Photo: Bryan Thomas/Getty Images
Photo: Bryan Thomas/Getty Images
It’s a legal motion for the ages.
The response Apple lawyers filed Thursday to a court order that the company write software to defeat its own security protocols is exhaustive, fiery, accessible, and full of memorable passages.
The lawyers were asking a federal magistrate judge to vacate what they called her “unprecedented and oppressive” order demanding that Apple design and build software to hack into an iPhone used by San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook.
And they were relentless.
Years from now, people will look back and recall:
- When Apple called the government out for trying to make Apple compromise on its security when the government itself has terrible cyber hygiene:
- When Apple said the government was stoking fear but was too afraid to make its case before Congress:
- When Apple said the Department of Justice and the FBI were lying because they knew full well this case isn’t about just one phone:
- When Apple pointed out that the government reset the phone’s password without asking Apple for help first:
- When Apple told the world about how the government obtained the court order in secret and then told reporters about it before Apple had a chance to respond:
- When Apple pointed out that the FBI director was behaving somewhat suspiciously:
- When Apple pointed out that it couldn’t just write the software then destroy it and forget it ever existed:
- When Apple spelled out the potential consequences for companies in the future if the FBI succeeds:
Related:
None of the intelligence agencies detected the San Bernadino terrorists through their monitoring of the internet. Why should anyone believe that the phone’s contents would yield important information and, in the process, void an industry’s secure communications provided to consumers? What the FBI does not do is use traditional sleuthing.
Like this one… everyone should read point number eight entirely.
Is this something that’s truly necessary?” Snowden asked. “Or is it a measure of convenience?”
would those supportive of compelling Apple to harm their product by providing access to the encryption keys similarly support compelling doctors to harm a patient?
[And reporters, if you talk to DOJ or the FBI about Apple, please ask them why the FBI hasn’t sought the NSA’s help nor mentioned anything about it?]
Snowden told the crowd he would return if U.S. authorities guaranteed a fair trial. “They responded with a letter from the attorney general that promised I would not be tortured,” he said. The crowd laughed.
“So let’s say that’s still a work in progress.”
Thank you, the best concise reporting of the issues regarding this case I’ve read.
Please think about this, Terrorist will not pay a monthly cell bill period they will use drop phones and the government employees know this. False Flag event, setting people up and creating a narrative to scare the hell out of people. Apple needs to stick to their guns and not allow these jerks access. If they are allowed to do this think of the potential harm to everyone. We have a Mafia style Government and the kill tactics to those who see the tyranny they are inflicting on this Country. People need to wake up and fast. Peace to all.
Would having access to everyone’s communications prevent a burka clad nanny from beheading a Russian child.. or an American child?
What is the usefulness of having all seeing eye access to digital comm? The U.S. gov. are not a bunch of pre-cogs; I’ve regularly noticed that murderers (criminals in general) are only caught after the fact.
Moreover, communicating in any way that you are going to do something does not mean you actually will – you could be venting. And let’s say or assume a terror attack was prevented by using sigint, what other assumptions are we making? That the criminals / terrorists are:
• 100% competent;
• able to avoid Murphy’s Law (no other human has this capability);
• meaning exactly what they are communicating.
Now, what if the criminal / terrorist does not communicate their intentions? The Nanny State of all nanny states could not stop a Russian nanny from committing terror…
What now?
Well after we’ve sucked up all digital comm and limited your gun rights… The only thing to do is outlaw and socially ban fanged versions of Islam and any other religion or idea that has not been appropriately de-fanged. After all, I think America is only tolerant of the defanged version of anything.
There’s a bright future ahead; I can’t wait.
1) Realise that there’s likely nothing of use on the iPhone in question.
2) Intentionally change the password.
Oh no, we can’t access anything.
3) Roll out the tired “national security” argument in an attempt to get access to everybody’s phones across the world.
iPhone and many other smart devices already have valid backdoors, namely, a fingerprint scanner or a set of camera and software for capturing faces, irises and other body features, which can be collected from the unyielding, sleeping, unconscious and dead people. .
