correctly use strong crypto. Not because Apple and Microsoft are inflexible but because strong crypto works, as the FBI knew decades ago when it hounded and harassed Phil Zimmerman, aka Mr. PGP, and when it first proposed "weak crypto" Fortezza, Clipper and key escrow. (Google these terms to see the governments heavy handed attempts to outlaw strong crypto).
As a simple matter of technical architecture, the Internet should have gone dark decades ago. Not as a moral imperative, but because its so easy to do. Encryption and privacy are technologically "free" value-added services that can be implemented at every level of every digital storage and transmission technology from disk drives, to data bases to networks to chat programs. It's a no brainer. What's surprising is how long commercial products have stayed with clear text.
The Feds are two faced about it. They want to keep their communications secret, but don't want us to use the same tools to do the same. And they say they oppose cyber crime, but don't want companies to truly protect our private info.
So, hooray for Phil Zimmerman, and Diffie Hellman, and RSA, Bruce Shneier, and the many mathematicians and others and now Apple and those who brought us the tools and methods we can now use to preserve our own privacy.
And shame on any Federal Government which believes that a Right shouldn't be a Right because bad guys can mis-use it.
16
Bottom line; don't save stuff to the "cloud." Save things locally on your computer or phone. Make sure you buy or support technology that isn't easily hacked by anyone, government or hackers.
The government has failed to keep data safe and with their obsession on surveillance rather than protection of data, they have missed the boat and the problem. Don't buy into this garbage that they "need" to have access. They don't. They haven't been able to use the tools they already have, and they haven't used good judgment to protect our data and assets from foreign government hacking.
Less is more in this case.
The government has failed to keep data safe and with their obsession on surveillance rather than protection of data, they have missed the boat and the problem. Don't buy into this garbage that they "need" to have access. They don't. They haven't been able to use the tools they already have, and they haven't used good judgment to protect our data and assets from foreign government hacking.
Less is more in this case.
10
I am of the opinion, the more the government knows about you, the more they can use against you, chalk it up to human nature; there are only so many criminal types running around, why not make everyone a suspect, which I think is quite commonplace in today law enforcement community.
Pulled over for speeding or some other driving violation lately? You simply do not get a ticket, the stop becomes something like a profit center, anything the police officer can openly see becomes a potential issue, that $75 ticket can quickly become a $350 ticket and an additional trip to court.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty by a court of your peers? No prove necessary, everyone is a suspect, crime or no crime....
Someone please help...read the Bill of Rights...
Pulled over for speeding or some other driving violation lately? You simply do not get a ticket, the stop becomes something like a profit center, anything the police officer can openly see becomes a potential issue, that $75 ticket can quickly become a $350 ticket and an additional trip to court.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty by a court of your peers? No prove necessary, everyone is a suspect, crime or no crime....
Someone please help...read the Bill of Rights...
12
The same government employees Snowden demonstrated illegally hacked into Apple, Google, Microsoft and phone company networks and violated the United States Constitution by downloading the electronic data of every American President Obama directs to "propose solutions to the technology access issue." Neither President Obama nor his intelligence agencies have any credibility on this issue.
Instead President Obama should study the United States Constitution again, task all the employees in his intelligence agencies to do the same, have the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute those government employees involved in the illegal hacking scheme and grant Snowden complete immunity from prosecution for courageously exposing illegal government behavior.
President Obama should also study Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to learn that our Republic is dedicated to the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and that claims of national security should never be allowed to nullify that sacred concept.
Instead President Obama should study the United States Constitution again, task all the employees in his intelligence agencies to do the same, have the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute those government employees involved in the illegal hacking scheme and grant Snowden complete immunity from prosecution for courageously exposing illegal government behavior.
President Obama should also study Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to learn that our Republic is dedicated to the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and that claims of national security should never be allowed to nullify that sacred concept.
9
The government is now hoist with it's own petard! Had it not abusively, illegally and secretly overreached in seeking "everything" and got its way with a compliant and complacent FISA court it woul not be in this situation today.
7
NeverLift,
e-Communications must be encrypted as basic security in this era of endless hacks. Ask Sony. Yes, a warrant should be enforceable. But if a letter is encrypted, the government must break the code, as with the Zimmerman telegram, which was not broken by Western Union. Apple, Blackberry, Samsung, MSFT, etc. should refuse to do any more than provide the encrypted data.
Remember that Apple's decrypting of data implies that Apple employees may have access to the clear text, which becomes another security issue.
The government has other methods available. Apple is not the email police.
e-Communications must be encrypted as basic security in this era of endless hacks. Ask Sony. Yes, a warrant should be enforceable. But if a letter is encrypted, the government must break the code, as with the Zimmerman telegram, which was not broken by Western Union. Apple, Blackberry, Samsung, MSFT, etc. should refuse to do any more than provide the encrypted data.
Remember that Apple's decrypting of data implies that Apple employees may have access to the clear text, which becomes another security issue.
The government has other methods available. Apple is not the email police.
6
Of course the Zimmerman telegram was a fake, but still.
The charges against Eliot Spitzer are a clear example of government abuse of personal information for partisan political reasons.
Spitzer's bank reported a "suspicious pattern" in Spitzer's banking activity. The Republican federal prosecutors went after a Democratic governor, charging him with activities that actually weren't a crime. The other clients uncovered with Spitzer weren't charged.
Then the Republican prosecutors agreed to drop the charges in a plea bargain that required an effective and popular Democratic governor to resign his post to be replaced by an ineffective Lieutenant Governor, who didn't even want the job. If a Republican had been elected governor instead of Cuomo, they would have totally succeeded.
If you allow prosecutors to investigate private lives in a dragnet, they *will* abuse that information for partisan political purposes (as J. Edgar Hoover did).
These "national security," "ticking bomb" scenarios are a sham. This is a fundamental violation of the Bill of Rights.
Spitzer's bank reported a "suspicious pattern" in Spitzer's banking activity. The Republican federal prosecutors went after a Democratic governor, charging him with activities that actually weren't a crime. The other clients uncovered with Spitzer weren't charged.
Then the Republican prosecutors agreed to drop the charges in a plea bargain that required an effective and popular Democratic governor to resign his post to be replaced by an ineffective Lieutenant Governor, who didn't even want the job. If a Republican had been elected governor instead of Cuomo, they would have totally succeeded.
If you allow prosecutors to investigate private lives in a dragnet, they *will* abuse that information for partisan political purposes (as J. Edgar Hoover did).
These "national security," "ticking bomb" scenarios are a sham. This is a fundamental violation of the Bill of Rights.
9
"If you allow prosecutors to investigate private lives in a dragnet, they *will* abuse that information for partisan political purposes (as J. Edgar Hoover did)."
I find it incredible with all that is now know about the blackmailing done by Hoover that his name is still on the FBI headquarters in Washington, DC. It should have been removed long ago.
I find it incredible with all that is now know about the blackmailing done by Hoover that his name is still on the FBI headquarters in Washington, DC. It should have been removed long ago.
8
Not too sure about the conspiracy against him. But banks informing on their clients is pretty messed up.
2
Eliot Spitzer was New York's Attorney General, before election as Governor. His strict enforcement of New York's Securities Laws earned him numerous enemies on Wall Street. "Third Party Doctrine," abolishing privacy of individual communications with banks and telecoms, began with the oxymoronically named "Bank Secrecy Act," which totally abolished any privacy one had in their financial transactions. The only exempt transactions are those made with cash.
The government faces real threats with the hacking of the Office of Personnel Management database, containing records of all present and former Federal employees. Right now, the Chinese and Russians are cross-indexing the names of all Federal employees with security clearances, with the names on the Ashley Madison database, to determine which could be exploited for espionage purposes.
The same government which seeks to invade our privacy out of fear of "Going Dark," is too incompetent to secure its own sensitive records, making
all Americans vulnerable to exploitation by those invading their private records and communications. This is an instance of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy!
The government faces real threats with the hacking of the Office of Personnel Management database, containing records of all present and former Federal employees. Right now, the Chinese and Russians are cross-indexing the names of all Federal employees with security clearances, with the names on the Ashley Madison database, to determine which could be exploited for espionage purposes.
The same government which seeks to invade our privacy out of fear of "Going Dark," is too incompetent to secure its own sensitive records, making
all Americans vulnerable to exploitation by those invading their private records and communications. This is an instance of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy!
1
HUH! High tech companies are fighting the government over privacy issues claiming that their customers have a right to privacy. Yet, these same companies are building their software , Windows 10 being an example, to gather and store personal data without our knowledge and consent. This is like a bear and a wolf ripping apart a deer. Of course both are acting in the best interest of the deer.
16
Oxymoron - Two, or more, concepts that cannot coexist.
Eg., giant tech companies and privacy. [lower case deliberate]
Eg., giant tech companies and privacy. [lower case deliberate]
1
I don't understand why the tech companies are "tangling" with the government over data access? In the end, they have ZERO say. And no matter what the final ruling turns out to be...the government will just do what they want, anyway. We all know that, by now.
5
Wire-tapping is tech-dependent. FBI and Homeland want to turn back the clock. But they broke it: from Patriotic Act to Snowden, its been a race to end privacy.
Reap what you sow. Feds can still try to spook us with "guys with loose nukes," but those salad days have passed.
With tech firms, it's not wire-tapping. Think about it: today's messages aren't intercepted; they're sitting on servers. Why? Consumers want access to their old emails. They're in a vault. Is it a safe deposit box or a school locker? That's the question.
Reap what you sow. Feds can still try to spook us with "guys with loose nukes," but those salad days have passed.
With tech firms, it's not wire-tapping. Think about it: today's messages aren't intercepted; they're sitting on servers. Why? Consumers want access to their old emails. They're in a vault. Is it a safe deposit box or a school locker? That's the question.
5
The US government have only itself to thank for this. They relied too much on no one will ever know. (Had it not been E. Snowden, it inevitably would have been some other whistle blower.) Of course private citizens and companies alike have close to zero trust in the NSA and the government when every single word transmitted is being scooped up by Big Brother.
Had our government(s) behaved in a moral and ethical way and not behaved as every man, woman and child is a suspect, this sort of encryption software would never have come about.
Of course tech and telecom companies would have turned over specific court ordered requests when it comes to serious crime and terrorism.
Had our government(s) behaved in a moral and ethical way and not behaved as every man, woman and child is a suspect, this sort of encryption software would never have come about.
Of course tech and telecom companies would have turned over specific court ordered requests when it comes to serious crime and terrorism.
