Re: [kictanet] Of Data Security, Terrorism, National Security and Marketing
It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information. Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 : The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17) -- keybase.io/kipyegonmark On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote:
However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a society. Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the FBI's request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device. However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is coming from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software. In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers. Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean any iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by however who has access to this "God" version of iOS. Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism escapes from a lab. What would you do were you the judge in this case? On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :
The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17)
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke <javascript:;> wrote:
However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted
information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a society. Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <javascript:;> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmbuvi%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- with Regards: blog.denniskioko.com <http://www.denniskioko.com/>
It is amusing that the law in question was drafted over two hundred years ago. For the courts this is a good opportunity to interpret the limits within which law enforcement can operate. -- keybase.io/kipyegonmark On 22 Feb 2016, at 11:11, "Dennis Kioko" <dmbuvi@gmail.com> wrote:
Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the FBI's request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device.
However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is coming from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software.
In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers.
Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean any iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by however who has access to this "God" version of iOS.
Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism escapes from a lab.
What would you do were you the judge in this case?
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :
The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17)
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote:
However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a society. Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
Apple has now filed an appeal against the ruling: http://www.scribd.com/doc/300521994/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-De... Perhaps the list's 'legal friends' can comment? On 22/02/2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
It is amusing that the law in question was drafted over two hundred years ago. For the courts this is a good opportunity to interpret the limits within which law enforcement can operate.
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 22 Feb 2016, at 11:11, "Dennis Kioko" <dmbuvi@gmail.com> wrote:
Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the FBI's request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device.
However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is coming from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software.
In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers.
Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean any iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by however who has access to this "God" version of iOS.
Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism escapes from a lab.
What would you do were you the judge in this case?
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :
The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17)
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote:
However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a society. Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
-- Tony White
I honestly think the whole debate is one of those where we are doomed if Apple complies and doomed if it doesn't. It has been stated in some quarters that this is a fight Apple can afford to have right up to the supreme court,the issue of resources is not a hindrance and it strengthens their brand integrity in the eyes of their customers. Legally, the FBI chose to use an outdated law whose modern application may be questionable and that may be their undoing. Apple has stated that the All Writs Act does not provide a basis to conscript Apple to create software enabling the government to hack into iPhones. It has further stated that the Act does not grant authority to compel assistance where congress has considered but chosen not to confer such authority. It is a battle between the right to the protection of privacy versus the protection of national security and the prevention of terrorism, the question is which right will prevail over the other? The final outcome of this case will have far reaching consequences which will determine the future of security in technology, if the supreme courts force Apple to comply then no one will waste time and resources in developing highly secure platforms however if Apple wins it gives criminals a guilt free pass to store all criminal data on their phones knowing that no one, not even the government will have access(who needs a dark web? just use your iPhone). Let us see how this plays out. Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu Twitter: @TechWakili Tel: +254 718181644/771632344 On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Tony White via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Apple has now filed an appeal against the ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/300521994/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-De...
Perhaps the list's 'legal friends' can comment?
It is amusing that the law in question was drafted over two hundred years ago. For the courts this is a good opportunity to interpret the limits within which law enforcement can operate.
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 22 Feb 2016, at 11:11, "Dennis Kioko" <dmbuvi@gmail.com> wrote:
Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the FBI's request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device.
However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is coming from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software.
In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers.
Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean any iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by however who has access to this "God" version of iOS.
Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism escapes from a lab.
What would you do were you the judge in this case?
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :
The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend
On 22/02/2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: their
rights, rather than the other way around. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17)
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote:
However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a
society.
Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
-- Tony White
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chemukoechk%40gmail.co...
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
The interesting thing here is that if Apple are forced to comply, the genie will be out of the bottle! - already there are 165 similar cases awaiting the outcome. And once this 'special version' of iOS is created, it will not be long before it escapes into the wild. Unintended consequences! On 26/02/2016, Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
I honestly think the whole debate is one of those where we are doomed if Apple complies and doomed if it doesn't. It has been stated in some quarters that this is a fight Apple can afford to have right up to the supreme court,the issue of resources is not a hindrance and it strengthens their brand integrity in the eyes of their customers.
Legally, the FBI chose to use an outdated law whose modern application may be questionable and that may be their undoing. Apple has stated that the All Writs Act does not provide a basis to conscript Apple to create software enabling the government to hack into iPhones. It has further stated that the Act does not grant authority to compel assistance where congress has considered but chosen not to confer such authority.