If Apple wants to claim that they are conscious of privacy and security, they should tell consumers to turn off the biometric functions. If the authority wants to have those backdoors open, they should tell consumers to keep them turned on all the times. And, security-conscious consumers should certainly refrain from turning them on.
A couple of other commenters have noted the timing in this case is suspect; i.e., the FBI is asking Apple to unlock this phone now because it has other pending cases and needs to set a precedent for those others. I suspect another, equally or more important reason, is the pending release of Apple’s new iPhone that, according to Apple, even the company cannot crack open. With a favorable judgment in hand in this case, could not the FBI sue to halt production of this new iPhone on the ground that Apple could not comply with any ‘valid’ court order to open a phone using the new, uncrackable, code? My guess is the FBI is looking into a future where NO ONE can help them uncover our personal information, and they want to forestall that future at all costs.
I was especially struck by item #4, which hasn’t really received much attention in the media. It seems to be saying that had the FBI sought Apple’s help in the first place, instead of trying to first hack the phone themselves, they could have had access to most or all of the data on the phone. So the FBI is now trying to compel Apple to fix a problem caused in the first instance by the FBI’s own bumbling incompetence!
Call me cynical but I doubt it was incompetence. I think it much more likely that they were well aware of the consequences of changing the iCloud password on the phone in question, those being that the information would then be beyond the reach of the government as the law presently exists and that they would now have grounds, and ever so importantly, grounds provoked by terrorism, to apply for an Order to defeat encryption. ….Pretty cute, I’d say.
If I understand all this right, the information in the iCloud is able to be obtained with a routine court order. However, U.S. law enforcement appears to not be satisfied with this ‘tool’. I strongly suspect that the prize that they covet is open ended access to encrypted communication. If my view on all this is accurate, this indicates that ‘un-warranted’ surveillance is their goal.
Further, in the background we have numerous statements by domestic law enforcement officials with a plethora of investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism, anticipating the precedent that would defeat encryption of phones.
Within the next 24 months Apple is virtually guaranteed to feel the full wrath of the government. Most likely this means IRS audits (attacking e.g. Apple’s transfer pricing) or EPA complaints. This is the same tactic extensively used in places like Russia or India for non-compliance.
It’s not about Apple.
It’s about all data, everywhere, forever.
The FBI knows it will lose and intends to lose this case. They do not actually want the contents of Farouk’s phone because Farouk and his wife were set up. The phone’s contents, if ever leaked, would show that. That’s why they changed the i-cloud password to prevent backup. That’s why they opened up the apartment to reporters before the investigation could ever possibly be completed. That’s why the man they say bought the guns is in the loony bin. That’s why the only eye witnesses to the killings say the shooters were 3 white men. Transparency is the enemy in this case.
Don’t know about you, but I’m bullish on Apple. How refreshing, a company who understands social responsibility and stands-up not just for their shareholders, but their consumers. A stock you can be proud to own!
But I’m perfectly content with my stock in suicide nets.
Bureaucracies have to be fed, they rarely shrink voluntarily, which means in bureaucracies the “ends always justify the means”. This mentality means the 4th Amendment and U.S. Constitution [a wartime charter] are totally meaningless to bureaucrats. Their own oath of office, loyalty oath, is meaningless as well.
The Framers of the Constitution designed an opposite system where the “means (or constitutional due process) is how we arrive at the ends”. They also mandated that government officials take a supreme loyalty oath to operate within those constitutional boundaries. Of course without enforcement by the co-equal Judicial Branch, providing judicial review, all of this is meaningless as well.
For some reason the FBI motto includes the term “fidelity” but not sure why?
I’m just wondering how Apple deals with the government in China…
the hypocrisy of it all.
IRS: Er, those 100,000 tax records illegally accessed? Make that over 700,000
Third ‘hacking’ review shows epic levels of fail
a case of the teapot calling the kettle black?
the arrogance of govt agencies is beyond compare.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/27/now_its_700000_irs_records_illegally_accessed/
I believe that if the people that were executed in San Bernardino were the loved ones of the Apple CEO, this ridiculous response they are giving would be the opposite of what they are saying now. Opening up a specific phone by only Apple should be done now!
