Feb. 21, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
54:44
3211 The Truth About Donald Trump's Apple Boycott | Tim Cook, Privacy and Terrorism
On December 2nd, 2015, the San Bernardino terrorist attack involving Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik brought significant attention to the federal government’s inability to screen immigrants, refugees and visa applicants. The lessons of this attack - which left 14 people dead and 22 others seriously injured - were lost on many government officials who continued their push for the United States intake of refugees and impossible to vet immigrants.Over two months later, the terrorist attack has brought attention to the issue of privacy, security and government surveillance. Apple is currently involved in two separate legal cases with government agencies concerning compliance with the All Writs Act and extracting information from various iPhones and operating systems.Tim Cook released a detailed statement about the situation – and all the political candidates including: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump have taken public positions. Republican front-runner Donald Trump has even gone as far as to suggest a boycott of Apple products until Apple complies with the court order backing the FBI’s request.What is The Truth About Donald Trump's Apple Boycott?
Hi everybody, this is Van Molyne from Free Domain Radio.
I hope you're doing what?
What's that sound?
Do you hear that?
Yeah?
That is the sound of the FBI attempting to drill through your iPhone case and suck out all of your banking data.
Well, you've probably heard that there is a fairly titanic Conflict of near biblical proportions going on between the FBI and one Apple corporation regarding access to a very important cell phone.
There's a lot to talk about.
It is a highly consequential state of affairs.
So let's dive straight in, shall we?
December 2, 2015, of course, the San Bernardino terrorist attack involving Saeed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik brought significant attention to the federal government's inability to screen immigrants, refugees, and visa applicants.
Not to mention, hey, why would we ever want to check out their Facebook posts to see if maybe they've been...
Oh, and let's make sure we don't have any kind of racial profiling in a country that is having significant tussles with people from the Middle East.
No, no.
The lessons of this attack, of course I'm sure you know, left 14 dead and 22 others seriously injured, were lost on many government officials who continued their mad seppuku push for the US intake of refugees and, impossible to vet, immigrants and migrants.
Now over two months later, a significant span of time, the relevance of which we will get into in a moment, The terrorist attack has brought attention to the issue of privacy, security, and big brother government surveillance.
Apple is currently involved in two separate legal cases with government agencies concerning compliance with the All-RITS Act.
That's W-R-I-T-S for those listening, not watching.
RITS. Boy, there's a word you haven't heard of in a while.
I wonder why.
Ah...
The All Writs Act was passed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which I think also affirmed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and was updated in 1949 by Congress.
The text of the Act is as follows.
A. The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
B. An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
And a rule nisi, this is from the Latin nisi, meaning unless.
That's a court order that doesn't have any force unless a particular condition is met.
You can think of it sort of like a will.
It's really not supposed to kick in until you check out.
Now, two months later, huh?
I wonder what they've had on their higher priority list than getting into a terrorist's cell phone to find messages, emails, texts, you name it.
So it's only coming up now.
And just before we...
I was going to save this at the end.
Just before we go on, it's just important to understand.
If you were a friend, cellmate, terror compatriot of Sayyid Farouk or Tashfin Malik, then...
As soon as you find out they're caught, you're scrubbing your cell phone, you're getting out of the country, you're changing your identity, you're getting new papers, you are vanishing, you're in the wind.
So, two months later, what are they expecting to find of any value?
I don't know.
Maybe, just maybe, they have another agenda.
Let's find out together, shall we?
So, on devices running iOS 7 and previous operating systems, Apple has the technical ability to extract data, including contacts, photos, calls and iMessages.
The specific data available may be limited by the operating system version, but Apple can obtain this data without unlocking the phone involved.
So, this is from an Apple legal document, and no, it's not the one you clicked agree to, hoping that it wasn't going to result in you having to forcibly sell your kidney through iTunes.
Such operating system versions are becoming rare as they compromise, that's supposed to be comprise, I'm pretty sure, as they comprise less than 10% of the devices.
For these devices, Apple has the technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data from a passcode-locked iOS device.
Whether the extraction can be performed successfully depends on the device itself and whether it is in good working order.
As a general matter, however, certain user-generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple's native apps can be extracted.
Apple cannot, however, extract email, calendar entries, or any third-party app data.
