APPLE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A BITTER DEBATE INVOLVING YOUR
PRIVACY AND WHETHER OR NOT PROSECUTORS CAN USE BACKDOORS IN
ORDER TO GET ENCRYPTED
INFORMATION.
THIS IS A SERIOUS STORY.
THIS ALL STARTED BACK IN OCTOBER 2015 WHEN A STUDENT BY
THE NAME OF JUNE ñ I FORGET HIS
NAME ñ IT ALL BEGAN IN OCTOBER 2015 WHEN THE STUDENT WAS BEING
PROSECUTED FOR ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO SELL AMPHETAMINES TO OTHER
PEOPLE.
MY GUESS IS HE WAS PROBABLY TRYING TO SELL ADDERALL OR
SOMETHING.
HE ADMITTED HE WAS DOING THIS, BUT PROSECUTORS NEEDED
ACCESS INFORMATION IN HIS CELL PHONE TO GET DETAILS ABOUT
WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES.
IT TURNS OUT THAT HE HAD CONFIGURED HIS PHONE IN SUCH A
WAY THAT IF YOU ATTEMPT TO FIND THE CODE TO ACCESS THE PHONE,
AFTER TEN TRIES IT WILL ERASE ALL OF THE DATA ON THAT PHONE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAS THIS INCREDIBLE
SOFTWARE THAT WILL TRY EVERY POSSIBLE CODE ON THE PHONE
UNTIL YOU UNLOCK IT, BUT OF COURSE BY THE TIME THEY UNLOCKED
IT THEY HAD USED MORE THAN TEN TRIES AND IT HAD ERASED ALL
THE DATA.
PROSECUTORS REACHED OUT TO APPLE SAYING, CAN YOU DO THIS?
AND APPLE IS FIGHTING BACK TRYING TO PROTECT USERS
INFORMATION.
THIS FROM APPLE THEMSELVES, "AS AN OFFICIAL FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAD PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED,
WINE FOR US TO HAVE A DEVICE EASILY RUN THROUGH EVERY
POSSIBLE PASS CODE TO UNLOCK AN IPHONE.
BUT FENG'S PHONE WAS CONFIGURED TO RACE ALL ITS DATA
SUMMARY TRIED MORE THAN TEN TIMES TO UNLOCK IT.
IN MOST CASES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE, THE GOVERNMENT
REQUESTED ORDER WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENSOME
AND ALSO IMPOSSIBLE TO PERFORM.
FUTURE OPERATING SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED TO BE IMPENETRABLE BY
EVEN APPLE ITSELF."
WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS THEY ARE SAYING, IT IS OUT OF OUR HANDS.
WE ARE CREATING A SYSTEM EVEN WE CANNOT PENETRATE, AND AS A
RESULT IF YOU COME TO US LOOKING FOR ENCRYPTED DATA, WE CANNOT
PROVIDE IT TO YOU.
MY SECOND FAVORITE PART OF THE STORY AFTER THE BACK DOOR
WAS, THE PROSECUTORS SAYING, YO APPLE.
NOT SURE THAT'S EXACTLY
HOW THE PHRASED IT.
ON THE ONE HAND YOU HAVE PROSECUTORS SAYING THAT
THIS GUY BROKE THE LAW, HE EVENTUALLY PLED GUILTY, SO
WE NEED INFORMATION ABOUT HIS LAWBREAKING, HELP US OUT.
THAT SEEMS REASONABLE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, TIM COOK IN HIS TESTIMONY, THE CEO OF APPLE
SAID, IF YOU START HAVING ME GIVE YOU THIS INFORMATION, WELL
THEN MY USERS CAN'T TRUST ME BECAUSE THEY THINK ANYTIME THE
GOVERNMENT WANT MY INFORMATION APPLE IS GOING TO GIVE IT TO
THEM.
SOMETIMES IT IS JUSTIFIED, SOMETIMES IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED.
IF I GIVE YOU A BACK DOOR, THEN YOU CAN COME IN AND GET THE
INFORMATION ANY TIME WITHOUT ASKING.
YOU WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME?
I'LL DESIGN IT SO THAT EVEN I CAN'T GET THE INFORMATION.
WHAT WAS ALSO ONCE SAID, BUT VERY RELEVANT TO APPLE, THIS IS
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TELLING ME
THAT THEY'VE GOT A DANGEROUS GUY, WE NEED THEIR INFORMATION.
THEN YOU GOT IT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT SAYING WE HAVE A
GUY WHO IS DANGEROUS TO THE STATE OR THE REPUBLIC, SO
YOU HAVE TO GIVE US HIS INFORMATION.
WHICH LAWS ARE YOU GOING TO FOLLOW?
CHINA?
RUSSIA?
SYRIA?
THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.
I DON'T THINK IT IS AN EASY QUESTION, IN THIS CASE THE GUY
IS A SELLING METH OR WHATEVER, BUT WHAT IF IT WAS HE WAS A
CHILD RAPIST OR A KILLER?
SOMETHING HORRIBLE, THEN IT BECOMES NOT EASY.
HAVING SAID THAT, BALANCING OUT ALL THOSE DIFFERENT FACTORS, I
THINK APPLE IS DOING THE RIGHT THING BY SAYING THAT THEY CANNOT
HAVE YOU ACCESS THIS INFORMATION
ANYTIME WITHOUT A WARRANT.
SO THEY ARE NOT PUTTING IT BACK DOOR IN, BUT EVEN FURTHER TO SAY
THAT THEY CAN'T GET IT IN THE
NEW OPERATING SYSTEMS, IT PROTECTS US FROM GOVERNMENT
IN GENERAL.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE AND YOU THINK
YOU NEED TO HAVE THE GUNS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THE
GOVERNMENT, THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOOT THEM IF APPLE CAN
PROTECT YOUR INFORMATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I SIDE WITH APPLE HERE.
YOU CANNOT HAVE A UNIFORM POLICY WHEN YOU CONSIDER
THE FACT THAT YOUR PRODUCT IS BEING USED FOR ñ
YOU LIES IN SUMMARY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY
COUNTRIES THAT HAVE A MORE UTILITARIAN WAY OF DOING THINGS.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF GETTING PEOPLE.
I THINK A CELL PHONE IS JUST AN EASY WAY OF PROSECUTING.
YOU ARE A PROSECUTOR, DO THE DIRTY WORK.
HOW DID YOU PROSECUTE PEOPLE BEFORE SMART PHONES WERE
AVAILABLE?
IN THIS CASE THEY STILL DID OBTAIN A WARRANT, BUT I
DON'T CARE.
THIS IS APPLE'S DECISION, IF THEY WANT TO PROTECT USERS'
PRIVACY MORE THAN ANYTHING, THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.
IN THIS CASE IT MAKES SENSE TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T ONLY
REGULATE A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT ITS
USERS.
CONSERVATIVES SHOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT LIKE YOU ARE SAYING, ALL METH
DEALERS ARE FREE GO, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF PROSECUTING.
THE GOVERNMENT CAN STILL TRACK YOU TO GET YOUR LOCATION FROM
YOUR CELL PHONE, SO THERE ARE A TON OF WAYS TO GO ABOUT THIS.