Surprise: Pro-Surveillance WSJ Editorial Board Sides With Apple Over FBI
from the good-for-them dept
Well here's a surprise. The Wall Street Journal Editorial board, which is notoriously pro-surveillance, has come out with an editorial that argues that Apple is right on encryption and should resist the FBI's demands. I was not expecting that. This is the same WSJ that fought hard against amending the PATRIOT Act, which it insisted was necessary for surveillance. This is the same WSJ that published an editorial calling Ed Snowden a sociopath and arguing for less oversight of the NSA. Hell, it's the same WSJ that a little over a year ago published a piece by former publisher L. Gordon Crovitz, arguing that Apple is crazy for not installing backdoors in its iPhones.But, for whatever reason, in this case, the WSJ editorial board has Apple's back. Not only that, but unlike many news reports, this piece actually seems to get the facts right and "debunks" many of the myths floating around -- many that are being pushed by the FBI and its supporters:
One confusion promoted by the FBI is that its order is merely a run-of-the-mill search warrant. This is false. The FBI is invoking the 1789 All Writs Act, an otherwise unremarkable law that grants judges the authority to enforce their orders as “necessary or appropriate.” The problem is that the All Writs Act is not a catch-all license for anything judges want to do. They can only exercise powers that Congress has granted them.The opinion piece also recognizes just how crazy it would be if the DOJ wins and how far the precedent reaches:
[....]
The other myth is that Apple is merely being asked to crack “one phone in the entire world,” as Marco Rubio puts it. This is also false. The Justice Department is beseeching Apple to provide software retrofits in at least a dozen public cases, and state and local prosecutors have stacks of backlogged iPhones they want unlocked too. In the New York case Apple won this week, prosecutors want Apple to unlock an iPhone even though the owner has pleaded guilty.
Congress could instruct tech makers from now on to build “back doors” into their devices for law-enforcement use, for better or more likely worse. But this back-door debate has raged for two years. In the absence of congressional action, the courts can’t now appoint themselves as a super legislature to commandeer innocent third parties ex post facto.This is all pretty accurate, which is a surprise, given how vehement the WSJ's editorial pages have been in the past in support of greater surveillance powers. On its own the WSJ piece is a nice summary of the issue. However, given the source, it's absolutely amazing. It suggests that, even among its usual allies, the DOJ's arguments in favor of backdooring encryption are not working very well.
What makes the FBI’s request so extraordinary is that the iPhone encryption and security methods were legal when they were created and still are. Apple has no more connection to the data on Farook’s phone than Ford does to a bank robber who uses an F-150 as a getaway vehicle.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, encryption, fbi, surveillance, wsj
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What if Apple made their phone accessible to all, no encryption at. That Apple,without the Apple name, then set up several companies to provide such located in places each in a place unfriendly to at least one of the following: US, UK, China, Russia et. That would give the consumer the ability to install the encrustation of their choice would be of most benefit to them against the government they most feared. As far as Apple is concerned the phone is completely and fully open thus it is not an Apple problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First of all, reality: Most general consumers don't know what the hell encryption is, why its useful or how to obtain/install/configure the app. Removing the protection that's been invisibly forced upon them so that they can install something else will simply lead to a high number of unprotected devices. That's why so much FUD is being spread around on this issue - people don't know what the actual issue is because they don't understand encryption and digital security.
Secondly, you're essentially advocating that Apple runs a number of secret special operations around the world so that it can pretend it's not responsible for protecting their devices. After they've already been involved in a fight to protect them, of course. Apart from the inevitable spying and espionage charges against them for the new operations, there's no PR benefit it obviously abandoning all security principles.
Thirdly, if Apple did remove all protection, especially from phones that were previously encrypted, they'd presumably open themselves up to all sorts of consequences when those phones are inevitably compromised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As the source code is hidden,and governments want to break encryption, what to stop them insisting on Apple installing a Key Logger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Considering that this pits ...
Or, maybe, more likely and even possibly most likely you are a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As Richelieu was purported to say: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the only reason the WSJ is siding with Apple.
Tomorrow, it's back to business trying to convince America it's okay for Uncle Sam to see what you're doing 24/7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fort Meade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fort Meade
Do you land at Joint Base Andrews for both? Or do you use BWI for transfer to a shorter-range transport vehicle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fort Detrick [was Re: Re: Fort Meade]
Runway 8/26 7,815 ft (2,382m) Asphalt/Grooved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The WSJ URL sez it all:
Ch eck out the "lMyQjAxMTE2NzAzMjQwNzI3Wj" at the end of the WSJ URL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us heed the wisdom of Mike Royko on this topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My biggest surprise was realizing that the "surprise" in the headline wasn't sarcasm.
It's possible we're all bit too cynical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
somebody pointed out to wsj what this would do to our tech business world-wide and told wsj it ultimately means less money in your bottomless pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When an issue like this affects your own livelihood, you're not likely to come out advocating that your own rights be trampled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Security versus Security
The "correct" viewpoint is that society needs unbreakable encryption for its security to conduct legitimate business. One simple example, conducting on-line business with a credit card. The benefits of encryption for the public appear to be purposely dismissed out-of-hand.
So if you happen to hear of this debate as being an issue of national security versus individual privacy, refute it. This issue is about your personal security as also being part of national security that needs to be protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Security versus Security
The "correct" viewpoint is that society needs unbreakable encryption for its security to conduct legitimate business.
Fortunately that's not true because unbreakable encryption is totally impractical. Your overall point is right on though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm puzzled by this
A world without free/open source software would be much, much better for Apple and Microsoft, which would be better for the WSJ, and indeed, business in general. No more uppity IT departments, as everything would progress by a sort of informal cartel, Microsoft asking businesses what they want, and businesses never firing anyone for not buying Microsoft. IT departments would end up sapped of all energy and importance, every IT person would be plug-compatible with every other IT person. All "real programmers" would end up working in a licensed and inspected shop, like Microsoft, or CA or Apple. Very few independent programmers would exist, hardware cycles would slow way down. No more "disruptive" tech (at least on purpose) coming out of nowhere. That's an ideal situation for regulators, businesses (both producers and consumers of computers and software), and the NSA and FBI.
All told, it really is surprising the WSJ came out this way. Weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm puzzled by this
They failed to stop the use of strong encryption during the first crypto wars, what makes you think that they will succeed this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm puzzled by this
This 'public' disagreement is very puzzling because both stand to lose most because it is public. Have things changed that much that it's become ever so public because it is to the public interest?
What if you wanted to convince everyone that Apple phones were not accessible to governmental snooping. How would you do that?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Related: CDCal Experts Amicus Brief
(H/T “Top iPhone Hackers Ask Court to Protect Apple From the FBI”, by Andy Greenberg, Wired, Mar 3, 2016.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Related: CDCal Technologists Amicus Brief
(H/T “EFF and 46 Technology Experts Ask Court To Throw Out Unconstitutional Apple Order”, EFF, Mar 3, 2016.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Related: More CDCal Amicus Briefs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]