So we mentioned there were two cases.
One is in New York.
The current New York case involves an Apple device running a version of iOS 7.
It's a drug dealer's phone.
And the government claims Apple has complied with court order requests for similar data extraction approximately 70 times.
Apple does not dispute.
They have complied with past court orders, but has not commented on the number of cases.
Reports that Apple has previously unlocked iPhones are incorrect.
They cannot just unlock them and go and browse whatever data they want.
So, in addition to objecting to the application of the All-Writs Act, Apple notes the burden, quote,"...diverts manpower and resources," end quote,"...including," quote,"...the inevitable testimonial demands that will follow such data extraction." Right?
So...
If the Apple engineers manage to extract some data, they're probably going to have to testify in court.
They're going to be cross-examined, and they can't reveal any proprietary information during this cross-examination.
It's really complicated, requires a lot of preparation, and takes the engineer out of circulation.
And I can't imagine it's something that the engineers look forward to a whole lot.
So, this is continue the quote.
Once Apple engineers participate in the process, they may be required to testify at trial.
This is not a case where Apple engineers are fact witnesses required to testify when called.
Their involvement in any proceedings would be solely due to their mandated service under the proposed order.
So, mandated service.
It's one thing to say, look, you've got some data, send it over to us on a USB key.
Boom, boom, boom, off it goes, right?
It's quite another thing to say you have to perform technical wizardry to extract and unencrypt and get the data in some readable format and so on, and then you have to testify that the guy who puts in the USB says, oh, I sent it over.
If it's unencrypted and available, the guy who's got to do all the engineering, it's complicated and time-consuming.
Apple also notes that, quote, public sensitivity to issues regarding digital privacy and security is at an unprecedented level.
This is true, not only with respect to illegal hacking by criminals, but also in the area of government access, both disclosed and covert.
Apple has taken a leadership role in the protection of its customers' personal data against any form of improper access.
Forcing Apple to extract data in this case, absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand.
This reputational harm could have a longer-term economic impact beyond the mere cost of performing the single extraction.
at issue.
This is really something we're going to focus on while we talk about this.
There are lots of choices for people who want to buy phones and if Apple is known to have backdoors or to get in or to extract data from User phones, either overtly or covertly, people are just not going to want to buy Apple phones.
What dent is that going to put in their sales?
Also, if people have bought phones, let's say you just laid out 800 bucks for some top-of-the-line Apple iPhone, and then it turns out that Apple can get at the data which you kind of bought it so nobody could, maybe you want a refund.
Maybe there'll be a civil action or a lawsuit against Maybe it will be some massive lawsuit that everyone will pile on and say, wait a minute, we bought these phones in order to protect our data, and now you've just built some backdoor.
Our phones are useless.
We're bringing a class action.
Like, who knows what could happen from here?
And of course, whatever the government demands Apple is going to do, it's not going to demand...
Phone manufacturers in any other country are going to have to do, so that puts Apple manufacturers at a significant disadvantage in the worldwide market.
That's not unimportant when it comes to having jobs in America.
Application of the All Rits Act in this case imposes a real burden on Apple, commercial and reputational.
Should the court determine that the law does not support the government's reliance on the All Rits Act for the reasons the court identified, Apple respectfully requests that the court deny the government's application for an order requiring Apple to perform extraction services on the Apple-manufactured device in the government's custody.
Now, this New York case is pending, but the current attention is on California, which we will now turn to.
The California case involving the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist Said Farouk has caught significant media attention over the last several days, but it is significantly different from the New York case.
While the California case also involves the use of the questionable All Writs Act, the iPhone in question is running iOS 9 and data extraction is no longer possible due to far more extensive encryption.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California is ordering 1.
Apple shall assist in the enabling of the search of a cellular telephone.
Apple make iPhone 5C, the subject device, pursue into a warrant of this court by providing reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in obtaining access to the data on the subject device.
2.
Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions.
1.
It will bypass or disable the auto-erase function, whether or not it has been enabled.
2.
It will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the subject device for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or other protocol available on the subject, And three, it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the subject device, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
So, there's the end quote.
What is it that they're looking for?
Well, there is an iOS setting that allows for a device to automatically wipe itself after 10 consecutive incorrect attempts to enter a passcode.
