Biting Apple

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

There is no security on the internet.

   The FBI demands that technicians at Apple help the agency unlock data in an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists. Apple objects, claiming it would endanger the security features enjoyed by all iPhone owners.
   No matter the seriousness of the crime or the likelihood of finding accessories on the email trail, Apple is not, nor should it be, an investigative arm of the FBI. The feds have plenty of skilled computer folk, so if they want to crack the security code used by the terrorists, they are free to try. It is true that Apple has built into its device security software, a program that automatically erases all data after a certain number of attempts to crack the code, and it would surely be easier for the FBI if their technicians had the help of the Apple folk who wrote the code.
   That, however, is not the point. Apple is right to protest the attempt to invade its security programs, either by a "back door" or any other means. Doing so would set a precedent, and could easily lead to government using that "back door" to enter the data archives of any other Apple device owner.
   Moreover, that precedent could be used in future efforts to have other firms assist law enforcement in its investigations. Thus, everyone is at risk of being monitored, ostensibly in the name of "national security."

   Journalists have long refused to divulge sources to law enforcement for similar reasons, and many state laws protect that right. While there is no federal shield law protecting journalists, there should be, and many journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources, even after government has already identified them. Whether corporations should also be compelled to assist in police investigations is now the key issue in the FBI-Apple dispute.
   Government agents may have been encouraged in their efforts by a history of other communications companies providing records, such as telephone calls or emails, known as metadata. Even though wiretap laws were and are still in effect, that did stop companies from providing the data, on the excuse that content was not revealed, but only records of numbers contacted and time spent.
   Computer and telecommunication companies try hard to provide security for device users through sophisticated encryption programs that protect them from scammers, invaders, data thieves and those who block all access unless a ransom is paid.
   But to circumvent all that and cooperate with government investigators conflicts with a constitutional right to privacy.
   Prosecutors "promise" that this would be for one time only, and would immediately be abandoned once the investigation is complete.
   Yeah, right.
   Once the government camel's nose is under the computer tent, it will be nearly impossible to remove the camel.
   Ask the CIA to get its nose out.