I feel that corporations do not need less regulations, and that the government does not need additional authority, so that this seems like a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. But I do not see this as a coincidence, that this case is happening so soon after Apple has officially become the wealthiest corporation on the planet. In fact I believe it is pure theatrics, a false flag smokescreen to lull the public opinion in Apple’s favor in preparation for what the troika of global trade deals will shortly be shoving down throats the world over. Only madmen see intrusive spying as a positive thing, and what is unfolding through this specific encryption debate is the framing of an argument to potentially defend expanded rights for corporations, despite their being purposed only with selling anything and everything for capital. While greedy as fuck, the intent of corporations is at least definable in that regard, whereas governments tend to operate in terms of ongoing menstruation and so are as predictable as the weather.
The insane provisions of the Patriot Act would not have been palatable were it not for the 9/11 attacks, and likewise the TPP, TiSA and TTIP deals will suddenly be allowable following the outcome of Apple vs the FBI, because having to choose between the two, greed feels safer than schizophrenia.
i would be willing to bet that the ruling party in 1775 operated much the same way as the fbi and nsa and cia today- a bunch of control freaks who watched BRAZIL, took notes, and turned it into their insect policy to rule over all others so that a nation of stepford wives would be forever appreciative.
Obviously, they’re just trying to create a new normal
You’re nailing it right now, Jenna.
I would like to call attention to the facts as reported about Apple and its actions. First, Apple DID cooperate secretly with the gov. pre-Snowden there is very little in the public record to defend Apple on this matter. Second, Apple was caught read handed lying post-Snowden regarding its cooperation with government. Third and most importantly, Apple is a tax evading transnational corporation with ONLY ONE INTEREST profit for its human owners.
It may very well be that Apple is sincere about this encryption government authority issue I leave that for others to decide for themselves, however let’s be clear no transnational corporation ever does anything which is not designed to produce and/or aid profit making.
The other thing that galls me more and more as time goes on is that the transnational corporations and all their power belong to human beings people who have all the authority and power to direct their activities.
We know that Bill Gates has total control of Microsoft, we know that Larry Page and Sergey Brin own/control Alphabet/Google, we don’t – or at least I don’t know who has the controlling interest in Apple I hope someone can enlighten me on the subject – but stop dodging the issue, all this is about the power and profits of whomever those people are – AND NOTHING ELSE.
Apple is as much your enemy as the government is.
Valuable addition, and after all it was the US government -in conjunction with the industry silently- that started the encryption arms race. Much thanks to them all for their contributions. Had to be done
Thank you EdHead for providing the FBI’s / Administration perspective on this.
But lets get into your details a little. Apple, like Google, have cooperated with the secret FISA warrants, as they had to, to provide specific access to iCloud data etc., but they were not and have not been a (more than just ordered) partner with the NSA like Microsoft / AT&T / Verizon / Intel etc. have been.
There’s a reason Snowden showded the CIA was trying to back door Apple’s compiler for OS X and iOS and not for Microsoft (which has 95% of the PC’s out there) and other tech companies – that’s because most tech companies are there asking the surveillance state how they can help and Apple is not – which, if you have dig into their history isn’t surprising – they’ve always been adversarial when it came to the govt (that’s why Snowden showed the CIA trying to backdoor Apple’s software in secret).
Apple certainly doesn’t need to have this “privacy” to sell their products (that’s just a made up point by the FBI in their PR campaign here), people would have still bought just as many iThings if Apple had been quiet (like Google etc. were with the last White House meeting on encryption) and worked with the surveillance state behind closed doors. Apple’s CEO is a member of a social group that has been abused and held back until fairly recently – and so, along with Apple’s historic dislike of working with the govt – he’s opposing total surveillance (no personal privacy of customers devices) of the U.S. and world population on moral grounds. Thank goodness we at least have one major company in the world doing this.
