Big tech companies might be supporting Apple’s pro-privacy stance when it comes to creating a backdoor for the iPhone, but not everyone is in complete agreement.
Specifically, the family of British soldier Lee Rigby — who was murdered by Islamic extremists in 2013 — has spoken out about Apple’s decision to refuse a court order to break into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. Rigby’s family says Apple’s stance is “protecting a murderer’s privacy at the cost of public safety.”
Speaking with the BBC, Rigby’s uncle, Ray McClure, claimed that Apple is being, “short-sighted.” He continued:
“I would hate to see on the streets of London another murder like happened to Lee Rigby, I’d hate to see another attack like happened in Paris. How many victims of crime are not getting justice because of Apple’s stance?”
As much as I support Apple’s position on user privacy, there’s no doubt this is a complex (and enormously emotive) issue. McClure himself argues that, “I’m not saying take encryption off the iPhone, but there has to be a balance.”
The question is what that balance might be — and whether Apple should be pressured into allowing the possible threat of terrorism to push it into helping set a precedent for the erosion of user privacy.
Via: CNet
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
16 responses to “Family of murdered soldier object to Apple’s fight against FBI”
This family doesn’t understand how computers work and doesn’t understand what the FBI is asking for.
If they understood that the FBI is asking Apple to perform unpaid forced labor in order to create a backdoor which could be used to read *everyone’s* iPhones — including reading this family’s financial passwords — they would be on Apple’s side.
People seem to think that if only our phones were unencrypted, then there wouldn’t be any terrorist attacks anymore. You say ‘terrorist’ and millions of people turn stupid and become totally incapable of any critical thinking.
Allowing a Blackdoor to terrorist phones would also allow a backdoor to innocent people’s phones. Where this shouldn’t be a problem in the long run especially “if they don’t have anything to hide then there isn’t a problem” the real issue is terrorists accessing the phones of these innocent people and using their data maliciously.
For example: airliners are using electronic devices for the manuals to their airplanes, a backdoor could potentially allow a malicious group to modify or remove the manuals for these airlines and potentially put hundreds upon thousands of people’s lives in danger.
Creating a backdoor for one allows it for all.
Apple could create a special team to create a backdoor with FBI tracking to assure they don’t ever recreate the ‘backdoor’ technology or make it self destruct.
I simply ask, who’s side are you on? Terrorists or potential new victims of terrorism in this country and even abroad? Who’s?
Because opposing getting to what could be a wealth of potential information that may MAY SAVE lives is more important than liberal ideals, it’s treasonous.
Longtime conservative here… I don’t think it’s a liberal ideal to believe that the government’s power should be limited. They can and will abuse that power. They cannot be trusted to just do the right thing. The Patriot Act was a disaster (and I was a supporter at the time), and this will be too. Is it a liberal ideal to value citizen’s privacy?
Here is the reality check IMHO: Do you really think this is the first time that the US or major country’s intelligence community has come up with this issue? Has the CIA ever stolen someone’s iphone? Have they ever figured out a way to close someone’s iphone and crack it? Of course they have. This can’t possibly be the first time this is an issue in their world.
What does this mean? It means the FBI has the data already. They probably just can’t use it in court without disclosing to the world that this capability already exists and that is what they don’t want to do. This is a classic intelligence smokescreen situation IMHO.
Selfish morons.
The greater issue at hand is the precedent that is set by showing it is possible. I think it is fair to assume that once Apple does this for the FBI, the Chinese/Russian/Venezualan/Syrian/North Korean/Zimbabwean/Iranian/etc. governments are going to ask this be done for anyone they accuse of dissent or sedition. Hell, I think Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would like to be able to go after anyone they personally feel are not patriotic enough by their own definition.
Families of those who persished fighting for Liberty object to what the US government is doing.
If you think it’s ok to unlock the terrorist’s phone today, don’t complain when they unlock yours tomorrow.
It wil start with “court orders and terrorists” and within five years it’s anybody who walks a red light….
The one thing everyone seems to mention is the “potential information” that can be acquired from said phone.
What if Apple goes ahead and creates a backdoor, and all they find are dick pics?
The cat will still be out of the bag… um the dick will…
Considering that British, as do American soldiers, fight for freedoms, I find it ironic at the least that the family of a soldier are now condemning Apple for fighting for one of the more fundamental freedoms we in the Western world enjoy. No one should believe that if Apple was forced to build that backdoor, that the terrorists won’t find other ways to communicate, but the freedom from any government or hacker accessing your private data will not be regained.
It took how long for the media to dig up a poor family of a slain hero to give an unpopular opinion just to get clicks?
I want the entire unencrypted content of the phones of every person that says Apple should crack this phone…put them up on the web for anybody to grab and look through, uncensored and unmodified. If they all agree to that, I’ll accept that they at least understand what they are talking about and aren’t talking out of their behinds.