It is a battle between the right to the protection of privacy versus the protection of national security and the prevention of terrorism, the question is which right will prevail over the other? The final outcome of this case will have far reaching consequences which will determine the future of security in technology, if the supreme courts force Apple to comply then no one will waste time and resources in developing highly secure platforms however if Apple wins it gives criminals a guilt free pass to store all criminal data on their phones knowing that no one, not even the government will have access(who needs a dark web? just use your iPhone).
Let us see how this plays out.
Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu Twitter: @TechWakili Tel: +254 718181644/771632344
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Tony White via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Apple has now filed an appeal against the ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/300521994/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-De...
Perhaps the list's 'legal friends' can comment?
It is amusing that the law in question was drafted over two hundred years ago. For the courts this is a good opportunity to interpret the limits within which law enforcement can operate.
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 22 Feb 2016, at 11:11, "Dennis Kioko" <dmbuvi@gmail.com> wrote:
Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the FBI's request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device.
However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is coming from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software.
In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers.
Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean any iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by however who has access to this "God" version of iOS.
Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism escapes from a lab.
What would you do were you the judge in this case?
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :
The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend
On 22/02/2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: their
rights, rather than the other way around. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17)
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote:
However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a
society.
Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
-- Tony White
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chemukoechk%40gmail.co...
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Tony White
While the iPhone was expressly designed to prevent the sort of thing the government is asking for, Apple has a moral obligation to help. However, there is no real limitation if the federal government, through a judge's order, can ask Apple (or other vendor in the future) to redesign their own products to meet the demand. So, from Apple's point of view, they do not want to set precedence to a ruling that has far reaching implications, not just in information technology, but also in other fields...i.e in medicine. This is a very complicated issue!! > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:00:08 +0300
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Of Data Security, Terrorism, National Security and Marketing From: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke CC: tony.mzungu@gmail.com To: lnjogu@hotmail.com
The interesting thing here is that if Apple are forced to comply, the genie will be out of the bottle! - already there are 165 similar cases awaiting the outcome. And once this 'special version' of iOS is created, it will not be long before it escapes into the wild.
Unintended consequences!
On 26/02/2016, Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
I honestly think the whole debate is one of those where we are doomed if Apple complies and doomed if it doesn't. It has been stated in some quarters that this is a fight Apple can afford to have right up to the supreme court,the issue of resources is not a hindrance and it strengthens their brand integrity in the eyes of their customers.
Legally, the FBI chose to use an outdated law whose modern application may be questionable and that may be their undoing. Apple has stated that the All Writs Act does not provide a basis to conscript Apple to create software enabling the government to hack into iPhones. It has further stated that the Act does not grant authority to compel assistance where congress has considered but chosen not to confer such authority.
It is a battle between the right to the protection of privacy versus the protection of national security and the prevention of terrorism, the question is which right will prevail over the other? The final outcome of this case will have far reaching consequences which will determine the future of security in technology, if the supreme courts force Apple to comply then no one will waste time and resources in developing highly secure platforms however if Apple wins it gives criminals a guilt free pass to store all criminal data on their phones knowing that no one, not even the government will have access(who needs a dark web? just use your iPhone).
Let us see how this plays out.
Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu Twitter: @TechWakili Tel: +254 718181644/771632344
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Tony White via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Apple has now filed an appeal against the ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/300521994/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-De...
Perhaps the list's 'legal friends' can comment?
It is amusing that the law in question was drafted over two hundred years ago. For the courts this is a good opportunity to interpret the limits within which law enforcement can operate.
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 22 Feb 2016, at 11:11, "Dennis Kioko" <dmbuvi@gmail.com> wrote:
Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the FBI's request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device.
However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is coming from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software.
In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers.
Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean any iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by however who has access to this "God" version of iOS.
Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism escapes from a lab.
What would you do were you the judge in this case?
On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :
The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend
On 22/02/2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: their
rights, rather than the other way around. (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17)
-- keybase.io/kipyegonmark
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote:
However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a
society.
Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
-- Tony White
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chemukoechk%40gmail.co...
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- Tony White
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/lnjogu%40hotmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
participants (5)
-
Dennis Kioko -
Lawrence Njogu -
Mark Kipyegon -
Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu -
Tony White