The US government against information technology companies - close civil war? .. We - on the side of Apple

This publication is an open letter to TechCrunch.



Tim Cook’s open letter to customers about the FBI’s requirement to create a “back door” in the iOS operating system sparked a critical discussion of the right to privacy of citizens in America.

We, like all citizens of America, were also shocked and saddened by the deaths of people in San Bernardino. But a recent ruling by a police court judge to have Apple help the US government in unblocking the iPhone’s iPhone device, which belonged to the “shooter from San Bernardino,” especially if there is no situation of “circumstances beyond delay”, is disturbing.

')

That this ruling makes Apple not only help the FBI unlock the iPhone, but actually write the appropriate software, threatens to create an alarming precedent.

We support Apple in its fight against this ruling, and urge the rest of the security industry and information technology industry to do the same.

This is due to the fact that the greatest differences exist between providing access to government representatives and ensuring security in the field of information technology.



When discussing this case, whether the FBI is really demanding the creation of a “back door”, be sure that if Apple is forced to do what is required, then the long-term consequence of this will be a reduction in the security and confidentiality of information around the world.



In order to better understand the situation and protect the country from threats, the government wants to have expanded access to digital data created by citizens, hoping to use it to prevent other incidents or to punish criminals.

To better protect the security and privacy of customers, many technology developers oppose the creation of any “back door” in the protection system or any means of easy access to such data.

When discussing this case, whether the FBI is really demanding the creation of a “back door”, be sure that if Apple is forced to do what is required, then the long-term consequence of this will be a reduction in the security and confidentiality of information around the world.



For years, the US government relied on access to telecommunications companies' servers, making it easy to collect information about citizens and other data to ensure national security. Some government officials have recently stated that the requirement in question in this case is only slightly more than a slight increase in such access. However, the volume and composition of the data stored in smartphones is not just a small extension of the phone call data.



Information created using smart devices is fundamentally different and much more valuable. Smartphones, wearables, drones, etc. contain the most advanced technological developments, such as biometric security systems, wireless hardware of mobile payment systems, high-resolution cameras and much more, and their information is orders of magnitude more important than phone call data.



With the clear assumption that their data is secure and safe for storing and transmitting, and that this data can only be used for agreed purposes, people voluntarily use these devices to transmit personal information.

The court’s decision threatens to change that.



It is impossible to overestimate the potential negative impact on freedom of speech and trade if users know that companies whose devices they use to fully communicate with their loved ones will be forced by the government to bypass the protection promised by such devices.

Silicon Valley giants supporting the position of data encryption understand the importance of data, both for companies and for ordinary users. Moreover, they understand the importance of security for customers and devices, often limiting their own access to data for this purpose.



Since information, data is at the center of our society, their commercial value is simply immeasurable, says Douglas Lanie, an analyst at Gartner.

Data is also not just invaluable in commerce, as many security organizations in the US are well aware of. “Big data” (big data) can provide an extremely detailed picture of people's lives at some point in time.



The nature of expenses, location, health statistics, financial assets — these data, collected together and combined for analysis, provide a person (or company) with a much more informative picture than his close relative could have. This information, used properly, can prevent crime. But in the "improper" hands, this information can significantly violate the civil rights of people.

Therefore, the question arises: how much of our rights for how much predictability and security are we ready to trade?



First, let's question the government’s suggestion that we, in general, have to sacrifice something. Can we not have security and the right to privacy at the same time?

With the right security measures and proper legal procedures — including warning, transparency, accountability, and clear boundaries in gaining access to control — can! The question is how to balance these competing values ​​and who should make such a decision.



A considered court order, made without giving Apple the opportunity to communicate its position, takes a decision from people whose right to privacy and the safety of which it directly affects.

This decision must be made by elected representatives of the people.



A court ruling that takes an extraordinary and unprecedented step, forcing the company to create software for the US government and execute it in a way that weakens the right to privacy and security of American citizens, threatens to set us on a course from which we may not be able to step down.



Of course, we could give this "master key" - rest assured, the software the FBI insists on is a slippery track to him - to our data, entrusting the government to protect it from hackers-criminals. We do this with a connection to the communication lines - a control method with mandatory restrictive security measures at an appropriate level. But in the present post-Snowden time history is on the side of the information technology industry. There is reasonably little trust that the provision of the products under discussion will lead to limited, highly specialized data collection.