4
The FBI needs to do it the old-fashioned way: GET A WARRANT!
11
This is a complex issue but shockingly easy to solve. Here is my idea. Each large corporation has a private room and staff dedicated to sharing information with law enforcement. When an warrant is issued law enforcement visits this room to view the relevant data. The corporations control this process and show only the pertinent data. There is no need for the government to have "the keys" to all encrypted data. And just like a lending library the government need special permission to remove any data for court appearances. If the cops want to track criminal text messages "live" they will have to place a team inside this room. And if corporations are good citizens like they say they are they will happy cover the cost of this that ensures our privacy and helps the law. Simple. So simple.
" Each large corporation has a private room and staff dedicated to sharing information with law enforcement"
And will the government also cover the costs of this private room and staff? I rather doubt it.
And will the government also cover the costs of this private room and staff? I rather doubt it.
1
If corporations had such a room they could just hand the keys to the governments and save the cost. When a key exists it will be found and abused.
1
The Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA and other spook agencies should stop trying to mass surveil in the name of protecting Americans.
What good has mass surveillance done in the past 20-30 years? The U.S.S. Cole foolishly docked at Yemen, an anarchic place full of jihadist groups, and was rewarded with a suicide bomb that blew a hole in its hull and 47 dead sailors.
The agencies were basically warned in advance by the Israelis and the Germans about a possible jet plane based attack in the months leading up to 9/11, and the warnings were ignored. Israeli agents were even said to be actively tracking some of the Saudis involved in 9/11. The Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were actively and openly training tens of thousands of fighters. How could our government not have connected the dots?
The Russians telephoned to warn about two Chechen brothers likely to make mischief, and this warning was ignored; they went on to detonate a bomb at the Boston Marathon.
I wonder how many other warnings are being ignored by top-heavy bureaucracies full of technocrats who are better at filling out forms than making intelligent deductions.
And now they are demanding full access to my telecommunications, just in case I might be a terrorist? No, thank you. Let's instead bring back some real intelligence to our intelligence agencies and let them do the hard work of tracking down and apprehending the nefarious groups that we all know are out there.
What good has mass surveillance done in the past 20-30 years? The U.S.S. Cole foolishly docked at Yemen, an anarchic place full of jihadist groups, and was rewarded with a suicide bomb that blew a hole in its hull and 47 dead sailors.
The agencies were basically warned in advance by the Israelis and the Germans about a possible jet plane based attack in the months leading up to 9/11, and the warnings were ignored. Israeli agents were even said to be actively tracking some of the Saudis involved in 9/11. The Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were actively and openly training tens of thousands of fighters. How could our government not have connected the dots?
The Russians telephoned to warn about two Chechen brothers likely to make mischief, and this warning was ignored; they went on to detonate a bomb at the Boston Marathon.
I wonder how many other warnings are being ignored by top-heavy bureaucracies full of technocrats who are better at filling out forms than making intelligent deductions.
And now they are demanding full access to my telecommunications, just in case I might be a terrorist? No, thank you. Let's instead bring back some real intelligence to our intelligence agencies and let them do the hard work of tracking down and apprehending the nefarious groups that we all know are out there.
8
Very good , I too think a large part of the problem is that the agencies are suffering from an over dependence on technology. Plug in let the software do the surveillance, look for key words etc, produce a report of the number of "hits" and the few remaining actual agents read the hit reports. So what used to take an office full of people can now be done by just a few, because all they are doing is reading reports and producing executive summaries of those reports, which are compared to other summaries to determine which if any of these "hits" might actually be investigated by a real person.
Nice listing of "failures to do their job" by the Intel "community". But you've got the paradigm turned on its head.
The goal of the surveillance agencies, so-called, is to make sure that a sufficiency of painful events (deaths, murders, "terror attacks" etc., to keep Whoever Is The Current Enemy high up in the news ratings. In other marketing words, the goal is to keep The Current Enemy "Top Of Mind" -- 1st thing that comes to mind -- whenever people have a thought that "the World Is A Dangerous Place," or "They're Out To Get Me." As George Orwell so aptly pointed out, tyranny and despotism cannot successfully control and dominate an entire society without having, as a condition precedent, A Single Terrifying Enemy. This requires public bombings, public beheadings-in-foreign-lands, anything and everything to establish and maintain The Single Terrifying Enemy as Fear Factor Number One (FF#1) in the mind/psyche/culture of the people to be subjugated by the Dictator. This also explains why there is a need for so many "exercises" and "drills" and "scenarios" staged by the dictatorship. They are little more (or nothing more) than free-floating, as-yet-untriggered terror activities. (I distinguish "terror activities" from "terrorIST" activities, as the dictatorship itself is the terrorist.
You may remember Ashcroft's Fear Levels scheme (and that he can't sing for spit--but obviously thinks he can). Muy crude. "Benign Exercises gone live, with fake or real dead," better.
The goal of the surveillance agencies, so-called, is to make sure that a sufficiency of painful events (deaths, murders, "terror attacks" etc., to keep Whoever Is The Current Enemy high up in the news ratings. In other marketing words, the goal is to keep The Current Enemy "Top Of Mind" -- 1st thing that comes to mind -- whenever people have a thought that "the World Is A Dangerous Place," or "They're Out To Get Me." As George Orwell so aptly pointed out, tyranny and despotism cannot successfully control and dominate an entire society without having, as a condition precedent, A Single Terrifying Enemy. This requires public bombings, public beheadings-in-foreign-lands, anything and everything to establish and maintain The Single Terrifying Enemy as Fear Factor Number One (FF#1) in the mind/psyche/culture of the people to be subjugated by the Dictator. This also explains why there is a need for so many "exercises" and "drills" and "scenarios" staged by the dictatorship. They are little more (or nothing more) than free-floating, as-yet-untriggered terror activities. (I distinguish "terror activities" from "terrorIST" activities, as the dictatorship itself is the terrorist.
You may remember Ashcroft's Fear Levels scheme (and that he can't sing for spit--but obviously thinks he can). Muy crude. "Benign Exercises gone live, with fake or real dead," better.
1
The Israelis were a little bit vague with their descriptions, they probably still had moles that needed to be extracted before they could tell us but I am a bit sore about their moral calculus on that one.
This crush to decode and interpret our messages is driven by companies that have developed methods to do it profitably. Just as wars are often driven and promoted by arms dealers and weapons manufacturers, the same is true in intelligence.
2
You're right. It's all about monetization by corporations. However, governments have lost our trust and respect when it comes to protecting us on the privacy and freedoms front thanks to the Bush era. Actions such as those from Justice, FBI, NSA, et al only proves the point. Shouldn't we be asking who is best to protect our rights and freedoms THEN hold them to it? Do we really want just corporations or just governments or just individuals protecting what is our natural rights? As citizens of a "free" world, maybe we should not be so easily persuaded by corporations and governments to "give it all up" just for a little convenience. We all NEED to take back control and if corporations/governments want me, my information, etc. then come to me directly - not through evilly devised back doors.
2
How ironic! Civil liberties, free speech, the right to carry and high tech terrorism are biting the government of the "greatest country on earth" (NOT!) in the butt.
2
The US Government computers are wide open to hacking attacks that place everyone at risk for identity theft. Corporations are open to theft of intellectual property by aggressive third party hacking attacks. Foreign governments have nearly open access to confidential/secret government files. Duh.......
And the US FBI/Homeland Security/NSA are screaming because they can't hack MY PHONE, what absurdity. If the US Government gave some kind of priority to security their own systems we would be more secure!
And the US FBI/Homeland Security/NSA are screaming because they can't hack MY PHONE, what absurdity. If the US Government gave some kind of priority to security their own systems we would be more secure!
5
You are missing an important point. If American courts can reach at will into data stored on Microsoft servers in Europe, China, Russia, etc. then Microsoft's global business is dead as a doornail.
5
If what has been found so far in Mrs. Clinton's email is SOOO important then there should be a dozen House and Senate Committees working on this.
1
This public theater is both hilarious and pathetic.
All these companies have shown their complete willingness to compromise their users' privacy for any governmental agency that asks, warrant or not.
Both Microsoft and Apple (and for all I know Google) have shown the NSA how to enable the webcams and microphones in computers without letting the owner be aware it has happened. Which means the NSA (and who knows who else) can monitor you inside your home at will.
And now they're suddenly concerned about user privacy. It is to laugh.
All these companies have shown their complete willingness to compromise their users' privacy for any governmental agency that asks, warrant or not.
Both Microsoft and Apple (and for all I know Google) have shown the NSA how to enable the webcams and microphones in computers without letting the owner be aware it has happened. Which means the NSA (and who knows who else) can monitor you inside your home at will.
And now they're suddenly concerned about user privacy. It is to laugh.
4
I would say that the private sector has evolved in it's understanding of security, much more so than government. Government has clearly demonstrated that it cannot protect data in the long run, while business can move more quickly to repair weakness when found. No system will ever be 100%,
Government demands data for which it has not specific use, and cannot protect what it has. DOJ should be hesitant about challenging Apple, Microsoft, et al on this issue because public opinion and attitudes have changed. Loss in court at any level is a disaster for the policy of government over reach. Congress as well as the courts need to revisit this and give more clarity in balancing privacy of citizens ( corporate and otherwise) with what may or may not be legitimate concerns of the government.
Government demands data for which it has not specific use, and cannot protect what it has. DOJ should be hesitant about challenging Apple, Microsoft, et al on this issue because public opinion and attitudes have changed. Loss in court at any level is a disaster for the policy of government over reach. Congress as well as the courts need to revisit this and give more clarity in balancing privacy of citizens ( corporate and otherwise) with what may or may not be legitimate concerns of the government.
The DOJ has no need to challenge tech companies in court. All that is needed is to appear before the secret FISA court and ask for a warrant. In its entire history, the secret FISA court has NEVER turned down a SINGLE request for a secret warrant. Ever.
The FISA court is the sort of thing we decried as a country when the Russians and other dictatorships used them. No one opposed to the warrant may appear with a counter argument, it is a felony to discuss getting a FISA warrant or contacting an attorney about it, and getting one is a foregone conclusion.
It's just perfect for a government which has allowed its spook community to spiral totally out of control with unlimited power in spying on its citizens. I had great hopes for Obama, but he turned out to be even worse than Bush in this regard. We are in very serious trouble in this country, and it seems we're finally starting to come out of our stupor.
