Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden Calls For Google To Side With Apple On Encryption Debate (techinsider.io)
An anonymous reader writes: Edward Snowden, the most famous whistle blower in the world, is calling for Google to side with Apple and against the FBI in the "most important tech case in a decade." On Tuesday, the FBI asked Apple to help it crack the password on an iPhone belonging to a shooter in the high profile San Bernardino case. Apple CEO Tim Cook quickly responded with a public letter denying the request, calling it "an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers." Google creates Android, the most-used mobile operating system for smartphones in the world. Google has been nowhere near as firm as Apple about its stance on un-compromised encryption - Android is famously an open sourced platform that anyone can modify. Snowden issued his message in a tweet.
You don't think that the second it's been done, that the government won't attempt to reverse engineer the "firmware update" thus enabling them to do it to anyone? Regardless of whether or not it is POSSIBLE to reverse engineer it, the government will try to.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
I don't have a problem with the specific thing that Apple is being asked to do. They aren't being asked to break the encryption they are being asked to change the firmware on the device to one that doesn't have an artificial throttle on the number of brute force attempts per second; and to disable the wipe command that is engaged with 10 wrong guesses.
I'm glad you're not the only one judging this then, because I have a problem with this. It would essentially mean that security could be defeated, which means it could be done by corrupt officials or corrupt Apple employees.
Sorry, maybe if Feds wanted info from the San Bernardino "terrorists" they shouldn't have shot them up and arrested them instead for questioning later using the guaranteed $5 exploit: https://xkcd.com/538/
I guess when you just gun down everyone you might lose key data!
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The problem is this is how the slippery slope is entered. Today it's a terrorist's phone, tomorrow a drug dealer's, the day after that, a shoplifter's. The day after that, arrested protestors' phones. The day after that, anyone who is arrested for any reason gets their phone swept. And so on. The Supreme Court has already said that a locked phone is protected under the 4th amendment. Just exactly where does the line get drawn on who that amendment no longer applies to?