In the United States, the dispute between the company Apple and the nation’s FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is getting bigger.
Especially, after Microsoft’s founder Bill Gates spoke in support of FBI saying Apple should simply go ahead and give FBI what it’s asking for.
The cyberspace was immediately abuzz with criticism, and most of the global IT community started lambasting Gates’ stance.
And I feel too that Gates got it wrong. Slightly.
On technology. And on morality.
But let us backtrack a bit, and start from the very beginning.
On 2 December 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
The attack was carried out by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, both lawful residents of USA of Pakistani descent. The police had then chased the SUV (sports utility vehicle) in which the attacker-duo was trying to escape, and killed them in the shootout.
Now, the police wants the iPhone of the killer Syed Rizwan Farook to be opened by Apple, as a part of its investigation.
Apple is saying it can’t.
Actually, to be more precise, Apple is saying it won’t.
In a letter to all customers, Apple’s chief Tim Cook wrote: “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”.
The letter also says, “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.” (See www.apple.com/cutomer-letter/ )
Bill Gates says that Apple has the technology to retrieve the information that the government wants. And like many banks - which must submit to government, all required information on bank-accounts of, say, money launderers and accused terrorists to help in investigations – Apple should comply too.
But therein lies the problem. Unlike banks which have access to all their customers’ information, Apple doesn’t.
It is like Apple has stored all the data in a locker and has thrown the key away. And even Apple cannot open it without using “brute force” which FBI wants it to do.
Apple’s policy on privacy has always been, “what the customer stores in his phone is none of our business”.
But this is a case of a terrorist. So, why can’t they make an exception, asks Bill Gates.
Creating a backdoor-software, however, would effectually create a technology which could be replicated, making all iPhone devices vulnerable. That is Tim Cook’s argument .
Meanwhile, interestingly, the Anti-virus software creator John McAfee has offered to break the encryption on the iPhone if FBI asks him. In fact, he said he would “eat his shoe” on a TV show, if he can’t!
Now, as I see it, Apple is interested in individuals’ data security. And the government is interested in public security.
Private security or public security? That is the ethical dilemma which spawned this legal battle.
With US government known for its spying on citizens, it is not surprising that many software industry giants are backing Apple’s stand, including Google and Facebook.
This legal wrangle, I am sure, will result in a major revolution in Privacy Law and Public Interest.
Especially, after Microsoft’s founder Bill Gates spoke in support of FBI saying Apple should simply go ahead and give FBI what it’s asking for.
The cyberspace was immediately abuzz with criticism, and most of the global IT community started lambasting Gates’ stance.
And I feel too that Gates got it wrong. Slightly.
On technology. And on morality.
But let us backtrack a bit, and start from the very beginning.
On 2 December 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
The attack was carried out by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, both lawful residents of USA of Pakistani descent. The police had then chased the SUV (sports utility vehicle) in which the attacker-duo was trying to escape, and killed them in the shootout.
Now, the police wants the iPhone of the killer Syed Rizwan Farook to be opened by Apple, as a part of its investigation.
Apple is saying it can’t.
Actually, to be more precise, Apple is saying it won’t.
In a letter to all customers, Apple’s chief Tim Cook wrote: “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”.
The letter also says, “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.” (See www.apple.com/cutomer-letter/ )
Bill Gates says that Apple has the technology to retrieve the information that the government wants. And like many banks - which must submit to government, all required information on bank-accounts of, say, money launderers and accused terrorists to help in investigations – Apple should comply too.
But therein lies the problem. Unlike banks which have access to all their customers’ information, Apple doesn’t.
It is like Apple has stored all the data in a locker and has thrown the key away. And even Apple cannot open it without using “brute force” which FBI wants it to do.
Apple’s policy on privacy has always been, “what the customer stores in his phone is none of our business”.
But this is a case of a terrorist. So, why can’t they make an exception, asks Bill Gates.
Creating a backdoor-software, however, would effectually create a technology which could be replicated, making all iPhone devices vulnerable. That is Tim Cook’s argument .
Meanwhile, interestingly, the Anti-virus software creator John McAfee has offered to break the encryption on the iPhone if FBI asks him. In fact, he said he would “eat his shoe” on a TV show, if he can’t!
Now, as I see it, Apple is interested in individuals’ data security. And the government is interested in public security.
Private security or public security? That is the ethical dilemma which spawned this legal battle.
With US government known for its spying on citizens, it is not surprising that many software industry giants are backing Apple’s stand, including Google and Facebook.
This legal wrangle, I am sure, will result in a major revolution in Privacy Law and Public Interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment