Silicon Valley Start Up Business-Crimeware-IT Support for Intl Terror

11-17-2017

Unit 6 Discussion 2 Response 1 to Gary

Response from: Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS

I remember when this story was a big deal and I met people who felt very strongly about this story. To be honest, I think this story is riddled with politics. In fact, Apple had helped the FBI break into other phones in the past, but this time they decided to take a hard stance and not assist the FBI (Mastroianni, 2016). In this regard, something must have shifted in the way that Apple viewed helping the U.S. government. I believe a number of factors could have played into their decision:

·         They are trying to market to others outside of the U.S. and they want those in other countries to feel like their data is safe. If the U.S. decides to go to war with a country with citizen’s that also use iPhones, then what stops the U.S. government from asking for the data from citizens of that country?

·         If Apple cracked the iPhone, then it proves that it was not as secure as Apple claimed it was. They had told customers that Apple does not have access to the decryption keys, and that 10 failed login attempts can cause the phone to delete all the data on the device. However, by creating software to bypass these features, Apple is essentially publically stating that those controls are ineffective.

·         Creating malware to unlock the device is an act that goes against the very objectives that the organization is striving to achieve. Apple’s objective is to place the data in the hands of the users so that not even Apple has access to it. Apple’s business model is not to create cracking software, and is fundamentally in opposition to the goals of the organization. In fact, Apple’s engineers have worked hard to keep the data out of Apple’s own hands, and promote trust with its user base. Creating software like this forces the organization to essentially adopt two contradictory goals.

This list is not meant to be comprehensive and there are other factors that I am sure played into Apple’s decision, but I suspect that at least one or two of these points were considered when making their decision. However, the FBI was also totally right in their decision to attempt to recover the data on the device. The data was a matter of national security and it is their job to gain access to that data. On the opposite side of the coin, I think that the FBI also had political motivations by bringing this to a judge.

·         By obtaining a court order, the FBI is trying to show the U.S. public that they are working to keep them safe. The FBI did eventually break into the phone which implies that the FBI was simply attempting to make a political statement in the process (Segall, Pagliery, & Wattles, 2016).

·         The U.S. government has been pushing for laws to make it easier for them to bypass encryption mechanisms for years. In fact, the Deputy Attorney General just this year was talking about the dangers of encryption (“Deputy Attorney General,” 2017). It feels like the FBI was using this whole controversy to try and persuade more of the public onto the side of anti-encryption policies.

In this regard, I feel that the FBI as well as Apple played their roles out perfectly in this controversy. I do not think this is a matter of side, but a political chess game that was played by both parties involved. I believe that it is Apple’s responsibility to protect user data at all costs, and I think it is the FBI’s job to obtain that data. In this regard, both parties are simply upholding their respective roles. I tend to side more with the side of the importance of keeping data secure, and I am strongly against planting backdoors into technologies that can enable law enforcement to gain access to the data, but I do believe it is their job to look for ways to bypass these protection mechanisms.

The plus side to having this software would be so that the FBI could use this data to possibly identify other terrorists or gain insight into the communication between these terrorists and a larger terrorist organization. Also, the government could use this software on other criminal devices for similar purposes. The downside of creating a device that could be used to bypass the iPhone protection mechanisms is that the same technology could be used by hacker or foreign governments to also gain access to the data on stolen iPhones. The components of digital forensics that this would apply to involves the process of gaining access to the digital devices that houses the data that needs to be analyzed. In this case, the digital data is on a mobile device, but forensics investigators deal with this same kind of problem on all types of devices. Laptops can be encrypted, iPads, Database Data, etc. Bypassing encryption is a vital part of the forensics inventory process, because encrypted data cannot be properly analyzed for evidence or information.