Now, the passcode is entangled with the unique ID of the actual device.
So you can't mirror it or create some virtual phone somewhere else.
So you can't do it through another computer.
You've got to do it actually on the specific device.
So I'm guessing that the FBI tried 9 and now is afraid that it's going to erase what's going on.
Now, why do they say No delay.
Well, there's a large iteration count to make each attempt slower.
So, one attempt takes approximately 80 milliseconds.
That means if you have a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers, it will take about 5.5 years to try all of the combinations of that because of the delay.
So they want to be able to just brute blast passwords without this phone self-erasing and without there being any encoded delay in the acceptance of these passcodes.
So, even if they could find some way to bypass the, you know, 10 fails and it self-erases, They can only do 12.5 passcode guesses per second.
If you've got an 11-digit passcode, that will take up to 253 years in total or 127 years on average, by which time Congress may well have passed a budget.
Now, Edward Snowden has pointed out that the changes here being demanded by the FBI, that you just be able to blast as many with no delays, would make it possible to break into an iPhone 5C or older in about half an hour.
So they are really looking at if they can bypass the 10 fails and erase and they can bypass the Iterations slow down, then they can just brute blast passcodes at the phone and break into at least the 5C or older phones very, very quickly.
So it renders the security rather moot.
Because, of course, once you're in, everything's decrypted, right?
So, that's important.
So, this is continuing with the court.
Three.
Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to, providing the FBI with a signed iPhone software file, recovery bundle, or other software image file, SIFP. That can be loaded onto the subject device.
The SIF will load and run from random access memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone.
The user data partition or system partition on the device is flash memory.
The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the subject device.
The SIF will be loaded via device firmware upgrade, DFU mode, Department of...
No, I can't remember what the last two acronyms are.
DFU mode, recovery mode or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the subject device, the SIF will accomplish...
The three functions specified in paragraph 2.
The SIF will be loaded on the subject device at either a government facility or alternatively at an Apple facility.
If the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the subject device through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.
So, Four, if Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph two, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph three, using an alternative technological means from that recommended by the government and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this order in that way.
So basically, the FBI is ordering Apple to create malware that cracks the phone.
That opens the phone to brute force password hacking.
And they're doing it by saying, okay, let's pretend it's a recovery mode or it's some sort of upgrade, something that's going to replace the operating system.
as it stands now I don't I don't know it's been a while since I've used an iPhone but I'm pretty sure you've got to enter a passcode in even to do an upgrade but they're just trying to say maybe you can replace some aspects of the operating system so that it won't self-erase after 10 failed tries and you can just brute blast these passcodes at it that's fundamentally malware now they are saying It will only load and execute on the subject device.
So if you try and take it somewhere else, then it won't be able to work.
That's their way of limiting the damage, right?
Because this is basically like you've got some group that's created this massive secure safe that's being used by millions of people, and they're saying, we want something that...
You wave a USB key in front of it, and the safe magically opens.
Well, you say, oh, we only want it for that one safe.
We want to see what's inside that one safe.
Everyone else's safe is fine.
Really?
Are you sure about that?
There is reverse engineering.
There are ways of reverse engineering code and figuring out how it works and substituting one value for another, as in all phones.
So this is true genie-out-of-the-bottle Pandora's box kind of malware that the FBI is ordering Apple.
Court document continues.
Five.
Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of providing this service.
There's no mention of whether the government will pay, but the whole point is that it's not the hourly rate of the engineers that's the problem.
It's the fact that people are going to say, to hell with my iPhone, I'm going Android, or I'm going, I guess, me and three other people, Windows Phone, or, you know, like, they're just going to find some other way to do it.
Six, says the court document, although Apple shall make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity of data on the subject device, Apple shall not be required to maintain copies of any user data as a result of the assistance ordered herein.
All evidence preservation shall remain the responsibility of law enforcement agents.
Seven, to the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to this court for relief within five business days of the receipt of the order.
So, what that means, again, is the government is forcing Apple to develop an entirely new operating system which can be loaded onto a locked device which will allow them to attempt to break the password using a brute force attack.
Now, as measured by Apple's App Store, as of October 5th, 2015, 90% of Apple's devices are using iOS 8 or higher.
So, the decision in this case impacts over 90% of all Apple devices in Apple.
