The case Apple vs. FBI it has reached a level that big names in politics (especially American) need to comment on. The President of the United States could not be left out of this and decided to address the issue in his passage through South by Southwest (SXSW) Conferences & Festival.
The opinion of the President of the United States
Although much of the conversation with the American president was about the importance of innovation to leverage cvic engagement, he made it clear that he would not comment on the iPhone case of the San Bernardino terrorist on the grounds that he could not make an official statement. But that did not stop him from talking widely about the issue.
He used a very practical example, saying that before the invention of smartphones, if someone was suspected of kidnapping a child or of being involved in a terrorist conspiracy, police could appear at the suspect's door with a warrant and simply turn over not just the house but even look for clues in the suspect's underwear to make sure there was or was no evidence. The people agreed with this because, although they understand that everyone has rights, there are situations like these in which it is necessary to guarantee security for everyone to live in a civilized society.
Obama also questioned the intention of Apple and other companies to create totally impenetrable systems. According to him, if this is done, how can we capture pedophiles? Or, in the case of San Bernardino's iPhone, interrupt a possible terrorist plan? Or even simpler things like tax foreclosures?
If the government cannot penetrate (in these devices to obtain information), then it is as if everyone is walking around with a bank account in their pocket. There has to be some compromise to get that information somewhere.
We cannot fetishize that our phones are above any other value. The dangers are real. This notion that sometimes our data is different and can be taken from these other compensations is incorrect.
Leaving aside the specific case between Apple and the FBI, Obama said the country must make some decisions about how we can balance these risks. Making another parallel, he compared everything with the right that the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) must search passengers and suitcases when someone is traveling. All of these things are done with security in mind, and the same concept could be applied to digital devices. Obama made it clear, however, that everyone needs to be careful not to take an “absolutist” view for themselves (whichever side you defend).
By countering this, Obama said he understands the value of privacy and that the government should not, in a random or spontaneous way, have access to personal data stored on smartphones.
For the president, it is about how to create a highly strong encryption but, at the same time, a key that is highly secure and that is only used by a few people, in specific cases. It is clear that the path, at least in his view, is this. For Obama, if the tech community fails to come to terms with the government in this regard, one day it may face a more draconian solution (a new law created by Congress, for example) that will be far less sympathetic to the world.
As much as he did not make an official statement, it is clear which side Obama is in this dispute.
"I'm going to arrest Tim Cook"
When holding a press conference over a recent murder in which the suspects photographed the victim with their phones, Grady Judd Sheriff of Polk County (Florida) ended up giving his opinion on the Apple vs. FBI.
You can't create a business model and say, “We ignore federal and state judges. We are above the law ”. The Apple CEO needs to know that he is not above the law. I can tell you, the first time that we have difficulty accessing on a cell phone, we will seek a court order for Apple. And when they deny us, I will arrest the Apple CEO. I will arrest the scoundrel.
Apparently Judd didn't give a damn what the US president himself commented (about having an absolutist view).
John Oliver also opines
John Oliver (yes, the one who also talked about Dilma and the "big pot") decided to make one of his videos on the subject. Although it is not subtitled, it is very worth taking a look:
Summing up the video quite a lot, Oliver came to the conclusion that people who want to keep their conversations private will succeed in one way or another as there are dozens of messengers, apps and products that protect their data. This way, it doesn't really matter if the FBI has access to a particular iPhone.
In addition, it is clear that there are pros and cons in terms of strong encryption, after all as many us (common users) as terrorists have “impenetrable” devices in their hands. Still, Oliver thinks this is better than reducing security and allowing ordinary users to lose their data in a much easier way because, as he rightly said, terrorists will continue to look for safer solutions.
(via The Next Web, CNET, TechCrunch)
