The ” FBI vs Apple ” debate may seem a somewhat esoteric debate to many, but at the very core of this [ no pun intended ] is the basis of free and open societies. No this is not an exaggeration.
National Security professionals take note. Law-makers take note. Every phone-owner take note.
Recently, Sam Harris, a commentator I greatly admire for his reasoned and always challenging analysis of major global issues, took the forcefully opposing view in the Apple v FBI debate.
Whilst very well-reasoned and convincing, I simply could not agree and felt even someone as genuinely erudite as Harris was overlooking the “grammar of the medium” in this pivotal debate. I also felt his risk assessment under-estimated the loss to the individual and the implications for the future of what we understand open societies require to function [free and open communication].
The nature of digital technology and modern communications makes the “analogue” counter-arguments he was making less relevant in my view. An ethical/moral response to this requires consideration of the paradigm shift that has occurred in the last five years with ubiquitous, personal encryption. This is the game-changer.
Given the rise of global threats and the seeming rise of increasingly authoritarian responses [not least that demonstrated in some of the US Presidential debates and even within Australian political debate] by many otherwise open and/or plural societies, this issue has major and perhaps irreversible long-term consequences for the security and openness of “free/democratic” societies.
These really are the stakes in my view.
The #KeepitlockedTim sentiment is simple, but the implications are profound.
I know Apple agrees. Recently, Apple Vice President for software Engineering, Craig Federighi provided further details on Apple’s view.
Notably, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, has warned that a “Pandora’s box” will be opened if Apple co-operates with the FBI.
Unsurprisingly however, Sam Harris has once again demonstrated how a reasoned and thoughtful individual can entertain opposing views, rationally consider evidence as it changes and refine or even reverse one’s opinions, based on new understandings.
His most recent podcast, Waking Up with Sam Harris, – Inside the Crucible: Syria and the Islamic State, details [in a short update] his ongoing consideration and analysis of this issue. He references further feedback he has received from a Google engineer and the eloquent and compelling opposition he has to Harris’ position.
This short reflection by Harris is very worthy of your time. Not because he has aligned with a position I hold, but the way in which he arrives at his reshaped view. This is a genuine intellectual and reasoned-thinker at work.
You can play the excerpted reflection from the link at the beginning of this post.
You can listen to the full episode of the Waking Up with Sam Harris podcast here:
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/250503247″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
Interestingly, Harris also references the position of former NSA and CIA Chief, General Michael Hayden [the only person to ever head both organisations], who said in mid-February 2016
Even when you’re just looking at this through a security lens, that’s actually not the best resolution for American security. Put another way America is more secure — America is more safe — with unbreakable end-to-end encryption,
Also worthy of note is the position taken by the Chertoff Group,
We conclude that an extraordinary access requirement is likely to have a negative impact on technological development, the United States’ international standing, and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and will have adverse long-term effects on the security, privacy, and civil liberties of citizens.
Compelling.
#KeepitlockedTim
Links:
