I support Apple on this one!!! On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:33 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote:
> February 16, 2016A Message to Our Customers > > The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented > step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, > which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. > > This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and > people around the country to understand what is at stake. > The Need for Encryption > > Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. > People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from > our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our > calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even > where we have been and where we are going. > > All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who > want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or > permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do > everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple > we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data. > > Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put > our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important > to all of us. > > For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal > data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. > We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the > contents of your iPhone are none of our business. > The San Bernardino Case > > We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San > Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for > all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days > following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s > efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists. > > When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided > it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in > the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to > advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of > investigative options at their disposal. > > We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe > their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that > is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. > government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something > we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor > to the iPhone. > > Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone > operating system, circumventing several important security features, and > install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong > hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the > potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession. > > The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no > mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would > undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its > use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such > control. > The Threat to Data Security > > Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, > clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and > the significance of what the government is demanding in this case. > > In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of > information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the > protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass > the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that > knowledge. > > The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. > But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over > and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would > be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions > of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable > person would find that acceptable. > > The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades > of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of > millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and > cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the > iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those > protections and make our users less safe. > > We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose > its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and > national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. > Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely > on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors > will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them. > A Dangerous Precedent > > Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is > proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an > expansion of its authority. > > The government would have us remove security features and add new > capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input > electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute > force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a > modern computer. > > The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the > government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your > iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture > their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand > that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access > your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access > your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge. > > Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must > speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government. > > We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American > democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best > interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications. > > While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the > government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And > ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and > liberty our government is meant to protect. > > Tim Cook > > --- > > > According to the AP, soon-to-be-heroic technicians have uncovered 22 > million email messages from the George W. Bush administration—far more than > the Bush White House said they'd lost > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy> in the > first place. > > That's a lot of emails—but not as much data as you might first think. > Berkeley estimated in 2003 the average email size to be around 18,500 > bytes > <http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/internet.html>. > That's about 379 gigabytes of lost email, give or take a few Powerpoint > attachments with slides missing in the "Find a reason to invade Iraq" > section. > > *Mother Jones* had details of the recovery process > <http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/exclusive-white-house-emails-case-nearing-settlement> > : > > Restoration of missing emails promises to be the trickiest part of the > settlement agreement. The White House first ran into archiving problems in > 2003, but didn't begin to address the problem until October 2005. Only in > the final days of the Bush administration did the White House begin working > with contractors-including software giant Microsoft-to find missing > messages. > > Don't expect to see these for a while. The National Archives have to sift > through the emails before they'll be released to the public. But expect a > thousand Freedom of Information Act requests to let fly towards Washington > in the meantime. [Telegram/AP > <http://www.telegram.com/article/20091214/NEWS/912149977/>] > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