The battle between privacy and the government’s ability to protect its citizens, stop illegal activity, and prevent acts of terror will be a battle that will continue to play out for the foreseeable future. Privacy advocates will continue to fight the government’s attempts to lower the effectiveness of crypto technologies, and the government will continue to try to win the public’s trust to push their agenda through.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Remarks on Encryption. (2017, October 12). Retrieved
      November 11, 2017, from https://www.lawfareblog.com/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-
      remarks-encryption

Mastroianni, B. (2016, February 18). Feds: Apple has unlocked iPhones "many times" before. Retrieved
      November 11, 2017, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-apple-has-unlocked-iphones-before/

Segall, L., Pagliery, J., & Wattles, J. (2016, March 29). FBI cracks iPhone of San Bernardino terrorist without
      Apple's help. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies
      /fbi-apple-iphone-case-cracked/index.html

Response from: Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS

The US is already engaged in low-intensity cyberconflicts, characterized by aggressive enemy efforts to collect intelligence on the country's weapons, electrical grid, traffic-control system, and even its financial markets. (Clark& Levin, 2009, p. 1)

       

There cannot be a discussion, between the US Federal government, regarding, whether-or-not information, is released-when, a domestic terror attack occurs. America, is a democracy-however, terrorists, have no rights, in this country. Legislation, and statues, that were past, after 911: “Post 9/11 Anti-Terrorists Acts,” protect Americans, by taking all privacy away, from anyone “suspected and actively engaged,” in supporting terror activities, in the US. US Federal law enforcement, are legally obligated, to protect American citizens:

The fact that the FBI has declared cyber-crime as the nation’s number one threat – even ahead of terrorism – is one important reason. The rise of cyber-crime has been both astronomical and rapid. This is coupled with terrorism on many levels, so solving one may lead inevitably to solving the other. (Stephenson, 2014, p. 40)

      I, as an American citizen, am negatively affected-like Snowden, by illegals, and those, who immigrated to my country-just to attack me-Intl terror. At no point in time, will I ever be concerned, about their: rights, feelings, medical needs, housing issues, social working problems-or anything else. Terrorists came to America, to tear my country apart, and to ruin our products, and our American economy-they need to be prosecuted, and then-electrocuted. I am a conservative Republican. I live in a death penalty state-Florida.

      I support the death penalty. Creating: “Crimeware,” through private industry, such as-Apple software, or in the Bill Gates Microsoft industry, is illegal-it is an act of terrorism, just like, denying FBI, access, to: information, that will provide data to prosecute-is illegal, and, an act of terrorism, against America (Stephenson, 2014, p. 40):

Recently, a report by McAfee suggested that there was an underground economy devel­oping based on crimeware development. Crimeware is software that can be used by criminals who do not have significant computing skills. However, the developers are creating products that are every bit as sophisticated as many legitimate commercial products and, in many cases, even include technical support and help-desk services. (Stephenson, 2014, p. 40)

There is nothing funny, or entertaining, about Intl terror, illegally attacking Americans, and blowing innocent Americans up. FBI, should prosecute Apple, for illegally obstructing justice. FBI, should not have, had to resort, to: “Cloud Technology.” Apple’s resistance, towards the FBI, when information, had to obtained, to prosecute, an Intl terror-was too negative a reaction, to a request, from Federal Law Enforcement.

       “Seeking to completely obliterate the threats of electronic infiltration, data theft, and hardware sabotage is neither cost-effective nor technically feasible; the best the US can achieve is sensible risk management” (Clark& Levin, 2014, p. 40). America, is not trying hard enough, to kill off-Intl terrorists, and the perpetrators, who illegally “help” them. Issues, pertaining, to who should be allowed, to enter the US, is a: “primary-problem,” that is not being solved. Intl terror, should not feel safe, living in America-I am not going to assist, in making crazy Intl Felons-more comfortable.

References

Clark, Wesley, K, and Levin, Peter L. (2009). Securing the Information Highway. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 88, No. 6. Retrieved from www.proquest.com

Stephenson, Peter. (2014). Digital Forensic Tools. SC Magazine. p. 40. Retrieved from www.scmagazine.com