분류 | 게시판 |
베스트 |
|
유머 |
|
이야기 |
|
이슈 |
|
생활 |
|
취미 |
|
학술 |
|
방송연예 |
|
방송프로그램 |
|
디지털 |
|
스포츠 |
|
야구팀 |
|
게임1 |
|
게임2 |
|
기타 |
|
운영 |
|
임시게시판 |
|
옵션 |
|
Feb 27th 2016 | From the print edition
CITIZENS have a right to both security and privacy. The difficulties arise when these two rights are in conflict, as they now are in the battle between the world’s most valuable company and its most famous law-enforcement agency. Apple has refused to comply with a court order to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by Syed Farook, one of the terrorists involved in the San Bernardino shootings in December. The company says the government’s request fundamentally compromises the privacy of its users; the feds say that Apple’s defiance jeopardises the safety of Americans.
Some frame the stand-off in terms of the rule of law: Apple cannot pick and choose which rules it will obey, they say. That is both true and beside the point. The firm has the right to appeal against a court order; if it eventually loses the legal battle, it will have to comply. The real question is whether Apple’s substantive arguments are right. That hinges on two issues.
The first is whether the FBI’s request sets a precedent. The law-enforcers say not. This is not an attempt to build a generic flaw in Apple’s encryption, through which government can walk as needed. It is a request to unlock a specific device, akin to wiretapping a single phone line. The phone belonged to a government department, not Farook. Apple and other tech firms regularly co-operate with the authorities on criminal cases; this is no different. Yet Apple is being asked to do something new: to write a piece of software that does not currently exist in order to sidestep an iPhone feature that erases data after ten unsuccessful password attempts. Later models of the iPhone than the one Farook used are harder to compromise in this way. But if the court’s ruling is upheld, it signals that companies can be compelled by the state to write new operating instructions for their devices. That breaks new ground.
The second issue is whether that precedent is justified. And that entails a judgment on whether security would be enhanced or weakened by Apple’s compliance. In the short term, the answer is that security will be enhanced. Farook was a terrorist; his phone is the only one being unlocked; and the device might give up the identity of other malefactors. But in the longer term, things are much fuzzier.
Security does not just mean protecting people from terrorism, but also warding off the threat of rogue espionage agencies, cybercriminals and enemy governments.If Apple writes a new piece of software that could circumvent its password systems on one phone, that software could fall into the hands of hackers and be modified to unlock other devices. If the capability to unlock iPhones exists, so will the temptation for the authorities to use it repeatedly. And if tech firms are forced to comply with this sort of request in America, it is harder for anyone to argue against similar demands from more repressive governments, such as China’s. This newspaper has long argued against cryptographic backdoors and skeleton keys on these grounds. It is possible to imagine a scenario that might override such concerns: if information is needed to avert a specific and imminent threat to many lives, for example. But in this instance, Apple’s case is the stronger.
Core arguments
This battle presages others. If the courts rule against Apple, it will work to make its devices so secure that they cannot be overridden by any updates. In that event (or, indeed, if the tech firm wins the Farook case), legislators will be tempted to mandate backdoor access via the statute book. If Tim Cook, Apple’s boss, is not to hasten the outcome he wishes to avoid, he must lay out the safeguards that would have persuaded the firm to accede to the FBI’s request. Tech firms are at the centre of a vital policy debate. Apple has rejected the authorities’ solution. Now it must propose its own.
죄송합니다. 댓글 작성은 회원만 가능합니다.
