Put your hand up if you would like information on your mobile phone to be secure. Photos of your kids that you have taken on your phone to be kept private. E-mails from work about new product launches to remain just with employees.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Posting information on social media to be limited to you. That type of thing.
I would be surprised if your hand is not currently in the air.
Consequently, phone manufacturers place a high level of importance on security.
Seems sensible.
Now jump to a separate conversation.
With an average of 1.2 mass shooting events per day in the US, you can be excused for not remembering one specific event. O
n 2 December 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 injured in an Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino.
The two shooters were killed in a shootout with police but in investigating the case, the FBI found an iPhone.
Exploring the prospect that the phone may have crucial evidence on it the FBI politely asked Apple to unlock the phone of a known terrorist. Apple politely declined.
By the end of 2016, Apple had received - and objected to - at least eleven orders issued by the United States district courts under the All Writs Act of 1789.
Go back to my original point. People want security in their phones. Apple argued that if they built a phone that had a secret backdoor that allowed them to access information then that same backdoor could be used by people with nefarious intent.
Unlike Meghan and Harry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
This case is ancient history in technology terms but the issue is once again at the centre of technology discussions after a lone shooter killed 3 and injured 8 in Pensacola, Florida on 6 December 2019.
Two iPhones have been recovered by the FBI as part of its investigation.
Apple argued that ... that same backdoor could be used by people with nefarious intent.
In a case of history repeating itself, the US Attorney-General has urged the tech giant to unlock the two mobiles used by the gunman but, no surprises here, Apple has refused.
They have explained that they "have always maintained there is no such thing as a backdoor just for the good guys," and further that "backdoors can also be exploited by those who threaten our national security and the data security of our customers."
It would seem that the logic from Apple is that the two things we desire in our society - security for our own mobiles but no security for mobiles of 'bad guys' - are mutually exclusive.
On the plus side for Apple, the ongoing vitriol from Trump and the US government is the best advertising possible for Apple's security!
What do you think?
Let me know where you stand on Apple's stance. Security for all or access for the government?
ask@techtalk.digital
