Desert of My Real Life

{February 21, 2016}   Prometheus or Misogyny on a Blog

I haven’t paid any attention to this blog for about a year and a half. That’s what being a department chair does to you. I was inspired yesterday to write about the Apple vs. the FBI controversy and so logged on for the first time in a long while. I have my comments set up so that I have to approve them before they get posted to the blog. I was surprised to discover that I had one comment waiting for approval. It was posted to my About the Author page on February 2, 2016, by an anonymous poster. I don’t allow anonymous comments but this person made up a name (“Mother”) and an email address that even has a made up domain name.

Here’s what “Mother” says in the comment: “Just read your Prometheus ‘review’ – Bottom line. Everything to you is Misogynistic.”

I wrote my review of the movie Prometheus in June, 2012, and titled it “Prometheus or Misogyny on a Space Ship.” I’m so curious about what brought “Mother” to a review on a fairly defunct blog more than three and a half years after the movie’s release. I have no idea what that’s about. I’m also curious about the reasons for “Mother” choosing to place his (almost surely “his”) comment on the About the Author page rather than on the movie review post itself. I would guess that “Mother” meant his comment to be directed at me as a person rather than engaging with the ideas that I presented in the actual review. Finally, I’m curious about the decision by “Mother” to post the comment anonymously with a made up email address. Clearly, “Mother” doesn’t want to engage in any real conversation about the merits of the movie.

Despite the fact that “Mother” doesn’t want to engage with me, I will respond to him by saying this: your statement is demonstrably false. Do a search for “misogyny” on my blog and you will see that this is the only post that uses the word. I discuss many movies throughout my blog and have not identified any others as misogynistic. For example, I also didn’t like the movie Disgrace but my reasons for that dislike have nothing to do with seeing the movie as misogynistic. There is a huge difference between identifying one movie as being misogynistic and identifying “everything” as misogynistic.

Do you really not see this difference? If you don’t see the difference, you aren’t very smart. If you do see the difference, I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. Especially when you behave like a coward and don’t identify yourself.

{February 20, 2016}   Apple vs. The FBI

I’ve been reading a lot about the controversy surrounding the court order compelling Apple to help the FBI break into the phone used by one of the San Bernardino killers, Sayed Farook. I think at this point, I mostly understand the technical issues although the legal issues still confound me. And there’s a significant question that I’m not seeing many people discuss but would help me to understand the situation better.

Here’s what the case is about. The iPhone used by one of the killers is owned by his employer, San Bernardino County. The FBI sought and received a court order to confiscate the phone with the intention of gathering the data stored on it. The County willingly turned the phone over. As an aside, there is currently a controversy with the FBI saying that a County employee, working on his own, reset the password for the phone after giving it to the FBI which means one possible method for retrieving the data from the phone is no longer available. The County claims that its employee reset the password under the direction of the FBI. Somebody is lying. If the FBI really did direct the employee to reset the password, they need to hire more adept technologists. The news stories about this controversy neglect to mention that the method in question would only have worked if Farook had not changed his password after he turned off the automatic iCloud backup. I think that’s pretty unlikely.

So, the FBI has physical access to the iPhone but the problem is that the phone has two layers of security. The first is that it will automatically delete all of its data if someone enters an incorrect password 10 times. The second is that the data on the phone is encrypted which means that it can’t be read unless the password is entered. The FBI sought and received a court order to require Apple to “bypass or disable” the feature that wipes the phone clean. Doing so would then allow the FBI an unlimited number of password attempts to decrypt the data stored on the phone. Apple’s response to the court order is that to comply would be to put the data of every iPhone user in jeopardy.

One of the things that confused me about this story was that I kept hearing and reading reports about Apple helping law enforcement to unlock iPhones many times in the past. The folks over at Tech Crunch helpfully explained that Apple’s current response is not hypocritical. For iPhones running the operating system iOS 7 (and previous versions of iOS), Apple had the ability to extract data from the phones. And so it complied with court orders requiring it to extract data from iPhones. For iPhones running iOS 8 and later, Apple removed that capability. Apple has stated that the company wants to protect its users’ data even from Apple. The iPhone in question is running iOS 9. So Apple does not currently have to capability to extract data from the phone in the ways that it has in past cases. In order to comply with the court order, Apple would need to write some new software, a version of iOS with the phone wiping feature disabled, and then install it on the iPhone in question. The court order requires Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance.” Is writing new software “reasonable technical assistance”?

But here’s the question that I haven’t found an answer for. Is there a precedent for the government compelling a person (remember: corporations are people so Apple is a person, right?) to build something that doesn’t already exist? The case that’s being cited as a precedent seems to me (admittedly, not a lawyer) to be pretty different. In that case, the Supreme Court said that the government could compel The New York Telephone Company to put a pen register (a monitoring device) on a phone line. But the telephone company already had the technology to monitor phone lines so it wasn’t as though they were being compelled to create a new technology. Apple is being asked to write a new piece of software, to build something that doesn’t already exist. This diversion of resources is one of their grounds for objecting to the court order. So, John McAfee has offered to write the software for free. It isn’t clear, however, that writing the software is enough since iPhones will only work with software that has been signed by Apple. Even if McAfee was successful, the government would still need Apple’s cooperation. And that’s unlikely since Apple’s philosophy is that their products should provide their customers as much data security as possible.

Ultimately, I agree with Bruce Schneier that the American public is best served if Apple does not comply with the government’s order. The government says that this request would be a one time thing, that they would not ask for such assistance again. I don’t believe that. Even if I did believe that the government would not ask again, I don’t think we can keep such software, once it exists, out of the hands of the many, many hackers who want to steal your data. That is a threat to our everyday lives that far outweighs the threat of terrorism.

Addendum (2/21/16): I’ve read some articles that take issue with Apple CEO Tim Cook’s “slippery slope” argument. His argument has been that if Apple complies with this order to circumvent the iPhone feature that wipes the phone clean after 10 incorrect password attempts, they will have no basis to refuse to do so in the future. Every time the US government asks them to circumvent the feature, they will have to do so. Government lawyers have said that this request is about this phone only and that they won’t ask in other cases. Tell that to Cyrus Vance, Jr., the district attorney in Manhattan. On Weekend Edition this morning, Vance argued that Apple should comply with the order because they are circumventing law enforcement’s ability to view the data on more than 175 phones related to criminal investigations. If this software is available for use by law enforcement officials, it will be available for use by the “bad guys.” That puts everyone’s data in jeopardy. Apple is protecting your ability to keep your data out of the hands of hackers (whether they work for the government or not).

et cetera