In cases like this it is always FBI and the govt. which usually have the PR upper hand. They wait to find a most abhorent crime that nobody sane would want to defend (terrorism seems to work well today) and use that as an example. "Oh look everyone, Apple doesn't want to fight terrorism. We are keeping people safe and what side are they on?". It is almost too easy.
Fighting that is an uphill battle. One can present the technical details ("They could have cracked that particular model themselves") or appeal to more general ideals of freedom and privacy etc. Those typically are not as effective in convincing the average joe out there when the other side uses the "T" word.
But here they are playing the same card as FBI -- using a crime that most people can fear -- their phone getting stolen, their identity used. Everyone has heard stories, has friends at least who this happened to and so on. So it works well. Terrorism is more scary, but this is more real. Great work.
Good PR, and also grounded in truth. If the DOJ understood the technology and implications of what they were requesting then they would not ask for it. Literally every person who speaks out against Apple begins with "I'm not a tech expert, but I know our world is going to be different if we can't get warranted access to criminals' phones". They completely fail to see how the private tech sector has fought for public safety. Comey said,
They [Apple] sell phones, they don't sell civil liberties, they don't sell public safety, that's our business to worry about. [1]
> If the DOJ understood the technology and implications of what they were requesting then they would not ask for it.
Oh they understand what they are asking, they just don't care if the average person's data is stolen every once in a while as long as they can get all the information they want when they want it. This is pretty similar to how the NSA can buy zero day exploits and not feel the need to inform the American people.
Their "truth" is a little sketchy. Their argument is essentially "you can't trust us to protect this software if we make it, and if we failed to keep it out of criminals hands you could be harmed by it". Phrased that way it doesn't really sound all that great.
That is FBI director Comey's statement, not Apple's. Comey says,
Apple is highly professional in protecting its own innovation, its own information [1]
Comey even articulates Apple's position clearly,
Apple's argument, I think will be, that's not reasonable because there are risks around that. Even though we're good at this, it could still get away from us. And the judge will have to figure that out [1]
So Comey claims Apple is very good at technical stuff and so they must have a way to keep this software secure. Yet at the same time he claims we should not believe Apple when Apple says this backdoor would weaken everyone's security. On one hand he is saying we should believe in Apple's technology expertise, and on the other hand he is saying we should not. Well, given that Comey is self-admittedly not knowledgeable about technology, and given that many other tech companies and independent tech experts have stood up to support Apple, it's clear to me who to trust on this issue about tech security.
Apple has demonstrated their commitment to safety by improving the iPhone's security with successive iterations of software and hardware. The FBI has demonstrated their deep desire to gain guaranteed backdoor entry to devices for over a year, yet claim this case is only about one phone. Apple's track record and rhetoric are much more consistent and trustworthy than the FBI's.
Framing the FBI as a major threat to national security is serious hardball, and publishing that piece in the FBI's hometown paper is a roundhouse kick to the head. I'm pretty sure the FBI didn't see this coming.
Are you implying it's Apple's fault they must defend themselves against the DOJ's attempts to get a backdoor?
Apple's job here is to educate the public. If this ever becomes a political issue, we want the public to be informed. We don't want the public to be reactionary.
Criminals already know how to use tech. We need a security force who can figure out how to maintain public safety without relying on backdoors.
How is Apple teaching them anything? The FBI can't outlaw math. The real bad guys are already using encryption apps that Apple or US corporations are not in charge of. And if people start getting busted while using iPhones, they'll just start using Cryptocat, Cypherpunks OTR, or any of the other encryption services. Maybe they'll just use PGP and email.
In cases like this it is always FBI and the govt. which usually have the PR upper hand. They wait to find a most abhorent crime that nobody sane would want to defend (terrorism seems to work well today) and use that as an example. "Oh look everyone, Apple doesn't want to fight terrorism. We are keeping people safe and what side are they on?". It is almost too easy.
Fighting that is an uphill battle. One can present the technical details ("They could have cracked that particular model themselves") or appeal to more general ideals of freedom and privacy etc. Those typically are not as effective in convincing the average joe out there when the other side uses the "T" word.
But here they are playing the same card as FBI -- using a crime that most people can fear -- their phone getting stolen, their identity used. Everyone has heard stories, has friends at least who this happened to and so on. So it works well. Terrorism is more scary, but this is more real. Great work.