The FISA court is the sort of thing we decried as a country when the Russians and other dictatorships used them. No one opposed to the warrant may appear with a counter argument, it is a felony to discuss getting a FISA warrant or contacting an attorney about it, and getting one is a foregone conclusion.
It's just perfect for a government which has allowed its spook community to spiral totally out of control with unlimited power in spying on its citizens. I had great hopes for Obama, but he turned out to be even worse than Bush in this regard. We are in very serious trouble in this country, and it seems we're finally starting to come out of our stupor.
Clearly the federal government Has major IT issues that require immediate attention by Senate Committee:
1. The governments computes/systems are not secure as they are continually hacked
2. The government doesn't have a program to see if non-authorized computers, servers, devises per policies & procedures are accessing their network, servers, etc
4. The government does not have the expertise & technologies to code break encrypted emails, voice communications, etc
Yet millions/billions were spent to house American data.
We need a US CIO who reports directly to the people i.e the combined houses of Congress,
1. The governments computes/systems are not secure as they are continually hacked
2. The government doesn't have a program to see if non-authorized computers, servers, devises per policies & procedures are accessing their network, servers, etc
4. The government does not have the expertise & technologies to code break encrypted emails, voice communications, etc
Yet millions/billions were spent to house American data.
We need a US CIO who reports directly to the people i.e the combined houses of Congress,
8
Its about time both the public and private sectors begin to take individual privacy seriously.
13
"President Obama has charged White House, Homeland Security and cybersecurity officials, along with those at the Justice Department, the F.B.I. and the intelligence agencies, with proposing solutions to the technology access issue."
Say it isn't so, President Obama tasks the same people that Snowden demonstrated illegally hacked into Apple, Google, Microsoft and phone company networks and intentionally violated the United States Constitution by downloading the electronic data of every American to "propose solutions to the technology access issue." Neither President Obama nor his intelligence agencies have any credibility on this issue.
Perhaps President Obama should study the United States Constitution again, task all the employees in his intelligence agencies to do the same, have the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute those government employees involved in illegal hacking scheme and grant Snowden complete immunity from prosecution for courageously exposing illegal government behavior.
President Obama should also study Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to learn that our Republic is dedicated to the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and that claims of national security should never be allowed to nullify that sacred concept.
Say it isn't so, President Obama tasks the same people that Snowden demonstrated illegally hacked into Apple, Google, Microsoft and phone company networks and intentionally violated the United States Constitution by downloading the electronic data of every American to "propose solutions to the technology access issue." Neither President Obama nor his intelligence agencies have any credibility on this issue.
Perhaps President Obama should study the United States Constitution again, task all the employees in his intelligence agencies to do the same, have the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute those government employees involved in illegal hacking scheme and grant Snowden complete immunity from prosecution for courageously exposing illegal government behavior.
President Obama should also study Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to learn that our Republic is dedicated to the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and that claims of national security should never be allowed to nullify that sacred concept.
13
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"? Dream along. The US is governed by big corporations and lobbyists, "o the money, by the money,for the money." One country under the dollar. In money we trust.
This is the elephant in the room. We now have a permanent 24/7 infrastructure for surveillance. Part private enterprise; part government. Ironically, we as consumers, pay for it's development and maintenance.
We shop online, manage our recurring bills, search for information, exchange email, read the online press. Every aspect of our daily life is tracked, recorded, and stored for further use. Mobile carriers report a steep decline in use of cell phones for voice traffic. We now send emails, tweets, instagrams, everything in a form that's easy to intercept and analyse with computer tools.
The companies that provide these services are all over the map about what constitutes privacy. At least in the commercial realm. There are essentially no standards for protecting privacy and, indeed, no formal definition for it.
To date, the Federal government has been kept at arms length from what constitutes an electronic dossier on all it's citizens. The Patriot Act, as passed, allows the government to request digital history for the purpose of tracking "terrorists", but now, we find out, it's a tool for criminal justice. On occasion, for civil cases against business and spouses (in divorce cases).
It's clear that placing legal protections in place has become a critical priority, but unfortunately we have a Congress that is functionally technically illiterate, and a Supreme Court, that in it's current make up, leans toward granting the government excessive access.
We shop online, manage our recurring bills, search for information, exchange email, read the online press. Every aspect of our daily life is tracked, recorded, and stored for further use. Mobile carriers report a steep decline in use of cell phones for voice traffic. We now send emails, tweets, instagrams, everything in a form that's easy to intercept and analyse with computer tools.
The companies that provide these services are all over the map about what constitutes privacy. At least in the commercial realm. There are essentially no standards for protecting privacy and, indeed, no formal definition for it.
To date, the Federal government has been kept at arms length from what constitutes an electronic dossier on all it's citizens. The Patriot Act, as passed, allows the government to request digital history for the purpose of tracking "terrorists", but now, we find out, it's a tool for criminal justice. On occasion, for civil cases against business and spouses (in divorce cases).
It's clear that placing legal protections in place has become a critical priority, but unfortunately we have a Congress that is functionally technically illiterate, and a Supreme Court, that in it's current make up, leans toward granting the government excessive access.
9
Bravo to Apple and Microsoft for standing up to Big Brother! Still, to protect yourself from the overreaching of government, you are better served by using 2nd party systems such as Silent Circle, which can protect both your voice and email communications to a much greater extent.
My co-inventor and I have experienced a troubling phenomena on several occasions wherein we are discussing the acquisition of certain technical equipment via' cellphone and, within a matter of hours, we are contacted by some commercial entity inquiring if we would be interested in buying this same equipment.
This tells me that our overheard communications are being shared with certain commercial entities, which is potentially worse than their mere use as 'meta data' as it indicates that, contrary to government assertions, they are actually listening to our every word.
My co-inventor and I have experienced a troubling phenomena on several occasions wherein we are discussing the acquisition of certain technical equipment via' cellphone and, within a matter of hours, we are contacted by some commercial entity inquiring if we would be interested in buying this same equipment.
This tells me that our overheard communications are being shared with certain commercial entities, which is potentially worse than their mere use as 'meta data' as it indicates that, contrary to government assertions, they are actually listening to our every word.
2
Beautifully and adeptly written, OSS. I hope the necessary people pay close attention to what you've said.
1
Does apple’s behavior make her a technology extremist?
The government and corporations will not protect your data any better than they do now. It will all be hacked and be the prime target of the Chinese, Russians and whoever. Government will also share all your data with "friendly" foreign powers, like Saudi Arabia. At least this time the interest of the people and corporations is aligned.
3
The big American/Supranational tech monopolies and oligopolies, including Apple, Google, big telecoms, et al, and the government national security apparatus, are one and the same. What I find surprising is that in this post-Snowden age some may still hang on to the notion that these big companies are really, truly putting on a (real) fight to protect customers from government surveillance.
Not only have these companies been in cahoots with government, they are currently deploying and using the latest tools when it comes to building millions and millions of dossiers (customer data?) in order to build both, personal and group psychographic information used to manipulate people, not only for commercial ends (advertising), but as propaganda tools.
Not only have these companies been in cahoots with government, they are currently deploying and using the latest tools when it comes to building millions and millions of dossiers (customer data?) in order to build both, personal and group psychographic information used to manipulate people, not only for commercial ends (advertising), but as propaganda tools.
8
Apple, Google, MS et al get most of their revenues outside the US and their future growth prospects are also. If they can't persuade the EU and China that they aren't in bed with the NSA their future is bleak. So it's to their own interest to keep the NSA at arms length.
1
Sorry folks, I'm with Apple and Microsoft on this one. I have more faith in them than I do in this or any other Justice Department. If this country was truly serious about national security they'd start by making sure those who shouldn't be in this country aren't. Instead they are releasing felons in to the population and turning their backs on those who repeatedly break the law by crossing back into this country and committing crimes.
It's lazy mans security to sweep everyone's cell phone and emails instead of being forced to target the actual bad guys. You get a warrant for a legal wiretap in an open court. The Fourth amendment exists for a reason, folks, otherwise we can all be rounded up for "national security" reasons.
It never ceases to amaze me that the same collection of liberals, here in the NY Times, who vilified Bush's Justice Department relentlessly, are more than willing to put their trust in Obama's crew. You are fools, they are doing exactly the same thing Bush's bunch did, on steroids.....
It's lazy mans security to sweep everyone's cell phone and emails instead of being forced to target the actual bad guys. You get a warrant for a legal wiretap in an open court. The Fourth amendment exists for a reason, folks, otherwise we can all be rounded up for "national security" reasons.
It never ceases to amaze me that the same collection of liberals, here in the NY Times, who vilified Bush's Justice Department relentlessly, are more than willing to put their trust in Obama's crew. You are fools, they are doing exactly the same thing Bush's bunch did, on steroids.....
11
In the Apple case, the Justice Department did go to court for a wiretap order from a judge. It targeted a specific suspect in a specific case. The same process as other wiretaps. It wasn't a sweep.
I agree with your main points, but in my opinion, it's not really a partisan issue.
There are conservatives and liberals around the country and in the Congress who are united against domestic warrantless surveillance. Even Obama, running for President in 2008, speechified against it, though he flipped to the other side once elected.
There are also conservatives and liberals who favor domestic warrantless surveillance, as well; I've met many of them. Their standard line: "I have nothing to hide, and it's worth the cost if we catch terrorists."
Of course, there's little evidence that mass surveillance even works, and when they miss the big obvious clues that point to an imminent attack, you have to wonder what kind of nincompoops are running these agencies.
There are conservatives and liberals around the country and in the Congress who are united against domestic warrantless surveillance. Even Obama, running for President in 2008, speechified against it, though he flipped to the other side once elected.
There are also conservatives and liberals who favor domestic warrantless surveillance, as well; I've met many of them. Their standard line: "I have nothing to hide, and it's worth the cost if we catch terrorists."
Of course, there's little evidence that mass surveillance even works, and when they miss the big obvious clues that point to an imminent attack, you have to wonder what kind of nincompoops are running these agencies.
3
I'm not sure what you base you end conclusion on. Can you elaborate. Where and when have most of the NYT's readership ceded their privacy concerns to the current administration. Far as I can tell, we scream and protest whenever/wherever it is relevant with respect to this issue. Get your head out of your Trump manifesto and take a hit of O2.
This must be the first time “congress,” “competence," and “privacy” have appeared in the same sentence.
19
Just try to block Microsoft or Apple or Google from gathering your personal data when your computer is on. It's next to impossible. That, my friends, is called BIG BROTHER - not the government.