Unlike Microsoft or Google there isn’t a family controlling interest in Apple like that (Jobs sold his original interest in Apple after they kicked him out in the 90’s).
If you want to believe that ANY transnational corporation has any interest in anything but profit and monopoly markets. ALL transnational corporate interests are the same, ExxonMobil, VW, Pfizer, Apple. If you think that your interests are being championed by Apple you are badly mistaken. The interests of society or individuals are not even under consideration.
You know, Thatcher said it and it was so chilling at the time no one wanted to address it – yet another failure of the left. She said “Society doesn’t exist” and she meant exactly what she said – after 30 years it should be obvious that social considerations are no longer included in the calculations of power.
By the way, does anyone know who has the controlling interest in Apple?
I’ll take a guess Carl Ichan still has some serious leverage. There may be no one holds a controlling interest outside the combined shares of the board of directors, but it was reported in 2014 Ichan had increased his stake in Apple to more than $3 billion.
without 100% privacy, the corporate espionage business will boom, and soon. There are too many employees willing to scope out information to “paying up” competitors. Spies’r’us coming soon to an outpost near you.
Reportedly, Gates recently took issue with Apple’s refusal to co-operate with the government and obey the Order as it stands. Undoubtedly, he has his eye on these trade deals that the government is crafting in his favour. ……His philanthropy and concern for the common people won’t amount to a hill of beans if mass surveillance throttles our ability to meaningfully participate in our democracies to feed and advance ourselves.
Gates said Apple should comply; meanwhile, Microsoft files amicus brief in “wholehearted” support of Apple? Does not sound like Bill has total control unless this is deception.
The FBI cannot win this case in court. Therefore the logical conclusion is they wish to lose it.
I can think of two reasons. The first is to win in the court of public opinion and place pressure on legislators to change the law in their favor. The second is more interesting.
If the security of the iPhone is improved – so that using it requires biometric confirmation and the ability of a 3rd party to gain unauthorized access is effectively eliminated, then it becomes more useful as a tracking device. Not only could law enforcement have greater confidence in their surveillance data, but the evidence would become dispositive in a court of law. The only additional item to complete the surveillance regime would be to ensure that every person has their own iPhone. The publicity and extra sales generated from this court case would be a step in that direction. The FBI might prefer to have a tracking chip surgically implanted in every citizen, but for now there would probably be too much popular opposition to such a proposal.
So both Apple and the FBI share a common interest in the outcome of this case. They may simply be playing a good cop / bad cop routine on the general public.
Great points!
I think it’s pretty obvious that Apple and the FBI have little common interest in this case.
Apple, after all, is a corporation run for profit – and they want people to keep buying their phones. Perhaps in the pre-Snowden era, they could have been pressured into cooperation, under threat – for example, recall a company named Qwest, and what happened to its CEO, Joe Nacchio, after refusing to cooperate with this NSA domestic surveillance program? Seems like the FBI had no problem coming up with insider trading charges in that instance, unlike with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, or anyone involved in the 2008 economic collapse.
Today, after Snowden’s files filled out the picture of NSA surveillance (which was already roughly known, see http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908 ), Apple understands that going along with a mass surveillance program would lead to a huge drop in customer confidence, an even bigger drop in sales, and a permanent tarnishing of their brand – which is why their investors all support the actions of their CEO on this.
The FBI on the other hand, seems most interested in regaining the kind of sweeping surveillance powers it had during the J. Edgar Hoover era – which Hoover mainly used to support his political ideology, not public safety, as the extensive COINTELPRO files revealed.
I don’t buy the Apple would loose tons of sales if they quietly cooperated with the govt like Microsoft was exposed via snowden (and it appears more recently) Goodle are doing.
Apple would sell just as much, cause there isn’t another smartphone company on the planet that is pushing for user privacy besides them and people like their products (that’s why they buy them).
