Apple's CEO On Encryption: "You Can't Have A Back Door That's Only For The Good Guys"

[think]

Apple's CEO On Encryption: "You Can't Have A Back Door That's Only For The Good Guys"

By Steve Morgan - NOV 21, 2015 @ 06:57 AM

There’s a burning debate – bordering on a battle – between the U.S. government and technology companies over encryption.

The government asserts that encryption – when it is so strong that the police can not eavesdrop on communications in their efforts to catch and prosecute criminals – is a bad thing. Some government officials have even suggested that terrorists use encrypted communications to help carry out their acts of malice.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris have amplified the government’s contention that strong encryption is putting our country (and our allies) at risk. This creates fear, uncertainty, and doubt for the American people – given that most of us do not understand the intricacies of encryption.

~Snip~

Tim Cook, CEO at Apple, was at The Wall Street Journal’s technology conference, WSJD Live last month when he said “I don’t know a way to protect people without encrypting”. Apple has been criticized by the government – and praised by users – for building strong encryption into their newest iPhones. “You can’t have a backdoor that’s only for the good guys” added Cook.

Read more:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemorgan/2015/11/21/apples-ceo-on-encryption-you-cant-have-a-back-door-thats-only-for-the-good-guys/

[phantom power]

1. well said

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. I wonder if he actually believes that.

The degree of technical ignorance it would imply is quite frightening, but I suppose it's possible he's only involved in the business side of things and really doesn't have a clue about how encryption works.

[Democat]

5. If the government can get into your data, then so can whoever else has that key

What is your solution to allowing a backdoor for only the good guys?

[randome]

6. Same dilemma exists for everything.

It's a perpetual balancing act. There will never be a single 'solution'. Maybe provide a backdoor and change it frequently? The digital age makes everything easier and more complicated at the same time.

[jeff47]

10. A common key means the encryption is broken. Even when you rotate your key.

Want to pretend your cell phone is someone else's? The "master keys" from Gimalto are out there. You can make your own SIM with any subscriber ID you'd like.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. "Perpetual balancing act" my ass. For decades we've eviscerated the 4th amendment and given

Authoritarians all the "vital tools" they've asked for, and even then they break the law to spy even more.

Has this made us "safe"? i guess not. But what it HAS done, is fill our prison cells with small time drug offenders.

[Rex]

16. And line the pockets of for-profit prison owners.

Enough to bribe judges to send them some clients...er...bad guys.

[jeff47]

9. :facepalm:

If you are claiming it is possible to create a backdoor that only "the good guys" can use, you are the one without a clue how encryption works.

[mythology]

13. You're kidding right?

There is absolutely no safe way to put a backdoor into the encryption and have it not be eventually found. Not just by the NSA, but by other countries or random hackers.

It is a monumentally stupid idea to do this. Just absolutely mind-boggling. I get that most politicians know roughly speaking jack shit about technology, but they should be required to take some sort of basic subject literacy test before being allowed to put forth a bill or sit on a committee.

It offends me that James Inofe is on the science committee or that Paul Broun who was on the science committee thinks evolution is a lie from the pit of hell. The rampant stupidity should have a cost to their electoral futures.

[Rex]

17. Okay, just because I am curious

how do you have a backdoor for one group only? What method are you using to make such a claim?

[longship]

3. Plus, what bank would agree to a mandatory back door for their encryption?

This is one, and possibly the only, time that the big banks would have our back. No bank would suffer a law requiring a back door to strong encryption.

That makes this argument moot.

And BTW, Apple is right.

Plus, it is yet another example of security theater, meaning silly and hopeless responses to perceived threats. And the USA has been practicing security theater for years now. All utterly useless.

I recommend the writings of Bruce Schneier who has been writing about such subjects for many years, a firm advocate against security theater.

This encryption thing is nothing but security theater, just like the last time the subject came up and the USA attempted to outlaw strong encryption. They did it, but it only moved off shore. Thankfully the internet saved us all, and strong encryption remained available to anybody who wanted it.

Celebrate strong encryption. No back doors needed, or desirable.

[backscatter712]

4. Someone needs to explain that to Hillary...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151119/18032932868/hillary-clinton-joins-make-silicon-valley-break-encryption-bandwagon.shtml

[cojoel]

7. As we used to say in the computer security business

Where there's a way, there's a will.

[Logical]

8. I hope apple stands its ground on this. I don't trust the NSA either. nt

[True Earthling]

11. “I don’t know a way to protect people without encrypting”... bravo..well said!

Encryption protects us all from the big bad government where the risk of invasion of privacy is much worse than any mass murder. Apple should be praised for protecting the privacy of ALL people.. including terrorists. Well done Tim Cook. The citizens of the United States, Europe, the world and especially Paris France are in your debt.

Plotting to slaughter innocents on a mass scale should always be considered "free speech" and protected as such.

[Fumesucker]

14. Anyone who thinks back doors are about terrorism is a naif

If the politicians were so worked up to prevent mass murder something serious would have been done after Newtown but twenty elementary school kids blown into so much hamburger didn't elicit any significant political response.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Oh, it's about terrorism, surely.

Terrorism as an excuse to get some shit on the authoritarian xmas list.