7
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Apple. Google, you are spot on. I suggest you go get yourself a good education on the subject before you make such an ignorant statement.
In 1984 Big Brother refers to the government.
Apple, et al, have deliberately created a technology that prevents legal, and Constitutional, warrants from achieving their legal, and Constitutional, ends. They did so knowing they were enabling criminal, even terrorist, activity. Enabling such activities is well established in law as a criminal act itself. That cannot be permitted to continue.
The Justice Department should obtain a court order authorizing the immediate seizure of their assets and facilities, to remain in effect until they provide to the legally authorized agencies access to the back door chip I expect they've built into their products. If Apple hasn't created such a back door: Shut them down, permanently, just as they would any criminal enterprise.
The Justice Department should obtain a court order authorizing the immediate seizure of their assets and facilities, to remain in effect until they provide to the legally authorized agencies access to the back door chip I expect they've built into their products. If Apple hasn't created such a back door: Shut them down, permanently, just as they would any criminal enterprise.
2
Nonsense. If it is impermissible, not to mention impractical, to gain access to private, direct conversions amongst individuals, why should it be permissible to intercept electronic conversations?
The right to privacy should not be violated.
The right to privacy should not be violated.
1
Give it a rest. You have no clue what you are talking about. In case you didn't know it, it is perfectly legal, and in fact recommend to encrypt and secure your data. Period. The government is actually pushing companies to increase their security due to the threats of hacking and IT terrorism. They can't have it both ways. So get off your ill informed soapbox and stand by the Constitution. We are already spending 10's of BILLIONS of dollars to combat crime and terrism. Our expectations should be that law enforcement does their job with the resources they have. I have encryption on my phone, and that is a personal, Constitutional choice, and just one of the reasons I chose an iPhone. I want my data secure from hacking, by any and all entities.
1
You need to learn something about the Constitution. It does not permit massive collection of citizen's data, especially without a warrant. The criminals here are the government government agencies. But then again, they can always rely upon our supine and frightened Congress to retroactively legalize their criminal behavior, as Congress did with the telcos-NSA violations.
3
“It’s important that we do not let these technological innovations undermine our ability to protect the community from significant national security and public safety challenges,” Sally Q. Yates, the deputy attorney general, told Congress this summer.
==================================================
That would have been made far easier if the government had taken more seriously its oath to protect the Constitution. Karma, and all that.
==================================================
That would have been made far easier if the government had taken more seriously its oath to protect the Constitution. Karma, and all that.
7
Perhaps the government should expose all of their information to the people in real time so that we can decide whether or not what they are doing is illegal. If they aren't doing anything illegal, they have nothing to fear.
19
A modest proposal. Until such time corporate and government interests can come up with a back room deal about this, we offshore & outsource our government to Iceland.
7
None of this is about either security or privacy. It's about money. Apple and Microsoft only became *publicly* concerned about the privacy of their customer data after financial analysts concluded that Snowden's revelations are resulting in tremendous economic losses for them, as global customers cease doing business with them.
What we have is a taxpayer-financed government entity -- the NSA -- trying to grow its information business by competing with investor-financed private market businesses like Apple and Microsoft. The governments cries of "security" and Apple's cries of "privacy" are driven deeply, behind the scenes, by urges any ordinary person can easily understand: management's needs to "grow the business," and employees needs to keep a job.
What we have is a taxpayer-financed government entity -- the NSA -- trying to grow its information business by competing with investor-financed private market businesses like Apple and Microsoft. The governments cries of "security" and Apple's cries of "privacy" are driven deeply, behind the scenes, by urges any ordinary person can easily understand: management's needs to "grow the business," and employees needs to keep a job.
4
Companies like Google and Apple have a lot of internal objectors to government intrusion. These companies are composed largely of highly educated, independent minded technologists who are much better informed and aware of how the government could abuse their secret access to what the customers thought was private communications.
Telecommunications customers demand privacy and security in their communications. They will do business with whomever can meet their needs. As a consequence of the exposure of NSA mass warrant-less surveillance, many potential customers have turned away from American technology and services to find necessary security elsewhere. These abuses of customers' privacy has cost American firms billions in business, particularly in the provision of cloud services. The government, particularly the Intelligence Community, must make a decision as to whether the cost to the American economy is with the imposition of mass warrant-less surveillance.
1
True, I'll grant you that the are highly educated technologists, but when it comes to preserving the governments secrets (no doubt they were "gagged" with secret orders that if they revealed 'this or that', they'd be put in prison) they are no more independently minded than any other citizen -- they comply and keep the state's secrets. Well-educated "right to privacy" individuals are just as vulnerable and pliable to State coercion as everyone else.
1
Apple, Google and Microsoft can stop acting like the "good guys". They want privacy rights, and civil liberties advocates, to be on their side? Really? Why should they? Considering these companies sold out years ago, and it took few brave people, willing to risk their lives, careers and their own citizenship, to let us know what these companies were doing (called snooping), storing and could later use. Now they are the victims of government actions? Puleeeeease! One should be less worried about government collection of data than these guys selling information to the highest bidder, and making no whistle blower would every blow on them. The only reason these companies did not knock Snowden off is because he ratted on the NSA and other government organizations that were spying on its people. If he revealed stuff on Google (that goes to the highest bidder, and probably Likud party...who knows) then he would have been whacked before he got to Russia. These companies now have their CIA (call it Corporate Intelligence Agency)that spies around the world. They probably know everything about Snowden than the US govt. So Apple, Google and Microsoft get off your high horse, and stop want good people on your side. Some of us lost trust in your corporation long ago, and knew you were working for the bad guys too. If we can ask for all the emails of Hillary Clinton, then we can ask for all the emails of all the CEOs of the companies....Lets violate their super power privacy for a change.
3
Go get yourself a good education on the subject before you make such ill informed accusations by lumping all these companies together. Apple is the only one of these that truly supports keeping data private and doesn't gather and resell it to the highest bidder. Google most certainly does. Microsoft, I'm not sure about as I don't follow them, and try to avoid their products.
A quick question - who, reading this article and associated comments, wonders if government might not monitor this discussion and others like it in order to gauge public opinion, or for other reasons?
And who briefly wonders if commenting on the article might get one added to a government "record" of some sort, paranoid though that may seem?
And that is the character of American life post-Snowden.
And who briefly wonders if commenting on the article might get one added to a government "record" of some sort, paranoid though that may seem?
And that is the character of American life post-Snowden.
11
You're a bit confused. This is a public forum, one of thousands. The subject is about the technology companies like Apple making it more difficult to intercept text messages which are intended to be private, to be read only by the recipient.
No, I am not confused - jut wondering if the ah, net, is cast further than anyone thought. As, for instance, in the old days pre-Snowden
You're the one who is confused T - we're talking, in a larger sense, about overreach.
1
The excuses here are playing on the journalist's lack of knowledge. The encoding and decoding process is how all telecommunications work, the encryption and decryption process are simply added levels to make snooping extremely difficult. No matter how complicated the system, the messages sent must be received in an automated manner, meaning that every thing that they do must be reproducible and predictable.
1
You need a key. Just because Apple built the house doesn't mean they kept the key.
Law enforcement has gotten lazy, self-entitled & promoters of falsehoods regarding search & evidence in the digital age. No matter what intrusive technology is being discussed they always drag out terrorism or child pornography to try to shame defenders of privacy rights into shutting up- a practice that should be called out by journalists every time it is used.
No reasonable person wants bad people to go free or those charged with protecting society to be denied reasonable access to information needed to do their job. However, our various levels of government & their agencies charged with law enforcement or intelligence gathering have attempted, in secret, to throw out the citizens rights to privacy, unreasonable search & seizure as well as discovery in legal proceedings with the state secrets trump card. They have not been truthful or fair in dealings with citizens & citizen groups concerned with privacy, civil liberties, user security and legal defense.
The greatest customer of private data mining- which I contend is illegal -are government agencies. Many times they are buying data they are not allowed to collect without a court order- why get a warrant when you can buy it? This defeats the legal restrictions enacted with good reasons & should be brought to a screaming halt.
Government agencies like NIST have intentionally compromised industry standards that harm data security to provide the NSA with back doors- something that should be ended.
"Get a warrant"- SCOTUS
No reasonable person wants bad people to go free or those charged with protecting society to be denied reasonable access to information needed to do their job. However, our various levels of government & their agencies charged with law enforcement or intelligence gathering have attempted, in secret, to throw out the citizens rights to privacy, unreasonable search & seizure as well as discovery in legal proceedings with the state secrets trump card. They have not been truthful or fair in dealings with citizens & citizen groups concerned with privacy, civil liberties, user security and legal defense.
The greatest customer of private data mining- which I contend is illegal -are government agencies. Many times they are buying data they are not allowed to collect without a court order- why get a warrant when you can buy it? This defeats the legal restrictions enacted with good reasons & should be brought to a screaming halt.
Government agencies like NIST have intentionally compromised industry standards that harm data security to provide the NSA with back doors- something that should be ended.
"Get a warrant"- SCOTUS
13
Let me add that with all the data collection they do, the government has been unable to "connect the dots" on too many occasions.
1
Perhaps if the NSA hadn't abused it's power so egregiously they wouldn't now encounter such resistance. Not only can't they be trusted, it's also recently been made abundantly clear that the U.S. goverenment can't even be trusted to adequately protect its own data let alone anyone else's Given that level of ineptitude and subterfuge no wonder they're in the position they're in.
16
Not just a matter of trust, the NSA has repeatedly lied about its activities.
Corporate control of government policy seldom sees the light of day. When satisfying consumer privacy concerns increase corporate profits what's a lobbyist to do but crawl out from under a rock.
2
Apple is not the email police.
Once it was wire taps. With (or often without) a warrant police and agents could listen to and record calls. Warrants required specific reasons and judicial oversight in each case. But there was never an expectation that the phone companies do the tapping, recording, and provide the transcripts.
All that has changed. The role of the phone companies, private for-profit companies, is seen as custodians of customer data for later decryption and data trolling. The government does not obtain the information by its own actions through its warranted authority. Instead companies are asked to provide the private communications of customers, and presumably even decrypt that data.
Private companies do not have such warrant authority, governments do. Private companies are expected to open their customers' mail and phone calls even though they have no legal basis for doing the government's job. Criminals exist and use phones. So do abusive governments, as we have seen recently from Iran to Egypt to Russia. We have repeatedly seen our government abuse its authority. The NYTimes has been a leader in reporting such abuses.
