February
29, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- The FBI
tells us that its demand for a back door into the
iPhone is all about fighting terrorism, and that it
is essential to break in just this one time to find
out more about the San Bernardino attack last
December. But the truth is they had long sought a
way to break Apple’s iPhone encryption and, like
9/11 and the PATRIOT Act, a mass murder provided
just the pretext needed. After all, they say, if we
are going to be protected from terrorism we have to
give up a little of our privacy and liberty. Never
mind that government spying on us has not prevented
one terrorist attack.
Apple has so far stood up to a federal government's
demand that it force its employees to write a
computer program to break into its own product. No
doubt Apple CEO Tim Cook understands the damage it
would do to his company for the world to know that
the US government has a key to supposedly secure
iPhones. But the principles at stake are even
higher. We have a fundamental right to privacy. We
have a fundamental right to go about our daily life
without the threat of government surveillance of our
activities. We are not East Germany.
Let’s not forget that this new, more secure iPhone
was developed partly in response to Ed Snowden’s
revelations that the federal government was
illegally spying on us. The federal government was
caught breaking the law but instead of ending its
illegal spying is demanding that private companies
make it easier for it to continue.
Last week we also learned that Congress is planning
to join the fight against Apple -- and us. Members
are rushing to set up yet another governmental
commission to study how our privacy can be violated
for false promises of security. Of course they won’t
put it that way, but we can be sure that will be the
result. Some in Congress are seeking to pass
legislation regulating how companies can or cannot
encrypt their products. This will suppress the
development of new technology and will have a
chilling effect on our right to be protected from an
intrusive government. Any legislation Congress
writes limiting encryption will likely be
unconstitutional, but unfortunately Congress seldom
heeds the Constitution anyway.
When FBI Director James Comey demanded a back door
into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, he
promised that it was only for this one,
extraordinary situation. “The San Bernardino
litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or
send any kind of message,” he said in a statement
last week. Testifying before Congress just days
later, however, he quickly changed course, telling
the Members of the House Intelligence Committee that
the court order and Apple’s appeals, “will be
instructive for other courts.” Does anyone really
believe this will not be considered a
precedent-setting case? Does anyone really believe
the government will not use this technology again
and again, with lower and lower thresholds?
According to press reports, Manhattan district
attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has 175 iPhones with
passcodes that the City of New York wants to access.
We can be sure that is only the beginning.
We should support Apple’s refusal to bow to the
FBI’s dangerous demands, and we should join forces
to defend of our precious liberties without
compromise. If the people lead, the leaders will
follow.
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)