Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-aint-checkin-all-those-links-buster dept.

Apple argues stronger encryption will thwart criminals in letter to Australian government

Apple has long been a proponent for strong on-device encryption, most notably for its iPhones and the iOS operating system. This has often frustrated law enforcement agencies both in the US and overseas, many of which claim the company's encryption tools and policies are letting criminals avoid capture by masking communications and securing data from the hands of investigators.

Now, in a letter to the Australian government, Apple says it thinks encryption is in fact a benefit and public good that will only strength our protections against cyberattacks and terrorism. In Apple's eyes, encryption makes everyone's devices harder to hack and less vulnerable to take-overs, viruses, and other malicious attacks that could undermine personal and corporate security, as well as public infrastructure and services. Apple is specifically responding to the Australian Parliament's Assistance and Access Bill, which was introduced late last month and is designed to help the government more easily access the devices and data of criminals during active investigations.

Letter here (#53), or at Scribd and DocumentCloud.

Also at Ars Technica, Engadget, 9to5Mac, and AppleInsider.

Police told to avoid looking at recent iPhones to avoid lockouts

Police have yet to completely wrap their heads around modern iPhones like the X and XS, and that's clearer than ever thanks to a leak. Motherboard has obtained a presentation slide from forensics company Elcomsoft telling law enforcement to avoid looking at iPhones with Face ID. If they gaze at it too many times (five), the company said, they risk being locked out much like Apple's Craig Federighi was during the iPhone X launch event. They'd then have to enter a passcode that they likely can't obtain under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from having to provide self-incriminating testimony.

Also at 9to5Mac.

Related:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:27PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:27PM (#748578)

    They will compel the person to provide the password at the border.
    Not at the border? Drag them there.

  • (Score: 2) by legont on Sunday October 14 2018, @01:33PM

    by legont (4179) on Sunday October 14 2018, @01:33PM (#748598)

    Supposedly, 2/3 of the US population lives in the border zone where the constitution is questionable; some of it anyway. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone [aclu.org]

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday October 14 2018, @09:01PM

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday October 14 2018, @09:01PM (#748713)

    I wonder what the odds are of having a customs person ask me to unlock my phone when I return home to NZ from holiday?

    Apparently they can fine me $5,000 for refusing, but that has not been tested in court (as far as I know) and I would rather give my lawyer the $5k anyway.

    I can see the courts here taking a pretty dim view if Customs are demanding to search the devices of ordinary travellers.