The idea that encrypted private data belongs phone providers is wrong. It belongs to the customers, just as their snail mail does not belong to the (privatized) Post Office.
Once it was wire taps. With (or often without) a warrant police and agents could listen to and record calls. Warrants required specific reasons and judicial oversight in each case. But there was never an expectation that the phone companies do the tapping, recording, and provide the transcripts.
All that has changed. The role of the phone companies, private for-profit companies, is seen as custodians of customer data for later decryption and data trolling. The government does not obtain the information by its own actions through its warranted authority. Instead companies are asked to provide the private communications of customers, and presumably even decrypt that data.
Private companies do not have such warrant authority, governments do. Private companies are expected to open their customers' mail and phone calls even though they have no legal basis for doing the government's job. Criminals exist and use phones. So do abusive governments, as we have seen recently from Iran to Egypt to Russia. We have repeatedly seen our government abuse its authority. The NYTimes has been a leader in reporting such abuses.
The idea that encrypted private data belongs phone providers is wrong. It belongs to the customers, just as their snail mail does not belong to the (privatized) Post Office.
13
Good analogy. But a court order can open that private snail mail. It would be a violation of such orders for the Post Office to seal mail inside some sort of impenetrable facility that prevented the execution of the court orders -- which is exactly what Apple has done.
1
This is about snooping without court orders, not preventing the execution of court orders. If there were orders, fine, comply with them or end up in contempt. This is about widespread and automatic data collection that the government wants to access just by saying pretty please, and if that doesn't work, forcing the companies to put in a back door so the whole question is moot. (It also kills US companies internationally, but whatever.)
Court orders are just pre-911 thinking. As in 1788.
Court orders are just pre-911 thinking. As in 1788.
1
It is simply encoded during transmission in the same way that codes have been used for years in radio transmissions, telegraph messages, and even letters. The Post Office doesn't demand and maintain the means of deciphering encrypted mail and it shouldn't. But yes, the real issue is whether the government should be able to SECRETLY read you mail.
"...Apple’s response: Its iMessage system was encrypted and the company could not comply..."
Really? If the encryption prevents anyone from accessing the data, then how can the users access that data? Somebody is misrepresenting the facts, here, and the journalist is being played for techno dummy. Encryption keys must be capable of being decrypted or they would be useless. There are no international entities not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government that does not use the most sophisticated encryption they can find, so confronting encryption barriers are not something as tough as they claim.
The only rational means of securing our information in computer systems connected to the outside is very strong encryption and safe practices to restrict access to only those who can be trusted. It means that anyone who wants access must be given permission, they cannot just peruse anyone's information as they might wish.
The problem seems to be that the government wants instant access to anyone's information, kind of like the ability to search and seize without any due process or impediments like search warrants that can be challenged in court, and the problem this would present is to leave everyone's systems open to any and everyone who wishes to access them besides themselves as the price. The government is just going to have to use the courts to get encryption keys and it's going to have to live with orders that are effective for limited times, only.
Really? If the encryption prevents anyone from accessing the data, then how can the users access that data? Somebody is misrepresenting the facts, here, and the journalist is being played for techno dummy. Encryption keys must be capable of being decrypted or they would be useless. There are no international entities not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government that does not use the most sophisticated encryption they can find, so confronting encryption barriers are not something as tough as they claim.
The only rational means of securing our information in computer systems connected to the outside is very strong encryption and safe practices to restrict access to only those who can be trusted. It means that anyone who wants access must be given permission, they cannot just peruse anyone's information as they might wish.
The problem seems to be that the government wants instant access to anyone's information, kind of like the ability to search and seize without any due process or impediments like search warrants that can be challenged in court, and the problem this would present is to leave everyone's systems open to any and everyone who wishes to access them besides themselves as the price. The government is just going to have to use the courts to get encryption keys and it's going to have to live with orders that are effective for limited times, only.
6
Seriously? "...access to those that can be trusted." Who would that be again? How naive.
iMessage is an IOS to IOS service that is encrypted and decrypted by the end user client using keys to which Apple does not have access. By design. Apple doesn't hold messages. It delivers them or (not) and then deletes them, soon after attempting delivery. There is no long-term storage mechanism. Its not like email.
The newer iPhones are also encrypted at the disk level, so the phone cannot be read easily without knowing the device key.
Apple is not playing games. They know what they are doing, and they are doing it right. They don't "hold", messages are encrypted, and they don't have the keys.
The iMessage key is known by the device even if the user is clueless. End users unlock the device keys, usually without knowing, when they unlock the phone with their PIN or fingerprint. No-one really knows the keys, but the phone owner controls them by controlling access to the phone.
If Apple servers did store encrypted data to which it owned no keys, it could only turn over the cipher text.
Bravo! Apple. Revenge of the nerds. Let the Bureaucrats fume.
The newer iPhones are also encrypted at the disk level, so the phone cannot be read easily without knowing the device key.
Apple is not playing games. They know what they are doing, and they are doing it right. They don't "hold", messages are encrypted, and they don't have the keys.
The iMessage key is known by the device even if the user is clueless. End users unlock the device keys, usually without knowing, when they unlock the phone with their PIN or fingerprint. No-one really knows the keys, but the phone owner controls them by controlling access to the phone.
If Apple servers did store encrypted data to which it owned no keys, it could only turn over the cipher text.
Bravo! Apple. Revenge of the nerds. Let the Bureaucrats fume.
Apple and Google are not Telecommunication companies; true. However, they do provide telecommunication services and as such those activities should be subject to the same rules as telecommunication companies are. In simple terms, the rules should apply to the service provided, not some general categorization of the type of company they are. Comcast has been committing heinous acts against consumers for years because they were not consider a telecommunications company. All telecommunications services, regardless of who or how provided should be covered by common rules that apply to all (related to wiretapping, etc.). Privacy rights and consumer protection though must be the first and highest priority.
3
Keep out of my postal mail should also mean stay out of my email. This governmental snooping has to stop, NOW!
6
"Probable cause" is the key. In this time of international terrorism and crime our appropriate government agencies should not have their hands tied.
We already allow defense attorneys to lie in court, remember they are not sworn to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Of course we deserve our privacy, but security of the general population trumps keeping Johnnies birthday party secret.
We already allow defense attorneys to lie in court, remember they are not sworn to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Of course we deserve our privacy, but security of the general population trumps keeping Johnnies birthday party secret.
The whole constitution ties the hands of gov in many different ways. It sets out the basic rules by which our country operates. One of the basic rules is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Exactly what China and Russia would say. Fortunately, we are not them. My Constitution tells me so.
Then "unreasonable" is the antithesis of "probable cause".?
That's where the court cases start?
Thank you
That's where the court cases start?
Thank you
Post Snowden, I have a hard time trusting that the corporations or government are honest and truthful on issues about privacy and access to data. A cynical person may see this whole controversy as a disinformation campaign orchestrated to make the bad guys trust the technology once again.
2
I don't believe the primary purpose for the creation of these unconstitutional secret spy programs and courts had much to do with terrorism. I believe 9/11 was used as an EXCUSE to impose them.
What could a corporate-owned pawn in the White House do with a lifetime of someone's communications?
Identify the opposition, cherry pick their data, label them an "Enemy of the State", quietly arrest them at night, try them in a secret court, and claim national security if scrutinized.
It could happen, Folks.
What could a corporate-owned pawn in the White House do with a lifetime of someone's communications?
Identify the opposition, cherry pick their data, label them an "Enemy of the State", quietly arrest them at night, try them in a secret court, and claim national security if scrutinized.
It could happen, Folks.
6
The (expected) consequences of the Snowden/NSA affairs. Clients -- domestic and international -- have lost trust in American internet corporation's ability to protect data and preserve privacy. A high stake global game in which billions of dollars are up for grabs. US-China are the key players in this new area of wealth creation .
3
I'm sorry if I don't buy the tech companies' argument that somehow they're protecting customer and user data. They routinely use the same data for their own business models and to advance their own interests. While they may tout "security" and encryption in their marketing materials, they effectively monetize the same data they ostensibly shield. As for the federal government, it's just a matter of time before they solve for this "problem" too, if they haven't already.
3
It strikes me that the branches of our government should actually be asking Google and Apple's advice on how to encrypt. One of the biggest threats to our national security in this day and age seems to be hacking by foreign governments or malcontents. The fact that 19.7 million who had gone through security clearance had their records hacked (and the records of 1.8 million of their friends and family!), the fact that the IRS has been hacked... All of these breaches make me feel that, as a citizen, I am not being protected. I am required to pay taxes every year - and who knows where that information is going? Will I be subject to identity fraud as a result? Those who are being cleared for top level positions - or ones that require a modicum or more of trust - are being compromised - a shameful reward for their service. Perhaps the government should be first concerned with the security failures it is responsible for by not encrypting properly?
4
Shouldn't there be requirements on the government's request for such electronic information, similar to that of going to either the FISA Court, or perhaps some version of it, which specifically deals with text messages?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
FISA is a rubber stamp operation that never says "No" to any request for a government request/demand for access.
Even the FISA judges are hand picked for their "go along" attitudes.
Even the FISA judges are hand picked for their "go along" attitudes.
I wish this was a story about David and Goliath but it's not. It's about three Cyclops: the government, Microsoft and Google, two of which are facing off against the third. All of them have little peripheral vision; they are all focused on power. In this particular case, though, the companies willing to "not share" with the government are doing the average American a favor. The government's ability to read every last e-mail and track every internet move is the recipe for totalitarianism. And while Apple and Microsoft are no innocents to privacy invasion, that invasion - as long as it has boundaries - can be managed through consumer awareness. Shared with the government, though, that invasion results in absolute oligarchic power, leaving the average American stripped naked and vulnerable in a glass house, with neither the inclination nor the ability to function outside the parameters of such scrutiny and suspicion.
2
The fact of the matter is that it has never been legal for either the US government or a US compaany to intercept and access communications. The government needs to justify the last ten years of secret surveillance before it can even be considered in having some standing.
5
once again the arrogant american government wants to be big brother and be in everyone's lives. Time for all businesses to push back and stop all the intrusion. The US blew Iraq, Iran, Syria and now wants to blow us. Obama and his gestapo are out of control.
4
Easy enough - Give the government the encrypted texts.
3
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Government prosecutors have access to considerable technologies allowing them to compromise the end-point devices.
The only "problem" is that this likely requires a warrant of some sort, and it is totally unworkable as a mass surveillance of all Americans tool, requiring manual effort in each case.
This isn't a bug, it's a *feature*. Get warrants, and focus on the important national security investigations.