번호 | 제 목 | 이름 | 날짜 | 조회 | 추천 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
42 | 캐나다 2015년 연방이민 Express Entry(EE) 결과 [14] | 린덴바움 | 16/05/17 18:40 | 55 | 16 | |||||
41 | 캐나다 LMIA 와 유학 후 이민 [19] | 린덴바움 | 16/05/13 15:45 | 38 | 13 | |||||
40 | 북미에서 패밀리카 선택하기 - 2편 (스압) [7] | 린덴바움 | 16/05/08 06:04 | 66 | 8 | |||||
39 | 북미에서 패밀리카 선택하기 - 1편 (스압) [37] | 린덴바움 | 16/05/05 19:26 | 47 | 12 | |||||
38 | 이민 준비를 시작 하시는 분들에게 [26] | 린덴바움 | 16/04/19 02:59 | 114 | 25 | |||||
37 | 아직 접전인 지역 [3] | 린덴바움 | 16/04/14 03:33 | 1114 | 3 | |||||
36 | 수도권 결과를 보고 있으면... [1] | 린덴바움 | 16/04/13 23:27 | 178 | 1 | |||||
35 | 캐나다 저소득 혜택 [6] | 린덴바움 | 16/04/10 22:22 | 37 | 7 | |||||
34 | 캐나다 유학생을 위한 주정부 이민 정리 [7] | 린덴바움 | 16/04/01 13:02 | 27 | 3 | |||||
33 | 캐나다 유학생을 위한 주정부 이민 [10] | 린덴바움 | 16/03/31 18:06 | 41 | 21 | |||||
32 | 캐나다 주요도시 비교 [18] | 린덴바움 | 16/03/22 17:43 | 55 | 26 | |||||
31 | 정청래의원이 입장 표명하기 어려운 것은... [8] | 린덴바움 | 16/03/10 22:52 | 812 | 14 | |||||
30 | 이민 선호국들의 복지 비교 [25] | 린덴바움 | 16/03/04 08:05 | 146 | 25 | |||||
▶ | 영어 공부합시다 (6) [7] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/29 07:22 | 53 | 11 | |||||
28 | 영어 공부합시다 (5) [3] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/22 18:34 | 19 | 5 | |||||
27 | 영어 공부합시다. (5) [17] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/22 18:32 | 32 | 13 | |||||
26 | 영어 공부합시다 (4) [6] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/15 11:38 | 25 | 6 | |||||
25 | 영어 공부합시다 (4) [16] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/15 11:37 | 41 | 13 | |||||
24 | 영어 공부합시다 (3) [7] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/08 16:55 | 28 | 3 | |||||
23 | 영어 공부합시다 (3) [27] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/08 16:54 | 42 | 16 | |||||
22 | 한국-캐나다 주거비용 / 노인복지 비교 [26] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/06 19:09 | 60 | 16 | |||||
21 | 영어 공부합시다 (2) [20] | 린덴바움 | 16/02/01 16:09 | 55 | 17 | |||||
20 | 영어 공부합시다 (1) [47] | 린덴바움 | 16/01/27 18:11 | 36 | 30 | |||||
19 | 세계 최고 나라들 (스압, 긴글 주의) [19] | 린덴바움 | 16/01/22 17:47 | 77 | 15 | |||||
18 | 수준별 영어학습법 [9] | 린덴바움 | 16/01/14 11:09 | 64 | 77 | |||||
17 | 교통위반으로 법원 다녀 왔습니다. [28] | 린덴바움 | 16/01/08 04:32 | 33 | 9 | |||||
16 | 2016년부터 바꿔 나가야할 대한민국의 삶 [1] | 린덴바움 | 16/01/02 01:55 | 142 | 7 | |||||
15 | 이민게 분들...생활비 보통 어느정도 나오시나요? [18] | 린덴바움 | 15/12/29 16:09 | 43 | 6 | |||||
14 | 안철수 ‘새정치’ 토론회“‘친노’ 20명 불출마하기 전엔 야권연대 불가” [7] | 린덴바움 | 15/12/29 14:08 | 346 | 0 | |||||
13 | 호남 맹주 박지원, "새정치 탈당 고민하고 있다" [9] | 린덴바움 | 15/12/22 14:44 | 608 | 13 | |||||
|
||||||||||
[1] [2] [3] | ||||||||||