Backdoor iPhone 5C
The discussion below is entirely hypothetical and is not intended to make or shift people into making decisions, legally or morally, nor create detriment at all.
There has been a huge amount of press regarding the balance between lawful investigation / national security versus Apple's company policy not to backdoor their products precisely for privacy and security reasons. It is laudable stand-off Apple have created because they ask where is the demarcation between full access and privacy and security. I cannot say this is David and Goliath being played out because Apple are far too big to be labelled a minnow (unjustly facing might versus right).
However, are Apple's arguments being raised legal ones or moral ones or both. Is Apple your moral barometer in life? Does Apple think for you and make/take your moral decisions for you? Only you can answer these. Apple appear to have made a good fist of standing by their publicised policy for legal reasons and, in fairness, it is understandable, they could have a fear of being accused of misleading statements to suddenly confirm there was always a backdoor into their product. They have done well and spoken in their statement that they never tried to make one in the first place.
[u][b]Apple's Open Letter[/b][/u]
https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
"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."
The public statement was made following a US Judge's Order:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf
There is a point at which peoples' morals are woven in the fabric of their country's constitution where those moral become tenets that become doctrines for the society in which they wish to live. These can lead these morals being inextricably linked (not easy to disentangle) in the decision making process where an organisation like Apple might bend and could say for example "Okay, hands up, we have stood by our customers and promises we made to them but a greater good needs our help. If customers wish us to assist law enforcement and national security carefully set down by a strict and specific set of criteria allowing Apple to (firstly) build the access and (secondly) to deploy it, then we need customers' support to loosen are obligations?" That statement is hypothetical only created for the following question to ask what would criteria do Apple customers morally consider should release Apple to allow access and deployment (backdooring)?
Below is a short list of graduated crimes against society. It is accepted straightaway that some may not figure in your moral domain (but then create one for yourself and see how you feel about it?). Put the list in order so that you create a moral demarcation where you believe Apple could (not should) allow backdooring on a single make/model of smartphone. The stage is now yours, and yours alone, as this is about you and not me, national security, law enforcement or Apple for that matter. Where do you think you feel and stand on this matter.
Place in your order of importance the below and highlight at what stage you would expect Apple to concede and backdoor their device for the greater good?
10....................backdoor device to find a burglary/car thief
9....................backdoor device to find local cannabis supplier
8..................backdoor device to find IIoC photo distributor/procurer
7................backdoor device to find people trafficker
6..............backdoor device to find arms smuggler
5...........backdoor device to find LE or civilian murderer
4.........backdoor device to find agent spreading bacterial warfare
3.......backdoor device to find murderer of national president
2.....backdoor device to find kidnapper of 30 babies from hospital
1...backdoor device to find where nuclear device placed before explodes
Remember more is less and less is more.
Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2016
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Archived Data
Archived Data
In the UK, the operators tend to vary their approach to data retention made available to law enforcement and data subjects running between weeks and a couple of years. However, data retention governed by the Directive and Legislation may go beyond that period, for instance in commercial disputes.
There are many confusing and contradicting issues associated with retention of mobile call information. The legislation appears to create a brickwall blocking unnecessary data retention. Under analysis exclusions or argumentative approaches are revealed that can give the impression that the brickwall has so many holes that it appears to have more holes than a Jeyes Cloth (J-Cloth).
For instance, the operator can give to law enforcement a Gold Copy of the records - a suggestion of the title that it contains everything, but can actually mean it is the only copy remaining. However, given the original raw data may still be with the operator, then what do all these rules really mean?
Law enforcement keep data records for considerably longer than is perceived, but that seems rather obvious when considering 'cold case' reviews.
Solicitors keep records for years in case there is an Appeal/dispute.
Both the Data Protection Act 1998 and 1984 contain requirements associated with 'processed data' and the legal position regarding a processed state and, thus, data rention periods. However, raw data that is untreated is not subject to the DPA in the same way and therefore in a raw data state may remain for many years in an unprocessed state in archive. National Security therefore could have access to archived raw data processed years after the archive was first made, but equally in a processed state data can linger on than most specified periods.
Preservation is not new of course and historically some, prior to digital archiving, had their records recorded to microfiche and as banking records were important some used inventive methods to preserve material and purchased old mines and stored their data in micorfiche format deep in the vaults of the earth in order to main a cold temperature, which if temperature increased (heat) it degraded preservation of the microfiche material. Some figures for storage were 90 years, particularly health and safety records for employees who may have been exposed to working where pervasive toxic conditions existed but weren't fully recognised at the material times.