The only "problem" is that this likely requires a warrant of some sort, and it is totally unworkable as a mass surveillance of all Americans tool, requiring manual effort in each case.
This isn't a bug, it's a *feature*. Get warrants, and focus on the important national security investigations.
3
A couple of posters have said that the gmnt can still solve crimes without access to internet communications by "just working harder" - but that idea doesn't quite make sense. If you value privacy above all, then to be consistent, you should object to all methods by which privacy can be invaded. It doesn't seem that there is something terrible about accessing emails, but that it would be perfectly OK to hide in the bushes outside the window, or to plant an informer in a target organization. You are eaither invading privacy, or you aren't. The underlying meaning of the right to privacy would seem to be that we shouldn't actually have laws against essentially private behavior, like drug dealing, pornography, conspiracy, or any of the other activities that the gmnt tries to investigate. But few defenders of privacy seem willing to specify that they mean the privacy of pornographers, financial schemers and extremist conspirators.
I'd say that rather than any concern with encryption and other technical matters, what we should be focusing on are the huge secret areas of our government - we need lots more openness about what our employees are up to. "Who will guard the guardians?" as someone said long ago. But that is a political issue, not a technological one.
I'd say that rather than any concern with encryption and other technical matters, what we should be focusing on are the huge secret areas of our government - we need lots more openness about what our employees are up to. "Who will guard the guardians?" as someone said long ago. But that is a political issue, not a technological one.
1
One wonders whether Google, Facebook etc, are worried about their cllients' privacy or if their real concern is their clients finding out how much data is collected and sold based on what are believed to be confidential communications.
There needs to be a genuine debate about internet privacy and legislation protecting privacy and setting parameters based on real national security needs, rather than fishing expeditions. Likely that internet companies will have to create new business plans based on protecting privacy, rather than making money from selling confidential information. I am willing to bet that if forced into it, they will find ways to be profitable without turning our screens into free billboards.
There needs to be a genuine debate about internet privacy and legislation protecting privacy and setting parameters based on real national security needs, rather than fishing expeditions. Likely that internet companies will have to create new business plans based on protecting privacy, rather than making money from selling confidential information. I am willing to bet that if forced into it, they will find ways to be profitable without turning our screens into free billboards.
2
“It’s important that we do not let these technological innovations undermine our ability to protect the community from significant national security and public safety challenges,” Sally Q. Yates, the deputy attorney general, told Congress this summer.
Thanks, Sally. All for God and Country.
Meanwhile, back at the airports, those TSA security actors, which cost billions of dollars in tax payer dollars, are still grabbing guns and knives. I'm sure if they can spy on us, they'll be grabbing nuclear weapons.
When are the drones at the Department of Justice going to indict some banksters and do something useful?
Thanks, Sally. All for God and Country.
Meanwhile, back at the airports, those TSA security actors, which cost billions of dollars in tax payer dollars, are still grabbing guns and knives. I'm sure if they can spy on us, they'll be grabbing nuclear weapons.
When are the drones at the Department of Justice going to indict some banksters and do something useful?
3
Interesting that Microsoft puts Congress and "institutional competence" in the same sentence. When NSA, FBI, et al, decide they need newer, broader authorizations, they don't invite the ACLU and the EFF to write up a nice new law. They draft it themselves and send it over to Capitol Hill, and there's little doubt that they have a crew at work on how to defend it after it has gone into action. Do you think the Pentagon is inviting the Quakers to suggest new weapons?
In this matter, Apple, Google, Microsoft and other companies are merely uber-rich corporate versions of Mrs. Kim Davis of wedding-license fame. These corporations, similar to Mrs. Davis and her "freedom of religion," wish to live by concept of privacy and therefore not comply with a court order/warrant.
See, there is a separate, tilted justice system for the uber-wealthy and corporations.
There should be no compromise with these scofflaws until they comply with a Constitutionally-sanctioned court order.
See, there is a separate, tilted justice system for the uber-wealthy and corporations.
There should be no compromise with these scofflaws until they comply with a Constitutionally-sanctioned court order.
Well, the problem lies in the definition of "Constitutionally-sanctioned" does it not? Some say yes, and some say no.
You clearly do not understand anything the article said. None of those companies are "scofflaws" or are violating any court order. The issue is they CANNOT decrypt the text messages from users (unless they store it on the cloud) because none of those companies has the decryption key. So they are violating no court order and are nothing like Kim Davis, who is trying to force her religious views on others through the use of her government powers. Davis belongs in jail.
Agreed, there should be no compromise. The government should accept that the technological realities have changed, and the cops need to get off their butts and do police work instead of expecting everything to be handed to them over the Net.
This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. BIG business pretending to protect us against OUR government, which was established to protect US from THEM? BIG business is selling OUR personal information to the highest bidder - doesn't matter who or where they are -and making BIG money from it. BIG business is socially unconscious and only about profit. We need to wake up, people.
3
I never trust a man who uses so much capitalisation. Anger issues.
Your big businesses pales into insignificance compared to the inroads that your federal agencies have made into mining your data and the manner in which they have criminally abused it. So big business mines your data and provides you with free services. Get over it. If you feel so strongly don't use their services. They are other services you can pay for which provide what you are seeking. Alternatively emigrate to the EU where data protection laws provide far greater protection for customers.
If you want big business to change then change the law in the US as we have in the EU. It's called data protection and it has to do with some new fangled notion of the right to individual privacy and protection from overweening Government. You know, the rights that US citizens used to have before they gave it away.
What large companies are doing is lawful in the US. However what your Government is doing is far more pernicious, has damaged the image of the US in the democratic world and damaged the ability of your large corporations to do business abroad. What customer or business in the EU in their right mind would do business with a US corporation who held their sensitive data in the USA? At least with Russia you know what you are getting but we expect more from the land of the free and the home of the brave than craven capitulation to Big Brother who plays on all your fears.
Your big businesses pales into insignificance compared to the inroads that your federal agencies have made into mining your data and the manner in which they have criminally abused it. So big business mines your data and provides you with free services. Get over it. If you feel so strongly don't use their services. They are other services you can pay for which provide what you are seeking. Alternatively emigrate to the EU where data protection laws provide far greater protection for customers.
If you want big business to change then change the law in the US as we have in the EU. It's called data protection and it has to do with some new fangled notion of the right to individual privacy and protection from overweening Government. You know, the rights that US citizens used to have before they gave it away.
What large companies are doing is lawful in the US. However what your Government is doing is far more pernicious, has damaged the image of the US in the democratic world and damaged the ability of your large corporations to do business abroad. What customer or business in the EU in their right mind would do business with a US corporation who held their sensitive data in the USA? At least with Russia you know what you are getting but we expect more from the land of the free and the home of the brave than craven capitulation to Big Brother who plays on all your fears.
Even if Apple and Google get rid of their systems, individual users can still use encryption on their own. It is not that difficult for technically-skilled people. All the top encryption algorithms are open source, and are easily available to anyone who can write code.
9
Obviously, you are NOT a "technically-skilled" person, or you would know that breaking those encryption codes takes about a nano-second. You must be kidding, or just vulnerable to believing your own nonsense.
Thank you for such a great article. And thank you Apple for protecting our privacy!
People now can clearly see, that any encryption is only effective, when you and only you have the key - hence end-to-end encryption.
Anyone interested in end-to-end encryption for email, I would like to recommend S/MIME standard surprisingly built-into major email clients for years. A short how-to for enabling it:
https://bravenewworld2014.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/secure-email/
People now can clearly see, that any encryption is only effective, when you and only you have the key - hence end-to-end encryption.
Anyone interested in end-to-end encryption for email, I would like to recommend S/MIME standard surprisingly built-into major email clients for years. A short how-to for enabling it:
https://bravenewworld2014.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/secure-email/
8
S/MIME is great, but it’s only useful if everyone else you email uses it too, since you can’t send an encrypted email to Alice unless she has a S/MIME certificate installed and she had previously emailed you with a signed message. As a solo user, all S/MIME allows you to do is cryptographically sign your email, not encrypt them.
According to media reports of "parallel construction," the DEA was the pioneer in clandestine violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution through illegal accessing of private communications. The frenzy over controlling substances that people choose to ingest. The Fabled "War on Drugs"created the climate that allowed these perversions of Democracy to germinate into the noxious tentacles of government reaching into all aspects of our lives and potentially ensnaring any of us at the whim of the nanny state. What a profound success that has been, with drugs cheaper and more plentiful than ever and the US now occupying the status of the greatest jailer of all time, besting even the most heinous dictatorships in the historical record! Please let us be spared from further such success...
13
This is a no-win for the average consumer; either our civil liberties and privacy are violated with wanton disregard by our own government or our data is securely protected by multi-national companies only to be sold out to the highest-bidding advertiser.
When did Apple and Google need us in their corner?
When did Apple and Google need us in their corner?
3
I am more concerned with Google and Apple and Microsoft selling information on my activities than I am with the federal government having this information.
If the ecommerce companies to not want to provide the information to the US Government agencies then they shouldn't save it in the first place.
If the ecommerce companies to not want to provide the information to the US Government agencies then they shouldn't save it in the first place.
4
...because that sets the companies above the US government in power to misuse the information. When will individuals learn that it is far more dangerous to allow private corporations to have your private financial information than it is for the government to have such financial information. Americans are generally gullible when corporations project the problem onto the government when THEY are the culprit, not the government. With government, we have checks and balances; with corporations, it is the wild, wild west.
Over 90% of Google’s revenue is from advertising; guess who’s more likely to sell your information?
Apple (and Microsoft to a lesser extent) makes money by selling devices, not selling personal information. A every keynote, Tim Cook points this out.
They’ve even put it writing as Apple believes this is a competitive advantage: http://www.apple.com/privacy/
Apple (and Microsoft to a lesser extent) makes money by selling devices, not selling personal information. A every keynote, Tim Cook points this out.
They’ve even put it writing as Apple believes this is a competitive advantage: http://www.apple.com/privacy/
Often what the government is asking/demanding is for tech companies to create "business record" that the companies have no business need for so that the government can request them under the business records rules. I mean what "business need" does Apple or AT&T have for knowing what the contents of my text/email/phone call are? all the are doing is transmitting digital data 10110010101001 from one device to another. By the same logic, the US Post office should make copies of the contents of every piece of mail sent so that the government can request it later for an investigation.
