By Roger Cheng
Apparently,
there's nothing that gets people talking like a debate between personal privacy
and national security.
A wide range of
tech companies this week filed amicus briefs, or court filings that throw their
support behind Apple in its legal
tussle with the FBI. The iPhone maker's supporters include Google,
Microsoft, Twitter, Airbnb, AT&T and several trade groups such as the
Consumer Technology Association.
Their show of
support underscores concern the wider tech industry has about the FBI ordering
Apple to create a "back door" -- an intentional security weak spot --
in a smartphone used by millions of people around the world.
In the amicus
briefs, companies said they worry back doors would weaken their ability to
protect their customers' information and put people at heightened risk of being
hacked. The FBI argues this is an isolated incident involving a single iPhone
5C used by one of the terrorists involved with the December massacre in San
Bernardino, California, and is necessary to keep Americans safe from future
attacks.
Apple has
compiled the briefs here. We picked out the
highlights so you don't have to pore through them.
From Amazon, Box, Cisco, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Microsoft,
Mozilla, Nest, Pinterest, Slack, Snapchat, WhatsApp and Yahoo:
Outdated
rules. "The government seeks a
dramatic extension of New York Telephone (a 1977 Supreme Court case) to cover
ever-evolving technologies...It is dangerous to extend that limited endorsement
of judicial power over third parties to situations the Supreme Court never
could have envisioned."
Not
just one hack. "The
government's motion reassures the court and the public that the request here is
a one-time-only hack. But there are already strong indications that law
enforcement will ask for broad authority under the All Writs Act on facts far
different from the terrorism investigation at hand."
A
most personal device. "Cell
phones are the way we organize and remember the things that are important to
us; they are, in a very real way, an extension of our memories. And as a
result, to access someone's cell phone is to access their innermost thoughts
and their most private affairs."
From Airbnb, Atlassian,
Automattic, CloudFlare, eBay, GitHub, Kickstarter, LinkedIn, Mapbox, Medium,
Meetup, Reddit, Square, Squarespace, Twilio, Twitter and Wickr:
Dangerous
precedent. "The
government's demand here, at its core, is unbound by any legal limits. It would
set a dangerous precedent, in which the government could sidestep established
legal procedures authorized by thorough, nuanced statutes to obtain users' data
in ways not contemplated by lawmakers."
More
important than ever.
"The unprecedented scale of digital information used, stored and
communicated on the Internet means that 'privacy,' which 'has been at the heart
of our democracy from its inception,' is "needed now more than ever."
From the BSA/Software Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association, the
Information Technology Industry Council and TechNet:
Not
just phones. "The
target of the government's request in this case is Apple, but the government's
theory would just as easily extend to any third-party developer that has as one
of its functions collecting and storing personal information about the device's
owner. The authority sought by the government would therefore extend not only
to phones, laptop computers and tablets, but also to automobiles that store
information regarding location and times of use; insulin pumps that store
information about blood sugar levels; and the myriad other devices that collect
and store personal information."
From AT&T:
Leave
it to Congress.
"We need a legal regime that responds to these technological changes
through fair, uniform procedures that govern when and how the government may
compel any private company to provide access to customer information. Congress
is the right body to create such a comprehensive regime addressing all relevant
considerations. Indeed, only Congress can do so."
From Intel:
It's
not just Apple. "Given
the scope of Intel's products and services and its focus on security, it is
likely that a ruling in the government's favor on its demand against Apple
would lead 13 to similar demands against Intel and other technology
companies."
From the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and 46 technologies, researchers and cryptographers:
Conflict
of expression. "The
Order is unconstitutional because it compels Apple to express itself in
conflict with its stated beliefs. The Order forces Apple to say something it
does not want to say and that it believes is 'dangerous.' It then forces Apple
to endorse code it does not want to endorse and thereby undermine the trust it
has established in its digital signature."
Not all of
filings supported Apple. Here are a few in support the FBI's efforts to open up
the terrorist's iPhone 5C.
From Mark Senfeur, whose son
was among those killed in the attack:
Preventing another attack.
"Recovery of information from the iPhone in question may not lead to
anything new. But, what if there is evidence pointing to a third shooter? What
if it leads to an unknown terrorist cell?"
From Michael Ramos, district
attorney for San Bernardino County:
Cyber
pathogen? "The
seized iPhone may contain evidence that can only be found on the seized phone
that it was used as a weapon to introduce a lying dormant cyber pathogen that
endangers San Bernardino's infrastructure."
No comments:
Post a Comment