I read with continued interest, the comments regarding Apple’s stance on creating a means of accessing the encrypted contents of a iPhone.
There are the obvious points made about accessing such information to “protect us”, and that we should trust the government to request such access (or otherwise gain access). We see how much trust we can have in the government thru the revelations of Edward Snowden. The precedent being requested is no less than monumental. I for one agree with Apple and the other companies supporting their position, that we cannot allow the government to be the arbitor of whose privacy is invaded or ” protected”, any more than Apple wants to be. The government has shown it cannot be trusted.
Any backdoor built into any encrypted system means the system is not safe for anyone, since the government’s outstanding example of it’s own systems’ security shows it cannot keep out hackers and cannot protect the information we already entrust with them.
There are other methods of encryption already available outside the US, available to us. The US courts would have no jurisdiction in these countries in any event. Like all of the other companies who came out in support of Apple and abhor terrorism, I believe and agree that it is pure ignorance, naivete (selective or real) to believe that if Apple or others granted such access that it would help guarantee future safety. Any time there is a backdoor, someone you don’t anticipate will find it ; anytime you believe you’ve penetrated the encryption of a system, someone will find another method around that. The government can’t protect its own privacy, why should we presume it grant them the role of protecting ours?
For Donald Trump to come out in favor of requiring access is understandable. He’s in favor of anything and any fear mongering he can rouse to further his candidacy. He’s as likely to be ignorant (purposely or natively) of the issues of encryption as he is of any of the other matters on which he bases his candidacy. Other candidates seem to be more concerned with simply upholding what has not been established as law (since there is no law on this point, only early court rulings) so they do not have to make the appearance of taking a controversial stand by supporting the right to privacy.