This morning, we’re thankful for John Oliver for tackling FBI v. Apple in a way that only he can.
Last night’s episode of "Last Week Tonight" made excellent use of Oliver’s wit to explain the recent faceoff that has law enforcement demanding Apple help it break its way into an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters. The FBI claims that it only wants access to this one phone, but Oliver makes the precedent at stake clear.
“Think of the government as your dad,” Oliver jokes. “If he asks you to help him with his iPhone, be careful — because if you do it once you're gonna be doing it 14 times a day.” It’s an apt comparison. Law enforcement is already chomping at the bit — Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance that he has 175 phones he’d like Apple’s help unlocking, and other law enforcement officials around the country have said the same.
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22326%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FzsjZ2r9Ygzw%3Fautoplay%3D1%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20thumb%3D%22%2Ffiles%2Fyt_oliver-encryption-final.jpg%22%20width%3D%22580%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
The issue is even more fundamental than the security of Apple's products. The FBI, Oliver explains, wants all encryption to be weak enough to allow access when law enforcement wants it. But if it wins, no company will be able to ensure the safety of its customers’ data from the prying eyes of malicious actors. As a mock Apple ad at the end of the episode rightfully notes, “We’re only one step ahead of hackers at all times.”
“It’s a hugely complicated story with massive implications,” Oliver starts off, “and once we get to the end of it, you may not feel the same way that you do now.”
It’s true. Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), once a vocal supporter of undermining encryption, said in a Senate Judiciary hearing last week that by the national security arguments for strong encryption.
Oliver sums up: "When you consider all this — the legal tenuousness of FBI’s claim, the security risks of creating a key, the borderline impossibility of perfectly securing the key, the international fallout of creating a precedent, and the fact that a terrorist could circumvent all of this by downloading whatever the fuck ‘Threema’ is — it’s enough to sway the most strident opinion."
We agree, which is why the FBI’s demands in the San Bernardino case, where just last week, the government filed a arguing that technology companies should be faulted for creating secure devices, rather than applauded for doing so. We think that’s exactly backward, and a shortsighted view that prioritizes immediate law enforcement needs over longterm security and privacy.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.