Can you imagine on the black market or through foreign governments, through hackers, through just about anyone and their dog, what the street market value would be of such a package should it be able to be executed against other people's funds?
The street value would be in the tens or possibly even hundreds of millions of dollars.
So you've got to rely.
All of your engineers are going to create this package and not one of them is going to be contacted or tempted or bribed or threatened or blackmailed or anything to give over this software.
And also nobody on the government, which is so great at keeping everyone's data safe.
No one on the government is going to be bribable either.
I don't know.
Maybe they can just put it on Hillary Clinton's survey server.
Then I'm sure it will be completely bulletproof.
Now I'm going to quote fairly extensively from Apple CEO Tim Cook's statements regarding this conflict.
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.
We oppose this order which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
This moment calls for public discussion and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers' personal data because we believe it's the only way to keep their information safe.
We have even put that data out of our own reach because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.
When the FBI has requested data that's in our possession, we have provided it.
Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants as we have in the San Bernardino case.
We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI and we've offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.
We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December.
We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected.
The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack and we have worked hard to support the government's efforts to solve this horrible crime.
We have no sympathy for terrorists.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good.
Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them.
But now, the US government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.
They have asked us to build a back door to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system circumventing several important security features and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.
In the wrong hands, this software, which does not exist today, would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake.
Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor.
And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution.
But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today's digital world, the key to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it.
Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests that this tool could only be used once on one phone, but that's simply not true.
Once created, the technique could be used over and over again on any number of devices.
In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks, from restaurants and banks to stores and homes.
No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers, including tens of millions of American citizens, from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.
The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack.
For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption.
Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data.
criminals and bad actors will still encrypt using tools that are readily available to them.
Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All-Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.
The government...
We'd have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically.
This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by brute force, trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government's demands are chilling.
If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone's device to capture their data.
The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone's microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly.
Thank you.
We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the US government.
We are challenging The FBI's demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country.
We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI's intentions are good, It would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products.
And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
So that's the end of Tim Cook's statements.
In court filings, Apple has argued that the federal government is overstepping its limits as Congress previously codified the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALIA, of 1992, which addresses the guidelines of private entities and how to act in relation to such situations.
The Department of Justice rejects applicability of CALEA in these cases, arguing it applies to data at rest rather than in transit, and was designed primarily in relation to telecommunication companies compared to device manufacturers.
Now, according to the New York Times, there's a bit of a twist here.
I quote, Apple had asked the FBI to issue its application for the tool under SEAL. But the government made it public, prompting Mr.
Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The result was the letter that Mr.
Cook signed on Tuesday, where he argued that it set a dangerous precedent for a company to be forced to build tools for the government that weaken security.
So, again, this is reported from the New York Times.
We'll put the sources to all of this stuff below.
Okay, so maybe Apple was willing to do it if it was going to be under seal.
In other words, if nobody else ever knew about it.
And so they said, okay, issue the application under seal.
But the government made it public, which puts Apple in a tricky situation.
Cook now may be in damage control mode.
Maybe he would have done it under the table.
Now they have to be the heroes because the government wouldn't let them be the weasels.
So, that's a bit of a wrinkle.
Now, how did the government mess things up?
Let us count the ways.
Now, the San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone is owned and was issued by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, his employer at the time of the terrorist attack.
The Justice Department has acknowledged that, and I quote, the owner, San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, in an attempt to gain access to some information in the hours after the attack, was able to reset the iPhone's password remotely, but that had the effect of eliminating the possibility of an auto backup.
Now, if the password had not been reset by government officials, Apple could have possibly recovered information from the iPhone through any iCloud auto backup.
So, these are the backups that occur when devices are connected to recognized Wi-Fi networks.
The last backup was October 19, 2015, and the auto backup function also may have been disabled.
What they could have done is taken the phone to a recognized Wi-Fi location, like the guy's house or some local coffee shops, and seen if some auto backup may have occurred, which might have been helpful.
So, good job, everyone.
So what are people saying about this?
Well, as you can imagine, a lot of people coming out in support of Apple who know what they're talking about.
And then we get to the politicians, which will be in just a moment.
Edward Snowden, quote, an FBI win against Apple results in an insecurity mandate, a world where Americans can't sell secure products, but our competitors can.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai, quote, Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users' privacy.
