industryterm:search warrants

  • Customer Letter - Apple
    http://www.apple.com/customer-letter
    /customer-letter/overview/images/og.jpg?201602220251

    February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers

    The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

    This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

    Answers to your questions about privacy and security
    The Need for Encryption

    Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

    All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

    Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

    For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.
    The San Bernardino Case

    We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

    When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

    We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

    Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

    The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
    The Threat to Data Security

    Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

    In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

    The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

    The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

    We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.
    A Dangerous Precedent

    Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

    The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

    The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

    Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

    We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

    While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

    Tim Cook

    #data #privacy #apple #FBI #USA

  • The British want to come to America — with wiretap orders and search warrants
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-british-want-to-come-to-america--with-wiretap-orders-and-search-warrants/2016/02/04/b351ce9e-ca86-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

    If U.S. and British negotiators have their way, MI5, the British domestic security service, could one day go directly to American companies such as Facebook or Google with a wiretap order for the online chats of British suspects in a counter­terrorism investigation. The transatlantic allies have quietly begun negotiations this month on an agreement that would enable the British government to serve wiretap orders directly on U.S. communication firms for live intercepts in criminal and (...) #MI5 #écoutes #surveillance_du_web

  • Alaska Police Raid Cannabis Club Of Pot Activist Who Quit TV Job On Air
    http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/alaska-police-raid-cannabis-club-of-pot-activist-who-quit-tv-job-on-

    Anchorage police served search warrants Friday at the Alaska Cannabis Club, an operation run by former television reporter and legal marijuana activist Charlo Greene, the department says.

    Greene...

  • Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/why-kim-dotcom-hasnt-been-extradited-3-years-after-the-us-smashed-megaupload/1

    In short, Dotcom’s legal team has done a fantastic job of defending their client. His lawyers have thrown wrench after wrench into the legal process, appealing at nearly every turn and challenging the validity of the warrant executed upon the Dotcom estate.

    The man whom New Zealand authorities dubbed “Billy Big Steps” has won some intermediate victories along the way, including recently defeating a bid to get him thrown back in jail. In September 2012, the New Zealand Prime Minister even apologized for the government’s illegal spying on Dotcom.

    But in the most recent legal showdown, Dotcom’s lawyers came up short. On December 24, 2014, the Supreme Court of New Zealand found in a 5-1 decision that the search warrants served upon Dotcom and his three associates were valid, despite flaws in their drafting. That decision—seemingly exhausting all challenges to the extradition process—finally paves the way for a June 2, 2015 extradition hearing. However, this will almost certainly be appealed to the New Zealand Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The process is likely to take months, if not longer.

    • tiens j’avais raté ça cet été :

      Kim Dotcom : « je ne fais plus confiance à Mega »
      http://www.numerama.com/magazine/33840-kim-dotcom-mega.html

      Mis à l’écart de la direction de Mega, privé de ses parts au sein de l’entreprise, Kim Dotcom invite les utilisateurs à abandonner le service, qui ne serait plus sûr. Par ailleurs, l’homme d’affaires annonce la création prochaine d’un rival de Mega, en open source cette fois.

      il pourrait utiliser #ipfs :-)

  • Supreme Court says search warrants needed when police use GPS devices to track suspects - The Washington Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/supreme-court-says-search-warrants-needed-when-police-use-gps-devices-to-track-suspects/2012/01/23/gIQA7wL1KQ_story.html

    The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.
    (...) Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government’s installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.

    #surveillance #libertés