About E Privacy

My first reaction to the Apple – FBI face-off was incredulity that Apple would challenge legitimate security interests and established communication industry practices. I opined that a government (ours) that water boarded detainees, authorized drone assaults and engaged in massive data collection was not going to be deterred by Tim Cook’s sense of propriety. Nor would I wish it to be so.

For one, we live in a violent world and must do what is possible to protect our communities. Shackling the judicial process by ignoring warrants and writs is an unpromising strategy.

Further, I do not feel me and mine are at serious risk from legitimate data collection. Of course, I see the many opportunities for data fraud, even after using available protection techniques. But I expect that the law will incorporate the measures needed to prevent and redress legitimate infringements. Kudos Hulk Hogan!

Finally, I thought the claim that no IPhone access method existed was hogwash. Still do.

I also declared that Apple’s unwillingness to assist the FBI was a brilliant marketing ploy as it reinforced the perception of Apple security and, I surmised, aligned with the sympathies of the “early adopter” crowd that Apple depends on.

With additional time to think, my opinion has changed. I concede Cook’s point that concessions to US government dictates would be imposed in other jurisdictions and that might get people hurt. But, since I am willing to waive my own data exclusivity, I can accept that risk.

But the more important argument is the burden it imposes on industry. Encryption is a reality throughout commerce. Requiring products to enable hacking makes no sense. Also, obligating companies to comply with government demands for technical assistance can be a serious financial and talent hurdle. I see the imposition of “back door” requirements as a form of industrial protectionism which might have profound implications for function and competition. I am not a libertarian but I share their concern when regulation and law imposes costs and diminishes the competitive opportunities in much the same manner that Adam Smith ascribes to monarchial privilege.

I have a solution! Fire FBI Director James Comey. My initial thought that the FBI must pursue every prospect of security information remains valid. If Mr. Comey is unable to do so, he must be replaced. Perhaps he or some designee lacks the necessary data skills. Given the resources available to the FBI and the priority of the challenge, solutions must be forthcoming.

Shifting the intelligence burden to private industry is a poor substitute and a bad idea.

David Lang
end