We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism.
We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders.
But that's wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices and data.
Could be a troubling precedent.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
We stand with Tim Cook and Apple and thank him for his leadership.
Hmm.
Twitter.
Jack Dorsey wildly impressed by a company with leadership and integrity.
Hmm.
Je suis Milo!
Also stopped shadow banning conservatives.
American Civil Liberties Union said, The government is increasingly relying on an 18th century law to compel third parties to unlock mobile devices and circumvent An important public debate about its right to do so.
The ACLU and several partner organizations have filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records related to the government's use of the All Writs Act to force device manufacturers to unlock mobile devices and give law enforcement access to the data stored on them.
We filed this FOIA request so that the public can know the full extent of the government's use of this statute to seek such extraordinary authority.
Alright, some fairly informed opinions.
As the pendulum swings to the slightly less informed, let's turn to the politicians.
Hillary Clinton.
I see both sides.
And I think most citizens see both sides.
We don't want privacy and encryption destroyed, and we want to catch and make sure there's nobody else out there whose information is on the cell phone of that killer.
This is why you need people in office who can try to bring folks together to find common ground.
Yeah, it's always pretty rich when people go to Hillary Clinton to ask her about security and data protection.
Flee the burning Clinton hatred.
Try to stay objective.
You can do it.
I think I can.
Bernie Sanders.
I am very fearful in America about Big Brother, and that means not only the federal government getting into your emails or knowing what books you're taking out of the library, or where you stored your hieroglyphic clay tablets, yeah, he's old, get the joke, or private corporations knowing everything there is to know about you in terms of your health records, your banking records, your consumer practices.
On the other hand, what I also worry about is the possibility of another terrorist attack against our country.
Frankly, I think there is a middle ground that can be reached.
But count me in as someone who is a very strong civil libertarian, who believes we can fight terrorism without undermining our constitutional rights and our privacy rights.
Ben Carson said, We need to have a public-private partnership and recognize that cybercrime is going to be the next weapon of mass destruction.
And if we're not willing to work together on that, we're going to die together.
In general, I think Apple being cooperative would be a good idea, but I do understand why Apple might not be particularly fond of this government, because they've been so dishonest in so many other areas.
But if we get an administration that is trustworthy, I believe one of the first things that we're going to push for Are the right kinds of public-private partnerships?
Jeb Bush was not available or didn't make a comment, so I would assume he'd say something like this.
My mommy and daddy like apples!
Now, this is called a magic pony solution, like I remember when I was CTO, Chief Technical Officer of the R&D department of a software company I co-founded.
Salespeople would come back with, we want it faster and cheaper and tomorrow because that's what I sold.
And we'd be like, oh, there goes the weekend.
And the salespeople would go up to their cottages and we'd get bloodshot under fluorescent lights typing code until it blurred in front of our very soul.
It's called the magic pony solution, which is these two people with completely opposite goals, with total win-lose, and they're both highly motivated to maintain their existing positions, magic can make a compromise.
Look, it's pretty universal as an agreement among cryptographers, technologists, security experts, and the like.
There is no way to give the government access to encrypted communications without poking some kind of exploitable hole in that information that puts all confidential data, as well as banks, power grids, you know, other things that are rather helpful to have around at risk.
Political magic is not the answer, as it so rarely, if ever, is.
Marco Rubio, the youngest of the Republican presidential candidates, and, you know, if youth helps with these kinds of things, he did fairly well.
He said, Today there is encryption out.
I think it's standard on the new Apple, and what it does is it protects your privacy.
If you lose your iPad or your phone, no one can hack into it and get your information.
So that's why it's there.
Here's the thing, though.
If you are required by law, if we passed a law that required Apple and these companies to create a backdoor, number one, criminals could figure that out and use it against you.
And number two, there's already encrypted software that exists, not only now, but in the future, created in other countries.
We would not be able to stop that.
So there would still be encryption capabilities, there just wouldn't be American encryption capabilities, but people in this country could have it.
So that's why this is such a difficult issue.
On the flip side of it, there might be valuable information on that phone from the San Bernardino killers that could lead us to preventing future terrorist attack.
Not bad, Mr.
Rubio.