18
It strikes me that the secret services of the U.S. attack on large and rich corporations such as Apple or Google, but they almost do not pay attention to such technologies as Onion routing, while the probability that a hypothetical offender would use it, as more reliable and anonymity is significantly higher.
TOR is not owned by any corporation. It is an open-source project staffed by volunteers who are not employees. There is no one to sue.
However, the government has paid a lot of attention to TOR. It is widely believed to be completely compromised by the NSA and the FBI.
However, the government has paid a lot of attention to TOR. It is widely believed to be completely compromised by the NSA and the FBI.
3
It should be no surprise that the US government attacks large, rich corporations. Liberal/progressives can never have too much government and really hate for-profit entities. In their ideal world, everyone would work for their great god government, or at least a non-profit, never for an evil for-profit corporation.
1
Tor has not been completely compromised, though traffic analysis techniques (notably timing attacks) have been demonstrated that can make it quite difficult to use the Tor network perfectly anonymously. Also remember that part of the US government helps fund Tor as a tool to be used by activists against authoritarian regimes around the world (even as other parts, like the NSA, seek to cripple Tor).
1
"Only Congress has the institutional competence", WOW, that's a good one. Made the start of my Tuesday great!
31
I am as against prosecutorial overreach and as for privacy as most anyone, but Apple and Microsoft are not above the law, any more than a county clerk who will not follow court orders. If the government has a court order or a warrant, it is not for Apple, Google or Microsoft to decide. Apple an Microsoft seem to believe that they have only their definition of privacy to which to answer "instead of God in Kentucky"
Apple, Facebook and Google have intentionally encoded communications to the point that it cannot be accessed even by them, and then stashed it away on servers in Ireland for the purpose of obstructing our justice system before the fact. It has a nice ring to it, until you think of things like the social media recruitment of young people to go off to the Middle East to murder, behead, and die, or the kidnapping and sale of children, young people, or women in general, into sex slavery. Are apple, Google and Microsoft to create a deep web channel for this activity under the name of privacy?
Prosecutorial misconduct is abhorrent and labeling things of such as transparently providing advertising space for legitimate sex workers as "human trafficking" (search "Rentboy" in the New York Times to read its excellent editorial on this) do hurt the government's case to the people that its requests for information is necessary, but the Tech companies are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Who made the our protectors?
Apple, Facebook and Google have intentionally encoded communications to the point that it cannot be accessed even by them, and then stashed it away on servers in Ireland for the purpose of obstructing our justice system before the fact. It has a nice ring to it, until you think of things like the social media recruitment of young people to go off to the Middle East to murder, behead, and die, or the kidnapping and sale of children, young people, or women in general, into sex slavery. Are apple, Google and Microsoft to create a deep web channel for this activity under the name of privacy?
Prosecutorial misconduct is abhorrent and labeling things of such as transparently providing advertising space for legitimate sex workers as "human trafficking" (search "Rentboy" in the New York Times to read its excellent editorial on this) do hurt the government's case to the people that its requests for information is necessary, but the Tech companies are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Who made the our protectors?
4
"I am as against prosecutorial overreach and as for privacy as most anyone,"
Actually pretty much everything you say after that contradicts your first statement.
Actually pretty much everything you say after that contradicts your first statement.
3
"Prosecutorial misconduct is abhorrent"
And deserves the death penalty for those found guilty of it.
And deserves the death penalty for those found guilty of it.
1
"for the purpose of obstructing our justice system"
This part of your message looks like total speculation...
I can't speak for US companies but in Europe, we have put features like end to end encryption (or zero knowledge encryption) among the highest priority requirements when deciding on moving an IT service to the cloud. Microsoft and Apple are not implementing these in the purpose of obstructing your justice system but in order to do business anywhere else in the world.
Nobody trusts US based data processing companies. Abuse was suspected until recently, it was proven true by recent disclosures, which confirmed many suspicions. The only way US data centric companies can now do business with the rest of the world is by first and foremost showing clean hands in that particular aspect of collaborating with a government, that has clearly shown lacking the ability to differentiate crime from other legitimate activities.
Apple and Microsoft are not "obstructing justice", they are in the business of keeping your country a competitive place under a globalized market. The irony in this is that the US government is proving their point with its desperate efforts to make cryptography...unencrypted.
This part of your message looks like total speculation...
I can't speak for US companies but in Europe, we have put features like end to end encryption (or zero knowledge encryption) among the highest priority requirements when deciding on moving an IT service to the cloud. Microsoft and Apple are not implementing these in the purpose of obstructing your justice system but in order to do business anywhere else in the world.
Nobody trusts US based data processing companies. Abuse was suspected until recently, it was proven true by recent disclosures, which confirmed many suspicions. The only way US data centric companies can now do business with the rest of the world is by first and foremost showing clean hands in that particular aspect of collaborating with a government, that has clearly shown lacking the ability to differentiate crime from other legitimate activities.
Apple and Microsoft are not "obstructing justice", they are in the business of keeping your country a competitive place under a globalized market. The irony in this is that the US government is proving their point with its desperate efforts to make cryptography...unencrypted.
4
Amazing that the Federal government thinks it has rights to data stored in other countries, but is perfectly OK with companies doing business in the US while pretending to be headquartered in other countries don't have to pay US taxes. The 'security' branch of our government is completely out of control. Why do we allow our Fourth Amendment to be trampled by 'our' government?
6
This is just blatant governmental overreach. Cook is exactly right: the same backdoors that let the government through are the ones that let the bad guys through.
Kudos to Apple and Microsoft for pushing back. I hope they stay the course, and other tech companies join them in this.
Kudos to Apple and Microsoft for pushing back. I hope they stay the course, and other tech companies join them in this.
13
"he same backdoors that let the government through are the ones that let the bad guys through. "
As the NSA has proven this is a distinction without a difference.
As the NSA has proven this is a distinction without a difference.
The economic consequences in terms of foreign trade can be significant if people of other countries cannot trust the US companies to respect their privacy with respect to data they provide to these companies. Honestly, it may not be bad for them since that will make their own companies grow faster and even more.
4
The government and law enforcement are stupid and lazy. They want to sit back and sift through everyone's communication and stumble across the criminals. Its not going to be that easy. With customer demand for encryption, companies like Apple and microsoft will not be bullied. They will simply move to a country where encryption is allowed or even made mandatory. Other countries will see this and do the same. The the US will be the big foolish country with the wide open backdoor.
12
No proprietary system can ever be trusted to protect personal information. Thankfully, there are good open source solutions for most applications. I mainly use Linux Mint these days.
1
Are the claims of the FBI et al merely the the least untruthful statements they can make?
4
Fine. Play the game. Pretend that customer's data is sacrosanct. Those governmental prying eyes shall be forever kept in the dark. We will only collect it in droves, ready to sell to the highest bidder. We will only track where you are, what you buy, with whom you communicate, and any other fact that we think has commercial value. Protection of our commercialism comes first, all the rest will follow. And know full well that all of us have been duped into this system in the name of "progress". Just read their disclosure brochure if you are unsure.
8
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
The Founders.
The Founders.
54
As for the government: Last time I heard, it was all — and only — about terrorism. As in Guantanamo. Now it's for drugs, too? I can't wait to hear where they plan to poke their eNoses next.
As for Microsoft, that one made me smile. It's astonishing the scope and depth of our proprietary info that Windows 10 and Office 2013 are collecting "so we can study your typing and writing habits to improve your experience." And that's only the portion of what they collect that they're willing to tell us about. Of course, Apple, Google, and others are doing the same thing. These companies aren't protecting our personal data. They're just telling the feds they want to keep it all for themselves!
As for Microsoft, that one made me smile. It's astonishing the scope and depth of our proprietary info that Windows 10 and Office 2013 are collecting "so we can study your typing and writing habits to improve your experience." And that's only the portion of what they collect that they're willing to tell us about. Of course, Apple, Google, and others are doing the same thing. These companies aren't protecting our personal data. They're just telling the feds they want to keep it all for themselves!
5
The article is talking about text messages only, which none of those companies can any longer access. Not for the government, or themselves.
Congress, the peoples' direct representative, must be heavily involved in these matters. Otherwise as we have seen, government will work to serve itself as in the case of the IRS. Tech corps will serve to protect their customers as it is their bottom line interest to protect their profits. We, the people must stay vigilant keeping all three entities at the top of trustworthiness and honesty. The media is just another corporation with its own interests and bias and serves the people and the truth relative to that. The issue being referenced "guns and drugs" is suspicious. Are they on the ball as much with terrorism and homeland security? Recent history tells us maybe not.
2
Was Congress the peoples' direct representative when it passed the USA Patriot Act and retroactively legalized the illegal spying on we citizens by the telephone companies in league with the NSA? If you think that Congress is even making the slightest effort to protect your privacy, you are delusional. Congress has allowed the police state agencies, FBI-NSA-CIA-DEA, etc. to run wild and roughshod over our privacy and Constitutional rights.
Congress is afraid of these agencies, bamboozled by them, or being blackmailed by them as it has been revealed by NSA whistleblowers Russ Tice, Drake, Binney and Snowden, that NSA personnel can read anyone's email and tap their phone calls; anyone's, including Supreme Court justices and elected officials. Just look at who populates Congress, and the present POTUS candidates on both sides, and you see the quality of our Congress and Executive branch, most of whom were too lazy to even read the fascistic Patriot Act before they passed it.
Congress is afraid of these agencies, bamboozled by them, or being blackmailed by them as it has been revealed by NSA whistleblowers Russ Tice, Drake, Binney and Snowden, that NSA personnel can read anyone's email and tap their phone calls; anyone's, including Supreme Court justices and elected officials. Just look at who populates Congress, and the present POTUS candidates on both sides, and you see the quality of our Congress and Executive branch, most of whom were too lazy to even read the fascistic Patriot Act before they passed it.
3
Does anyone remember J. Edgar Hoover?
His mentality about not only bending but breaking laws that he really felt above and were not written for him, in an attempt to load his private files with stuff to blackmail someone, anyone, in the future if he needed to, was a shining example of data gone wrong. And all during a time with very little electronics other than a simple telephone and people copying documents.
To unleash today's electronic means to monitor much more subtly and with astonishing ease should be worrisome.
I hope some bright programmer, as a service to the world, is about to release a program which will be free, which will sit on any platform the user wants, be independent of what the technology manufacturers agree to build into their hardware, and will take encryption to the next level for the privacy we all deserve.