The smart business shareholder decision is to go along with the govts and have the world population monitored – that’s the choice Microsoft etc. made long ago. Apple has not been on good terms with the govt from its founding – this is in its corporate culture that Job’s grew. And the current CEO is a member of a social group that has been attacked and abused in the past, by the govt as well – so he personally knows what can happen when you give the govt all knowing surveilance powers – they’ll be abused and normally it’ll be some sliver of the population used to do that with (Jews & homosexuals before, Mexicans and Muslims now in the U.S.). Apple’s CEO is taking a stand on moral grounds…the business doesn’t need him to.
There’s plenty of common interest in making a deal; the proponents just have to look hard enough.
Let’s say Apple’s right to harden the physical access to their phone is affirmed. In return, they ensure that all phone data gets stored in the cloud, from where the FBI can access it. This is actually much easier for the FBI than gaining physical access to people’s phones, and much more useful for mass surveillance. Under enormous fanfare, Apple rolls out a new iPhone where access requires a match to the user’s retinal pattern, fingerprint and heart rhythm and is declared absolutely unbreakable. The US Federal government then declares that only iPhones will be issued to its employees, and all federal contractors will be forced to follow suit.
The result is an enormous win for both Apple and the Federal Government. Finding common interests is the art of practical politics.
Well in this case the phone already had cloud storage, but since the FBI reset the password, (see point #4 in the article) all that information was deleted.
However, I have to disagree with this: “Let’s say Apple’s right to harden the physical access to their phone is affirmed. In return, they ensure that all phone data gets stored in the cloud . . .”
One, the phone is already securely encrypted – no need to affirm anything – and two, cloud storage is a choice (a bad one) that the phone user makes – so if Apple automatically enabled cloud storage (which has become notorious among the general public as being the means of leaking celebrity nude images online) it’d be just as bad as creating malware – again, sales of their devices would fall and their brand would be tarnished.
As far as this: “The US Federal government then declares that only iPhones will be issued to its employees . . ”
The government likes being able to track its apparatchiks. Most government agencies and corporations ALREADY use something called “mobile device management” on all phones they issue to their employees – this is software that:
“. . .can unlock the phone, delete all information in case of loss or theft, track the device’s physical location, determine which apps are installed, check battery life and push software updates.”
Farook’s government-issued phone was supposed to be under such a management plan, as has been minimally reported, in which case there would never have been any need to break the encryption:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/phone-705119-county-fbi.html
As noted, real spies and terrorists would never use phones for clandestine communications, no matter how secure or not. The FBI of course knows this – their primary agenda is that they want to monitor journalists and their sources (i.e. see the Obama crackdown on whistleblowers who talk to journalists about corruption and incompetence in our Soviet-style federal bureaucracy), as well as domestic political organizations (Occupy Wall Street, etc.), critics of the FBI bureaucracy – the basic J. Edgar Hoover mentality.
Apple has nothing at all to gain from going along with such a program, no matter how you spin it.
(By the way, if you want to look at the corporations that have played the most central role in cooperating with the federal government’s mass surveillance strategies, it’s not Apple nor Google nor Facebook nor Microsoft – no, it’s AT&T and Verizon, the ones who handle all the traffic between devices and servers, the ones who willingly put in the Narus splitters in all the fiber optic trunk cables, allowing the NSA to vacuum up all domestic communications – and that is still going on. AT&T has the most NSA-linked domestic hubs, apparently)
Get behind Me, Satan!
Benny’s not Satan, but most certainly a fine guide through hell. (Inferno ~ Niven & Pournelle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Niven_and_Pournelle_novel%29
Pro tip: book your tour at least a year in advance. Hell is a hot ticket.
big ditto on that.
While I agree with your points, your view is undoubtedly growing smaller as time passes. I’m curious about the practical aspects of such a stance in every day life. Would you consider answering:
-How old are you?
-And do you own a cell phone? Iphone? Smartphone? Flip phone?
You are referring to the “normalization of deviance” – those using iPhones come to accept being tracked as normal. As kids, they receive their first iPhone from their parents, who want to track their whereabouts. Later, they use them to track their friends. So they find government tracking them via their iPhones to be perfectly normal.
