“But now the U.S. 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 backdoor to the iPhone…. We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack.”
I think Edward Snowden summed things up nicely:
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) February 17, 2016
The Government’s Position
- The government is actually arguing that people are TOO safe.
- The encryption we’re all using is good enough that it can not be broken.
- They want manufacturers to build in back doors – just like the Chinese Government.
- ANY backdoor weakens security for ANY system.
- They are asking people to just “trust” that they won’t use it unless you’re a suspected terrorist. But nobody does.
Problems with this logic:
- You don’t have to be found guilty in a court of law in order to have this backdoor used against you. In fact, they want it prior to any conviction. In essence they will spy on anyone, at any time they want.
- Even if Apple built in a back door to their encryption, it’s quite simple to use a third party app with its own encryption to circumvent the security hole.
- Criminals will instantly convert to that method. The 20 year old PGP will do just fine…
- Any back door will be exploited. Period.
Another Way to Look At It
Lets suppose the locks on our home’s front doors became so secure that NO ONE could penetrate them. Now 100% of the public is perfectly safe at home! But some criminals also have homes, and they are now safe as well.
Now imagine the government said, “Even though there are 1 billion people benefiting from the security of these locks, we want to make them weaker so we can get in whenever we want to.”
How would you feel about that? And when, at any time throughout history, did making everyone weaker somehow also make them safer?