He said we're going to have to figure out a way forward working with Silicon Valley and the tech industry on this.
There has to be a way to deal with this issue that continues to protect the privacy of Americans but creates some process by which law enforcement and intelligence agencies could access encrypted information.
I don't have a magic solution for it today.
It's complicated.
It's a new issue that's emerged just in the last couple of years, but I do know this.
It will take a partnership between the technology industry and the government to confront and solve this.
So, you know, he identifies the problem, but then fades into magic mushroom territory when it comes to the solution.
Rubio also said that he hoped Apple complies with the court order.
Ultimately, I think being a good corporate citizen is important.
And this goes back into, you know, nice restaurant you got here.
Be ashamed if something happened to it.
I think being a good corporate citizen is important.
Unless you like being audited a lot.
Ted Cruz.
I think Apple has a serious argument that they should not be forced to put a back door in every cell phone everyone has.
So I think Apple has the right side of the global, don't make us do this to every iPhone on the market.
But I think law enforcement has the better argument.
This concerns the phone of one of the San Bernardino hackers.
And for law enforcement to get a judicial search order, that's consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
That's how the Bill of Rights operates.
To say, Apple, open this phone, not Anderson's phone, not everyone's here.
Open this phone!
Okay, they're not putting a backdoor in every cell phone everyone has.
It's a different technology, but anyway.
He said, nobody has the right to defy a legal search warrant.
When you have a criminal, when you have a terrorist, we know the San Bernardino terrorists were radical Islamic terrorists.
If the Obama administration were not in this politically correct state of denial, ignoring what is radical Islamic terrorism, we should have done more to prevent that attack.
But after the fact, we ought to be using every tool we can to ascertain who else they might be in contact with, if there's a broader cell.
So of course we should unlock their phones and find out who they're talking to, what texts they're sending.
But that's a basic matter of keeping this country safe.
They have a binding search order.
I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
We can protect ourselves from terrorists and protect our civil rights.
So again, magical, squeaky Shakespearean territory.
John Kasich.
I don't think it's an example of government overreach to say that, you know, we had terrorists here on our soil and we've got to understand more detail about who they may have been communicating with.
So, that sort of reminds me of those Sylvester cartoons where they bumped their head and got little birds flying around his head.
Donald Trump.
I agree 100% with the courts.
In that case, we should open it up.
I think security overall, we have to open it up.
And we have to use our heads.
We have to use common sense.
Somebody the other day called me a common sense conservative.
We have to use common sense.
Not his finest hour.
He went on to say, our country has got so many problems.
Can you imagine that here we got people that killed 14 people other than the people laying desperately ill in the hospital from what they did?
These are two people radicalized who were given a wedding party by the people that they killed.
There is something going on.
We have to be very careful.
We have to be very vigilant.
But to think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cell phone, who do they think they are?
We have to open it up.
Actually, it was his cell phone, but that's the least of the problems here.
He went on to say, Apple, this is one case.
This is a case that certainly we should be able to get into the phone, and we should find out what happened, why it happened, and maybe there's other people involved, and we have to do that.
He said, what I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such time as they give that security number.
How do you like that?
I just thought of it.
Boycott Apple!
First of all, the phone is not even owned by this young thug that killed all these people.
The phone's owned by the government.
Not even his phone.
We don't even have to go that far.
But Tim Cook is looking to do a big number, probably to show how liberal he is.
But Apple should give up.
They should get the security.
They'll find other people.
I guess that means other people in the cell.
These two young people had bombs all over their apartment, on their floor.
Other people saw those bombs while those people, in a certain way, are almost as guilty as the ones who did the shooting.
We've got to get to the bottom of it, and we're not going to get to the bottom of it unless we use common sense.
So I like the idea.
Boycott Apple until such time that they give that information.
I think that's a great idea.
So Donald Trump, a fine businessman in the world of real estate, doesn't really understand technology.
There's not some magic number that...
Apple has that allows you to get into this cell phone.
And the idea that, well, you know, it's a government cell phone, so we should be able to get into it.
Look, there...
There's no way that Apple is going to be able to create software that will only load itself on a government cell phone.
I mean, what's the operating system instruction going to be?
Hey, iPhone, are you near some really, really unproductive people?
Are you currently being squished by a giant, spotty, entitled, unionized butt?