Civilization is the process of creating invisible chains which constrain people’s behaviors. Those who know they are tracked at all times will choose not to enter forbidden places. They won’t even be consciously aware they have given up that freedom. As Erich Fromm wrote, the desire to escape from freedom is related to “the need to be related to the world outside oneself, the need to avoid aloneness”. Although he wrote that in 1941, he could have been describing today’s social media.
As the fear of being alone and the need to seek the approval of others for even the most trivial decisions grows, society becomes increasingly intolerant of freedom. People will seek out authoritarian leaders who promise to bring structure, order and predictability to their lives.
Your first post to this one above, I thought I would be laughing as usual at your witty satirical writing…
I’m not laughing, sir. Thoughtful and brilliant and apparently true. I’m scared.
I second @ContinuousDeception. Your satire is first rate. And your ability to segue out of it as needed is second to none. Online or otherwise.
The bygone ages of reason and enlightenment have given way to cognitive dissonance and pretended omnipotence for many; it is a road that should be less traveled.
As Usual,
EA
This is, by far, the most cogent explanation of Apple’s position that I have read anywhere since the case began. Thanks for a great job of sifting and winnowing!
The point is of course true – a company should not be officially compelled to do random things for the government. Like a journalist who won’t reveal her source, Apple has a right not to speak out (or write) an exception to its security policy.
That said, there’s a problem dating back to the Illuminati Online raid in 1990, which is that the government, not able to dragoon Apple into writing software for it, might simply file a search warrant and make off with enough equipment and source code printouts and whatever else is lying around in Apple developer-land to write its own backdoor. (To be clear, Steve Jackson games was wrongly treated, and a court even said so, but it still knocked them right off the internet) The question is, is Apple “too big to search”? Is relying on large companies to have special warrant-abuse-proof powers really the way to uphold our liberties? There’s an undercurrent of ‘trust in Apple’ that I still dislike about this case.
how would one decrypt a scrambled fax?
This entire rabbit chase is a complete waste of time and money. If life were so good for everyone that virtually nobody would want to cause harm to their wonderful environment and life and lifestyle, who then would the real enemy be?
The govt has been attacking Apple for not backdooring their products for a while. The NSA almost certainly get into this or any other iPhone. As for things you want to go after if you were the govt, it would be the compiler (Xcode) and the BIOS images of the systems – then your compromises are there no matter what the citizens do with fresh installing OS’s or Apple’s updates to the OS.
https://theintercept.com/2015/03/10/ispy-cia-campaign-steal-apples-secrets/
Dear Intercept, thank you for these excerpts— now could you provide the further public service of transcribing the text from the images so that the visually impaired can read them?
Hope you can get these words of some very fortunate Apple lawyers—corporate lawyers able to defend the interests of the people unequivocally!—in a form accessible to all. Thanks.
quote”When Apple spelled out the potential consequences for companies in the future if the FBI succeeds:…”
Companies hell. What about every person on the planet who uses the internet? Personally, I refuse to step into the 21st century by owning a smartphone. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who stores their entire life’s data in the cloud is an idiot of biblical proportions. Of course..Barnum’s most famous axiom comes to mind here.
I can’t stop saying it. I’m so happy I found this site- everything I read here I would never know otherwise.
I Have an iPhone and I haven’t been able to find that AR-15 App to turn my phone into a semi-automatic firearm. I thought I read that the assault weapons they used were purchased at a gun store. Apparently that wasn’t the case because the FBI is worried about cell phones used in that shooting spree.
Although the arguments look persuasive to me, that means nothing. I have personally experienced irrational behavior from judges. So the questions: who appointed this judge? What happens if she refuses to vacate the order; can Apple appeal? Could this matter wind up before the Supreme Court (If so, it’s another reason to be less than grief-stricken that Scalia is dead.)
I haven’t bothered to do the research as yet, but I have been wondering what is the back ground, track record and so on of this judge. How much considered thought (sic) by the judge was put into this decision ? Was the decision made out of gross ignorance of, for example, the eight issues written about in this article? Or, is the judge corrupt and doing the government’s bidding?