His mentality about not only bending but breaking laws that he really felt above and were not written for him, in an attempt to load his private files with stuff to blackmail someone, anyone, in the future if he needed to, was a shining example of data gone wrong. And all during a time with very little electronics other than a simple telephone and people copying documents.
To unleash today's electronic means to monitor much more subtly and with astonishing ease should be worrisome.
I hope some bright programmer, as a service to the world, is about to release a program which will be free, which will sit on any platform the user wants, be independent of what the technology manufacturers agree to build into their hardware, and will take encryption to the next level for the privacy we all deserve.
18
There are privacy technologies in existence for some 20 years now that do not have government accessible "back doors." PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) was the first and was available for free. Its creator was harassed by the government for years as his reward. The same individual is behind "Silent Circle" which also protects voice transmission, not just e-mail. I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said, "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that you don't have enemies."
If you are concerned, take matters into your own hands and do not trust Apple, Google, or Microsoft to protect your privacy.
If you are concerned, take matters into your own hands and do not trust Apple, Google, or Microsoft to protect your privacy.
It is simple: the should be be a federal warrant executed for **each individual request** for personal data of a US citizen.
Apple and other corporations will comply with a specific warrant -- just as USA corporations have responded since old school phone wire-tapping days of the 1960s and 70s.
But the federal investigatory units dont want that -- they want to to make blanket "fishing expedition" requests for broad digital information on domestic US citizens.
And that folks is the central conflict in a nutshell.
23
"And that folks is the central conflict in a nutshell."
Actually, it's not. Did you even read the article? It's not about mass collection, and the government DID get a warrant in this case.
The problem (which isn't a problem at all) is that Apple is incapable of handing over information that they don't have.
Actually, it's not. Did you even read the article? It's not about mass collection, and the government DID get a warrant in this case.
The problem (which isn't a problem at all) is that Apple is incapable of handing over information that they don't have.
It's confusing to speak of the Microsoft and Apple cases in the same article. Microsoft isn't about privacy at all. It's about sovereignty. Microsoft would be giving this data to the U.S. government if its server were located in the U.S. It's the Irish location which has brought forth the dispute. Europeans have laws as to what data can be shared. The American justice department comes in and says, "We don't need to respect your laws, because Microsoft is an American company." It's just another instance of Americans confusing their laws with universal laws.
Now there are a lot of European companies hoping that Microsoft loses, because if the U.S. really thinks it has the right to ignore European laws simply because there's an American company involved, then obviously Europeans will not be able to store their data with American companies. Instead they should be avoiding American companies like the plague. Which IMHO they should be doing so anyway.
Now there are a lot of European companies hoping that Microsoft loses, because if the U.S. really thinks it has the right to ignore European laws simply because there's an American company involved, then obviously Europeans will not be able to store their data with American companies. Instead they should be avoiding American companies like the plague. Which IMHO they should be doing so anyway.
19
abo, you cannot seriously think that Apple = when it comes to data mining practices = is completely different than Microsoft. I am sorry but you are being very naive. How do you think Apple Siri works at the technical level? Believe as you want I suppose.
2
The greatest trick the US played on its people was convincing them that Microsoft was the reason they weren't succeeding.
Abo you just about nailed it. If the US wins on this (and they won't) then expect the US tech giants to lose massive business and the US a massive tech edge and massive tech investment. Private companies do not exist for the benefit of Uncle Sam but for their shareholders and customers. There are numerous EU tech companies down on their hands and knees praying that the US Govt will win. Of course if you really imagine that the EU (Germany, UK, France, Italy etc) are going to allow the US Govt to over-ride their own national laws you have really got to be smoking something!
Plainly put, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the government be able to access any information it wants on demand. That is, in essence, what the government is requesting, at the expense of its own citizens privacy and "right to be let alone."
If the various parts of the federal government would remember, or perhaps learn, that basic fact it would help them understand the backlash. The government's request belies the fact that the Constitution set up a government of limited power for a number of reasons. The sooner the government realizes that, whether through popular demand or the progression of technology, the better.
If the various parts of the federal government would remember, or perhaps learn, that basic fact it would help them understand the backlash. The government's request belies the fact that the Constitution set up a government of limited power for a number of reasons. The sooner the government realizes that, whether through popular demand or the progression of technology, the better.
43
Why must we harm the many just to stop a few criminals? If some guy launders money, must we make it difficult for millions to get bank accounts and transfer money or use cash? All of these crime prevention measures simply work to incrementally reduce our privacy and freedom one byte at a time. If I want to open a bank account, there are many banks in Eurooe that won't do it because I am American and the U.S. Government has imposed draconian reporting requirements on banks because of an extremely small minority of criminals. If I want to transfer money from my US bank account to buy a house here in France, the reporting requirements are extensive and punitive -- all to prevent James Bond villains from laundering criminal earnings. Are we going to submit to an Orwellian world dictatorship simply to stop some drug dealers? Are terrorists really getting caught because of any of this? I want to see names, successful prosecutions and proof that these intrusive and unconstitutional intrusions are actually saving a single life. I want the public to know what we're doing, why we are doing it and the exact results. I am not comfortable surrendering anything to a government that has proven to have no qualms about abusing it's power-- have a look at the targeting done by the IRS for example. I am tired of it. If freedom makes it harder to catch some criminals, so be it. It is far preferable than living under the Stasi.
58
Crimes WAS solved BEFORE the advent of cellphones and computers - through using detective work.
I was always taught to use my BRAIN - and if one route to solving a problem isn't possible, use others.
The government may look at it that way, but, Apple, looks at it as a way of protecting US - customers - from malware, hackers, etc.
This also holds true for foreign users, as well, who were hit as well by the information released in the Snowden papers.
The US government seems to be whining - saying 'we can't do our jobs' if they don’t have access.
You CAN do your jobs - but,you'll just have to work HARDER doing so.
I was always taught to use my BRAIN - and if one route to solving a problem isn't possible, use others.
The government may look at it that way, but, Apple, looks at it as a way of protecting US - customers - from malware, hackers, etc.
This also holds true for foreign users, as well, who were hit as well by the information released in the Snowden papers.
The US government seems to be whining - saying 'we can't do our jobs' if they don’t have access.
You CAN do your jobs - but,you'll just have to work HARDER doing so.
37
Upon first reading this article it appears that the Justice Department and F.B.I. is advocating public safety. On the other hand, Apple and Microsoft taking the position of customer privacy feel legitimate. Then the questions about whom does this process really protect in the short and long-term? There is merit in Apple and Microsoft’s resistance as the federal government on more than one occasion dishonored agreed upon terms and violated confidentiality and rights in the name of protection. Then there is a suspicion that Apple and Microsoft are up to no good in the business world using the same information to infringe upon clients rights, so the dilemma continues.
The missing core of this article for me is definitive reasons for what the Justice Department and F.B.I. is really looking to learn from obtaining access to this database? The article alludes to “an investigation involving guns and drugs”. What I will say is that there are questions for both sides about the level of protection and to those outlining new territories for possible criminal activities to be extra mindful between the differences of protecting and violating privacy. The one thing learned from government oversight with the Patriot Act is the government has a huge problem with respecting boundaries… Boundaries are necessary to build trust, respect, and cooperation…
The missing core of this article for me is definitive reasons for what the Justice Department and F.B.I. is really looking to learn from obtaining access to this database? The article alludes to “an investigation involving guns and drugs”. What I will say is that there are questions for both sides about the level of protection and to those outlining new territories for possible criminal activities to be extra mindful between the differences of protecting and violating privacy. The one thing learned from government oversight with the Patriot Act is the government has a huge problem with respecting boundaries… Boundaries are necessary to build trust, respect, and cooperation…
15
I'm still disturbed at how foreign signals intelligence got so quickly and easily repurposed for domestic "drugs and guns" investigations. The "collect it all" and apparently "share it all" (at least with FBI/DEA/etc) mentality of NSA is just so far overreaching and over-broad. What they're asking for is way too much. Yes, solving crimes is hard in a country with strong civil liberties protections. Just work harder!
58
This article is little more than Big Media agreeing to shill for the Justice Department over the speed at which private corporations comply with the Federal government about access to digital information. These battles have been going on for decades, and the government always wins them in the end. Corporations don't want to appear to be too compliant with the Federal government about turning over their customers' private information, but, given enough compelling information about the case in question, they invariably do comply because it is a matter of law enforcement.
So this article represents a continuing public relations battle between public and private entities over the terms by which they cooperate with each other. It only appears to be about the technology involved, such as encryption, when it is actually about terms of access.
Nobody wants to talk about the quid pro quo nature of such arrangements, but the private companies request and are granted preferential treatment by the Federal government in exchange for cooperating with them. It is a matter of public record that the AT&T communications company has been allowing the Federal government access to their communications data for decades now. Do you think AT&T does this out of the goodness of their corporate heart?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/us/politics/att-helped-nsa-spy-on-an-a...
11
"when it is actually about terms of access"
This. Best most insightful comment here.
This. Best most insightful comment here.
1
M.C.'s 2nd daughter in Brooklyn, NY to Mr. Robin P. Little of Conway, SC.
Are you saying the damage is pretty much done? Jeeze! I saw the Berlin Wall, the cameras watching our every move, and especially the trapped-looking faces of those poor citizens (survivors, really) of the then East Berlin, Germany, with my family in the mid '80's, after taking a DoD military duty train.
IT. WASN'T. PRETTY.
Are you saying the damage is pretty much done? Jeeze! I saw the Berlin Wall, the cameras watching our every move, and especially the trapped-looking faces of those poor citizens (survivors, really) of the then East Berlin, Germany, with my family in the mid '80's, after taking a DoD military duty train.
IT. WASN'T. PRETTY.
Either you want the government to increase its intrusion into your lives, or you don't. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are against this increase in intrusion. You should thank them for standing up against the fascists in our current Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
The government made the same arguments against PGP - that it would enable wrongdoers. How well did that turn out?
When the government has full-time ad hoc access to your private communications, you become a target. Your freedom to speak becomes inhibited. This is an example of the government attempting an end-run around the First Amendment - when you fear the government's reading your communications, you are less likely to communicate freely.
The government made the same arguments against PGP - that it would enable wrongdoers. How well did that turn out?
When the government has full-time ad hoc access to your private communications, you become a target. Your freedom to speak becomes inhibited. This is an example of the government attempting an end-run around the First Amendment - when you fear the government's reading your communications, you are less likely to communicate freely.
73
The government -- because they have only a child's understanding of the technical issues involved -- want something that cannot exist.
Once encryption has a backdoor, it ceases to be encryption.