The Providence Journal (R.I.), Feb. 26:
Many observers of the showdown between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Apple feel conflicted about how it should be resolved. Most would surely like law enforcement agents to be able to unlock the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife gunned down 14 people in San Bernardino in December. But they would not like such an act to mar the encryption that makes Apple smartphones so secure for millions of users.
Ideally, nobody would have to choose. But Apple has purposely structured its newer phones so that the company cannot get inside them. After an interval of quiet talks in quest of compromise, the FBI went public, demanding that Apple develop software to hack into the gunman’s phone. In effect, it would force the company to create a “back door” key to its own security systems. Last week, a federal magistrate judge in California granted the FBI’s request. In an impassioned statement, chief executive Tim Cook said Apple would fight the court’s order.
The Justice Department insists that the requested software would work only on the single phone in question, unlocking potentially valuable information. But Mr. Cook warns that, on the contrary, such a limitation cannot be guaranteed. Once created, the technique could be used repeatedly, on any number of devices. Not only might Apple be subject to an onslaught of law enforcement requests to open additional phones, swamping its security systems; the sheer existence of the software could eventually place it in the wrong hands. Criminals could use it; so could authoritarian regimes.
Depending on how the court case progresses, governments such as China’s could point to an informal U.S. precedent and demand, for instance, that the phones of dissidents or religious leaders be unlocked. Apple has sold millions of iPhones in China.
Who is right? Technology experts seem to be lining up mostly on Apple’s side, but there is disagreement. For that reason, a proposal to convene an expert panel on encryption is well worth considering. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has suggested forming such a commission so that some kind of consensus on the issues at stake can be reached, and translated for the public.
Absent such a learning curve, Congress could rush to impose demands on private companies that only marginally improve evidence gathering, while devastating personal privacy. The competitiveness of U.S. companies might also suffer: foreign high-tech companies could step in, offering more secure systems. “Back-door” requirements could also facilitate the theft of trade secrets, and enable mass surveillance.
A confrontation between national security and privacy has been building for a few years now. It accelerated in 2013 when Edward Snowden, the former intelligence contractor, disclosed numerous instances of domestic spying by the U.S. government. Among them were years of efforts by the Central Intelligence Agency to tamper with Apple products, including planting spy tools in Apple hardware. Shortly afterward, along with other technology companies and in response to consumer demand, Apple moved toward stronger encryption.
Sensing that the San Bernardino killings make a sympathetic test case, the FBI has made a calculated attempt to win this fight in court. But it would be better if, instead, the nation updated its laws, establishing thoughtful rules for the use of modern technology in law enforcement. These are not issues that are easy to resolve, nor will they go away. But an informed public debate will serve Americans better in the long run than a legal skirmish with Apple.
The (Meriden) Record- Journal (Conn.), March 4:
Everybody – everybody of a certain age, that is – knows about Rosie the Riveter, the World War II icon painted by Norman Rockwell for the cover of the Saturday Evening Post. She represented the millions of women who went to work in America’s factories, making the tools of war that defeated fascism. They worked at Insilco and New Departure in Meriden, at Fafnir and Landers and Stanley in New Britain, and at factories all over Connecticut and across the country. Rockwell’s model for Rosie, Mary Doyle Keefe, died in Simsbury last year.
But does anybody remember Rosie the Aviator?
Around 1,000 women served as Women Airforce Service Pilots, known as the WASPs. They wore uniforms, carried weapons and saluted their superiors. They trained men to fly bombers. They ferried high-performance fighter planes to ports for shipment to Europe or the Pacific. Thirty-eight WASPs died in the service. Around 100 are still living.
And yet, they are not entitled to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Yes, Arlington will run out of space sooner or later, but there should be plenty of room for cremation urns – if any of these valiant women should want to spend eternity there, and at least two have expressed that wish.
In January, U.S. Rep. Martha McSally, R-Arizona, introduced a bill (H.R.4336, the Women Airforce Service Pilot Arlington Inurnment Restoration Act; Connecticut 2nd and 5th District U.S. Reps. Joe Courtney and Elizabeth Esty are co-sponsors) that will make that possible. McSally was the Air Force’s first female fighter pilot to fly in combat.
“Think of the irony that at the same time the Pentagon is opening up all missions to men and women in the military they are closing the door to the women who were pioneers,” McSally told The New York Times. “If you’re not going to do the right thing,” she said, “we’re going to make it happen.”
She’s right. Make it happen.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