I am surprised that we aren’t reading more about these bungling ham fisted attempts by the FBI dip shitz. Perhaps is it just me, but I haven’t heard much. Does the MSM remains silent, or even hostile to Apple? Is so, that is beyond disturbing.
I prefer footnote 26 –
If the government did have any leads on additional suspects, it is inconceivable that it would have filed pleadings on the public record, blogged, and issued press releases discussing the details of the situation, thereby thwarting its own efforts to apprehend the criminals. See Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 218-19 (1979) (“We consistently have recognized that the proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. . . . [I]f preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify would be aware of that testimony. . . . There also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment.”).”
Look for a supportive amicus brief from EFF soon.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/eff-support-apple-encryption-battle
We desperately need big tech companies like Apple that aren’t under the US government’s jurisdiction.
We need German, Brazilian, South African googles, microsofts and apples.
The US monopolization of major IT services is odd. It’s not like software development talent only exists in the US.
More than odd, its extremely dangerous for one nation to have that much power over it. I think all the cables of the internet physically run through the US too. This can’t be healthy.
The StartPage and Ixquick search engines are headquartered in Holland, and are totally private. Nothing is recorded or stored, including searches or IP addresses. FTR, StartPage is the home page on all of my browsers.
More info at: https://tinyurl.com/zvobgc5
Sorry, I don’t believe it. Other countries have their own spy agencies, their own warrants. If you propose a company based on a truly free country, I’ve got a better idea – I’ll move there and live without a phone!
At least when US people are up against US processes, we have some conception of what we’re fighting and what tactics might be used.
I didn’t mean that other countries wouldn’t do the same thing. I meant that if all the tech companies are concentrated in one jurisdiction then it’s easier for that country to abuse that. It’s a matter of balance of powers rather than all power being concentrated in the hands of a few.
Also, other countries simply don’t have the technological capabilities that the US government does because no one even comes close to spending the kind of money trying to spy on everyone that the US government does.
I was ambivalent about owning an iPhone until recently. All my ambivalence has evaporated! Since I’ve been looking around anyway, I’ll likely replace my PC with a MacBook.
Once you go mac you never go back!
I went Mac – because girlfriend at the time was a graphic artist – and I ended up trading it in. Long time ago. I believe they were calling it the ‘PowerMac’.
The last argument is key. While government can issue search warrants and such, it cannot compel anyone to do anything it wants. There are limits.
Great point! This needs to be repeated often!
quote” While government can issue search warrants and such, it cannot compel anyone to do anything it wants. There are limits.”unquote
Compel? Ha. Tell that to the victims of USG torture. If you’re drowning on a waterboard, you’ll do anything, notwithstanding having your genitals electrocuted or sliced. …among other known persuasions to compel your
“cooperation”. Limits. Ha.
Perhaps he meant “shouldn’t be able to compel anyone?” Of everyone knows they can compel anyone.
I agree with Jose that #8 really stood out for me. I think, JS, you probably have the intent of it correct. Yes, “they” have tortured and all but SHOULD NOT be allowed to. And they should not be allowed to force cooperation as per this request.
Thank you for another excellent article. This has hardened my support for Apple.
I’ve never been in Apple’s ‘camp’. In fact I’ve always avoided all things ‘Apple’ for many reasons, my visceral dislike of St. Jobs being only one of many. However, following this Apple vs. FBI, if Apple doesn’t fold, my views could change.
That’s a pretty devastating legal argument from Apple against the FBI’s actions.
The working theory behind FBIs approach seems to be that the American people are really stupid!
Well, duh!
9. When a naive extremist ranted on a little-read website, to no effect.
I always thought of you as little.
10. When a commenter on a “little”-read website called pointing out the likely unconstitutionality of the above government actions “naive extremism”.
11. When the NSA spook(s) who spies on who uses this website (it’s almost certain that they do given its ties to Glenn and Snowden) laughs at the commenter mentioned in number 10 for willingly giving up his rights in the name of “national security”.
-“I’m afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America…in the name of national security.” -Jim Garrison, former District Attorney of New Orleans, 1967
Nearly 50 years, and still waiting…
Thank you for this.