Digital archiving today uses a range of storage media from optical disks to various data storage containment. It has been said that because of the recording properties of a SIM card data can be retained on a SIM card without degradation for upto 100 years; 50 years may be good though. So SIM maybe used under certain conditions for archive.
For mixed principles of data retention timescales the following provides useful guidance:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DIRECTIVE 2006/24/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 15 March 2006
on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly
available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 6
Periods of retention
Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in
Article 5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and
not more than two years from the date of the communication.
Download: tinyurl.com/83mjky9
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 July 2002
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)
(23) Confidentiality of communications should also be ensured in the course of lawful business practice. Where necessary and legally authorised, communications can be recorded for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction. Directive 95/46/EC applies to such processing. Parties to the communications should be informed prior to the recording about the recording, its purpose and the duration of its storage. The recorded communication should be erased as soon as possible and in any case at the latest by the end of the period during which the transaction can be lawfully challenged.
[Note: retention of data for commercial disputes is considered to be custom and trade, and this can be equivalent to six years]
weblink: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexU...058:en:NOT
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
102 to 105 Codes and agreements about the retention of communications data
[Note allows for retention periods longer than Directive on privacy and electronic communications and the Data Protection Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents)
weblink: www.legislation.gov.uk...24/part/11
There are many confusing and contradicting issues associated with retention of mobile call information. The legislation appears to create a brickwall blocking unnecessary data retention. Under analysis exclusions or argumentative approaches are revealed that can give the impression that the brickwall has so many holes that it appears to have more holes than a Jeyes Cloth (J-Cloth).
For instance, the operator can give to law enforcement a Gold Copy of the records - a suggestion of the title that it contains everything, but can actually mean it is the only copy remaining. However, given the original raw data may still be with the operator, then what do all these rules really mean?
Law enforcement keep data records for considerably longer than is perceived, but that seems rather obvious when considering 'cold case' reviews.
Solicitors keep records for years in case there is an Appeal/dispute.
Both the Data Protection Act 1998 and 1984 contain requirements associated with 'processed data' and the legal position regarding a processed state and, thus, data rention periods. However, raw data that is untreated is not subject to the DPA in the same way and therefore in a raw data state may remain for many years in an unprocessed state in archive. National Security therefore could have access to archived raw data processed years after the archive was first made, but equally in a processed state data can linger on than most specified periods.
Preservation is not new of course and historically some, prior to digital archiving, had their records recorded to microfiche and as banking records were important some used inventive methods to preserve material and purchased old mines and stored their data in micorfiche format deep in the vaults of the earth in order to main a cold temperature, which if temperature increased (heat) it degraded preservation of the microfiche material. Some figures for storage were 90 years, particularly health and safety records for employees who may have been exposed to working where pervasive toxic conditions existed but weren't fully recognised at the material times.
Digital archiving today uses a range of storage media from optical disks to various data storage containment. It has been said that because of the recording properties of a SIM card data can be retained on a SIM card without degradation for upto 100 years; 50 years may be good though. So SIM maybe used under certain conditions for archive.
For mixed principles of data retention timescales the following provides useful guidance:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DIRECTIVE 2006/24/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 15 March 2006
on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly
available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending
Directive 2002/58/EC
Article 6
Periods of retention
Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in
Article 5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and
not more than two years from the date of the communication.
Download: tinyurl.com/83mjky9
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 July 2002
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)
(23) Confidentiality of communications should also be ensured in the course of lawful business practice. Where necessary and legally authorised, communications can be recorded for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction. Directive 95/46/EC applies to such processing. Parties to the communications should be informed prior to the recording about the recording, its purpose and the duration of its storage. The recorded communication should be erased as soon as possible and in any case at the latest by the end of the period during which the transaction can be lawfully challenged.
[Note: retention of data for commercial disputes is considered to be custom and trade, and this can be equivalent to six years]
weblink: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexU...058:en:NOT
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
102 to 105 Codes and agreements about the retention of communications data
[Note allows for retention periods longer than Directive on privacy and electronic communications and the Data Protection Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents)
weblink: www.legislation.gov.uk...24/part/11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)