According to an article in the LA Times, Apple will oppose a judicial order to help FBI unlock the phone belonging to San Bernardino shooter. This brings up an interesting conundrum.
First, the encryption programs currently in use are all but unbreakable with current technology. The method, perhaps RSA, depends on extremely secure mathematical methods for which the amount of time to crack exceeds the capacity all current technology. It can be assumed the terrorists used such technology. (Heck, you can download it. PGP is an example.) We have heard of current terrorists "going dark," which means they are using such technology. All this is well known. The FBI knows it, the NSA knows it, and all security agencies world-wide know it.
So why is the Fed going after Apple?
Second, why are the Feds coming after Apple? There are only a couple of reasons, one of which they are simply grandstanding a play to reveal they are still looking. Another is that Apply has built into its operating system a "backdoor" to certain encryption technologies. This means they have basically built into its system a method to capture pass codes to encryption methods. Apple claims they have built no such software. This leads us to the conundrum. Clearly, such a backdoor is easy to engineer, and almost as clearly it is more than tempting to do so. So have they or haven't they?
Currently, Apple claims they have not. But if they have, and to my mind it is likely they have, Apple must deny it, for if consumers know it is true, sales will be affected. For Apple, it would spell disaster. In the meantime, Apple basks in great and FREE publicity about the security of their software. Sales go up.
_____________________________________
Well, is this the rant of a paranoid reader? Are they out to get me? Nope. they are not. They are out to get everyone. No doubt you've experienced advertisements of items in which you are interested. Big data applications make this possible. For example, I ventured to find a new watch of a certain type, and ever since I've been receiving emails about this and similar watches.
Unrelenting. The corporations want data, crave data, process data, and make data-based pitches to me - and to you. For these concerns, there is little by way of ethics as to what is fair, much less what is private. The vendor that states your data is private is not unlike the grocer claiming their product is "organic." Both may be disingenuous though some may be duped within a cloud of ignorance. Therefore, in only a small stretch, all your web-based inquiries, most of your cloud based data, and many of your financial transactions are extensively mined. Not to pry into what is you, but to what can be sold to you. Encrypted data is even more valuable because it reveals who you really are, what you might do, and where you are heading. To quote from the Orwell novel "1984," they do it "because they can." My conjecture is that back doors within proprietary devices is a given fact. However, it does compromise the vendors, because if such becomes public, they are at some risk from those transmitting such data. As cogent as this case may seem, it is deeply hoped to be wrong.
First, the encryption programs currently in use are all but unbreakable with current technology. The method, perhaps RSA, depends on extremely secure mathematical methods for which the amount of time to crack exceeds the capacity all current technology. It can be assumed the terrorists used such technology. (Heck, you can download it. PGP is an example.) We have heard of current terrorists "going dark," which means they are using such technology. All this is well known. The FBI knows it, the NSA knows it, and all security agencies world-wide know it.
So why is the Fed going after Apple?
Second, why are the Feds coming after Apple? There are only a couple of reasons, one of which they are simply grandstanding a play to reveal they are still looking. Another is that Apply has built into its operating system a "backdoor" to certain encryption technologies. This means they have basically built into its system a method to capture pass codes to encryption methods. Apple claims they have built no such software. This leads us to the conundrum. Clearly, such a backdoor is easy to engineer, and almost as clearly it is more than tempting to do so. So have they or haven't they?
Currently, Apple claims they have not. But if they have, and to my mind it is likely they have, Apple must deny it, for if consumers know it is true, sales will be affected. For Apple, it would spell disaster. In the meantime, Apple basks in great and FREE publicity about the security of their software. Sales go up.
_____________________________________
Well, is this the rant of a paranoid reader? Are they out to get me? Nope. they are not. They are out to get everyone. No doubt you've experienced advertisements of items in which you are interested. Big data applications make this possible. For example, I ventured to find a new watch of a certain type, and ever since I've been receiving emails about this and similar watches.
Unrelenting. The corporations want data, crave data, process data, and make data-based pitches to me - and to you. For these concerns, there is little by way of ethics as to what is fair, much less what is private. The vendor that states your data is private is not unlike the grocer claiming their product is "organic." Both may be disingenuous though some may be duped within a cloud of ignorance. Therefore, in only a small stretch, all your web-based inquiries, most of your cloud based data, and many of your financial transactions are extensively mined. Not to pry into what is you, but to what can be sold to you. Encrypted data is even more valuable because it reveals who you really are, what you might do, and where you are heading. To quote from the Orwell novel "1984," they do it "because they can." My conjecture is that back doors within proprietary devices is a given fact. However, it does compromise the vendors, because if such becomes public, they are at some risk from those transmitting such data. As cogent as this case may seem, it is deeply hoped to be wrong.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.