Apple Boss Argues with US Government over Encryption Added: Friday, January 15th, 2016 Tags: Network, Hackers, Internet, Google, 2016 Tim Cook has challenged the American government to adopt a policy of “no backdoors” in regard to the encryption technology used by Apple and other tech giants. Apple CEO announced his point of view at a recent meeting between the US administration officials and tech firms including Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google and others. Tim Cook harshly criticized suggestions that the encryption technology being used by tech firms might have “back doors” built in in order to fight terrorist use of encrypted communications. According to the media reports, there was a spirited exchange between Apple CEO and US attorney general Loretta Lynch, who allegedly responded to Cook’s comments with a warning about the required “balance” between privacy and national security. Of course, clashes between Apple and the American agencies over encryption occurred before. Just a few months ago, Apple refused to comply with a court order that requested the company to hand over texts sent using iMessage between two iPhones due to iMessage’s encryption. A year before that, the FBI director James Comey criticized the company for the inclusion of end-to-end encryption in its iMessage system. He claimed that he sees no point in marketing a “closet that could never be opened”, even if it is about a child kidnapper and a court order. Comey then also voiced similar views about the encryption used in Google’s Android platform. So, Apple CEO’s stance on privacy came as no surprise to the American government. A year ago, Cook warned of the “dire consequences” of sacrificing the right to privacy. Then, in June 2015, he defended strong-encryption technology, saying that undermining the ability of ordinary citizens to encrypt their data is incredibly dangerous. The problem is that if any back doors for the government are left, hackers can find and use them as well. Indeed, everyone knows the extent of the hacking problem today. Criminals are using every technology tool to hack into someone else’s accounts, and if they know there’s a back door somewhere, they won’t stop until they find it. So, weakening encryption would only hurt law-abiding citizens who rely on the tech firms to protect their information. After the Paris attacks late last year, Apple teamed up with 60+ other tech giants to reject calls for weakening encryption.
42 Countries Joined to Issue Open Letter Against Encryption Backdoors Added: Saturday, January 16th, 2016 Tags: Network, Hackers, Internet, 2016 Just a few days after senior Obama administration officials made an attempt to revive a relationship with Silicon Valley titans that was damaged by Snowden’s revelations of mass surveillance practice, cyber activists from 42 countries issued an open letter. The letter is aimed against government efforts to insert or use software flaws in encryption protocols. 195 experts, firms and civil-society groups from 42 countries signed the letter claiming that people should have the option to use the strongest encryption available without fear that governments will compel access to their communications without due process and respect for human rights. The letter was initiated by the digital-rights group Access Now, calling for the governments not to limit user access to encryption in any form, rejecting the global government efforts to mandate encryption backdoors. It is not a secret that many American security officials, including FBI director James Comey, have urged the tech giants to create backdoors into encrypted communications that only the government could access. Technologists criticized the demand, but their requests received political support after the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. The problem is that such encryption backdoors are user-neutral, i.e. they cannot distinguish between the FBI agent and the hacker. This is why weakening encryption protocols for surveillance can instead jeopardize cybersecurity. This open letter was released in a dozen countries, where changes to their laws have been passed or are being considered that pave the way to deeper digital surveillance. For example, a highly controversial surveillance document, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, passed in December after advocates included it within a must-pass spending bill. The letter explains that encryption and anonymity provide the privacy and security necessary to ensure the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Since governments all over the world were united in threatening encryption, a global response was similarly warranted. Access Now claims it needs to start shining light on the ways the human rights are being threatened in the digital age.