Okay, unlock!
It's just not how it's going to work.
It's okay to take advice from technology experts before you give your thoughts.
Okay.
sigh you Okay.
Big picture time.
The government screwed up in San Bernardino.
They let these lunatics in.
They didn't check social media.
They didn't vet them properly.
They didn't vet all of the signs that were leading up to it.
So the government screwed up.
When stuff was as available as clicking on Facebook to find out how radicalized this woman in particular had been, the fact that she gave a fake address in her application, just all kinds of screw-ups.
And it's always the case that when the government screws up, they say, give us more power and it'll be great.
Well, didn't you have a whole bunch of power?
No!
Give us more power and magic and perfection and safety.
You hate terrorism, right?
Want to protect people?
Give us more power.
Didn't you have a whole bunch of power?
Have you got the CIA, the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, a whole alphabet suit, billions and billions of dollars, masks?
No!
More power!
We need a little more power.
A little more power!
We'll be fine.
So, I mean, Donald Trump had just pointed out that the government had a whole bunch of intelligence leading up to 9-11, was not able to stop 9-11 because Bush was very much against racial profiling.
And, of course, as we pointed out before, the ticket agent who gave Mohammed Ada his ticket said, boy, that's a boiling volcanic rage of terrorist-looking hellspawn from the Middle East.
But I can't really say anything because I don't want to get in trouble for racial profiling.
Let me see if I can search that old lady from Indiana who's traveling with her corgi.
So the fact that the government has screwed up in protecting Americans by not acting on information that it already has is not an excuse for the government to start forcing Apple engineers to violate the whole security virginity of their entire product line which they've been working on for 20 odd years.
A bit of a generational gap you could say the youngest candidate has the best grasp of the problems although then of course goes into mealy-mouthed non-solutions by hey let's just everyone give a hug and everyone will be fine.
Donald Trump As usual, pretty terrible on privacy.
You know, his statement about Edward Snowden being a traitor, and you know what we used to do with traitors, it's...
A little troubling, to say the least.
I mean, would Donald Trump like for someone to create a universal key that got into his hotel rooms, his safes, his bank accounts, his personal safe, everything you get his wife's chastity belt, anything that you can imagine?
Well, he wouldn't like that.
And this is a little hard for people who will work with physical things to kind of understand what kind of access this is going to give to people.
Now, of course, if the US forces US companies to break their own encryptions, okay, Foreign countries don't have such mandates.
You can install private encryption.
You can rootkit your phone so that you can mess around with the operating system.
So it's like gun control.
Like, I mean, if encryption becomes illegal, only illegal people and criminals will use encryption.
And it will be entirely against the point of the whole thing.
So that's not...
It's going to put Apple or American companies as a whole as a huge competitive disadvantage internationally.
And...
It's a huge mess.
I mean, it would really crater US cell phone sales in America, around the world, you name it.
And of course, the people who have engineers, I've read that they're people too and have moral convictions.
And engineers If they're forced by government to violate the very privacy they've spent their lives dedicated to maintaining, they have significant emotional investment in protecting the privacy and security and data of their customers, you can't just take a gun to someone and have him go against his life's work and have him stick around.
They're all just going to quit en masse.
It's not going to work.
Plus, we all know exactly what's going to happen.
They say, oh, it's only one cell phone and it's the most important cell phone in the universe because of this terrorist attack.
So just one cell phone.
You know what's going to happen.
I mean, every single time the government could either go and really investigate things or it could just demand Apple or some other company open up a cell phone.
Just use your magic wand so I don't have to go knocking on doors and interview witnesses.
So basically, if Apple allows this, they might as well just move right into the FBI headquarters and just do everything from there.
Or build some giant conveyor belt because it's going to be phone, phone, phone, phone, phone, phone, phone.
We all know how this plays out.
It is as repetitive as a broken record.
So there's a good reason to push back.
It's like peanuts.
It's never just one.
So that's an important aspect as well.
The government is pretty terrible at handling private information.
I mean, the government regularly gets hacked.
Hillary Clinton hacking Clinton Hillary hacking Clinton Chinese.
I mean, the State Department records are all over the place and they lose social insurance, social security numbers regularly.
It's just terrible at handling private information.
If private companies are not going to stand up to the government and resist encroachments upon encryption, where are consumers going to turn to?
Well, they're going to turn to overseas companies.
And yeah.
So Tim Cook is saying, well, it would hurt Apple if this backdoor becomes known, right?
If people no longer feel secure.
Because again, it could be pretty big stuff.
Maybe...
If this is allowed, maybe the government or the FBI or other people would force Microsoft to build in particular updates.
Oh, is this your particular version of Windows?
Okay, we can turn the webcam or microphone on at will, or we can just suck up all your emails and you won't even know we were here.
We need this level of...
Privacy and trust in the private corporations we you don't know you know I know that there's a slippery slope fallacy but this is not one of those because the fact that the government is going to abuse and extend the thin edge of the wedge tip of the spear powers that it manages to extract in a truly important situation is well known that this is more like dominoes than a slippery slope argument so yeah they say it's going to damage apple yeah I've got some apple products I'm concerned.
Does that count?
So if I'm concerned about this and I don't want the government having the power to break into technology that I have, I don't think I'm alone in that.
And there's lots of things to, oh, we've got to prevent another attack.
Okay, there's lots you can do to prevent another attack.
Stop taking in masses of unvetted and unvettable migrants.
That will help quite a bit to stop these attacks because the FBI director said there's no way to vet these people.
No way in hell we can vet these people, so maybe you should listen to him and stop bringing them in.
How about some common sense racial profiling?
Because there's not a lot of Scottish people in kilts that are strapping bombs to themselves or other people or shooting a whole bunch of people.
So that's one other possibility.
The reality, of course, is that whoever's in that cell phone...
They're long gone, baby.
We know that.
The first moment, they knew going up that this was going to be the day of the attack.
Whoever they've contacted knew long before there was an attack exactly when the day of the attack was going to be.
And what did they do?
They left the country.
They're gone, baby, gone.
They are history.
They are a long shadow and a low sunset straight over the horizon.
And if they have stayed around, they've got completely new identities.
Maybe plastic surgery.
Who knows what kind of Mission Impossible stuff is going on.
But they are scrubbed.
They are in the wind.
They are not going to be around.
And look, if it's so damn important to get all of the information from this phone, why is this only coming up two months after the attack?
Why?
Why is it only coming up two months after the attack?
Come on.
If the government was so desperate to get this information, they'd be on the phone with Apple 14 minutes after the attack, and they'd be getting lawyers to start squirting out all of these legal documents like tap water from a water pistol.
So if they were that concerned, they would have done it right away.
The fact that it's two months later means that it really wasn't that important to them.
So if it's not that important to them, why would you force Apple to compromise encryption it's spent decades building up?
Why would you threaten the viability of Apple stock and of Apple income and of Apple employment and of Apple's trust with its customers?
Why would you destroy what could potentially be millions or hundreds of millions or more dollars worth of Apple valuation?
The goodwill of the company would evaporate in the minds of a lot of people or at least be significantly diminished.
If it was that important, do it right away.
Right now, it's too late.
There's no point locking the door after the horse has left.
So I don't buy it for a moment that it's so absolutely important because if it was, they wouldn't be sitting on their asses for two months and then saying, Oh, we need that data!
Compromise all of your encryption!
The reality is, of course, they say, well, we have to balance security and privacy.
No.
No.
The government has to do its job with the trillions of dollars it takes in taxes.
It has to do its job and keep the country safe.
It has all of the apparatus it needs.
If the entire security of America comes down to one cell phone, I don't know what American taxpayers are paying for with this giant alphabet soup supposed to keep them safe.
Why the hell do private companies have to rush in and backstop massive failures in government, law enforcement, intelligence gathering, security operators and anti-terrorism activities?
Why Does one more person need to be sucked into the maw of government incompetence and somehow pretend that if we get this encryption, we've got trillions of dollars, a massive alphabet soup of agencies, but boy, if you just give us this encryption information, if we can get into any cell phone in the universe, then you'll be safe.
Bullshit!
It's not going to happen.
It is not going to happen.
This is not going to make America safe.
The weapons that are supposed to be pointed at the terrorists will be pointed at you and me and our children and our children's children from here to kingdom.
God damn come.
Oh, want to choose between privacy and security?
When the government's proposing, I can only guarantee one thing.
