Bill Gates Weighs In On Apple Vs. FBI Encryption Battle - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Government // Cybersecurity
News
2/23/2016
01:06 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Bill Gates Weighs In On Apple Vs. FBI Encryption Battle

Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates adds his opinion to the Apple vs. FBI debate. The government has demanded Apple grant access to the locked iPhone of a suspected terrorist.

9 Windows 10 Apps For A Productivity Edge
9 Windows 10 Apps For A Productivity Edge
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

The debate between Apple and the FBI has sparked a transformative discussion about how far the government can reach in demanding access to information stored on consumer devices.

The FBI is trying to access information stored on the iPhone 5c of Syed Farook, one of two suspects killed by police after he and his wife carried out the Dec. 14 San Bernardino terrorist attacks. Apple has been ordered to create a version of iOS designed to bypass security so the FBI can brute-force the passcode and unlock it.

Apple has denied the requests. In a letter to the public, CEO Tim Cook explained how such a version of iOS would be akin to a master key, which could be used to unlock any iPhone once it is created. He claims this "backdoor" is something Apple considers "too dangerous to create."

[FAQ: What you need to know about the Apple vs. FBI debate.]

Leaders across Silicon Valley have voiced their support for Apple's decision to oppose the court order. However, one notable figure has so far remained silent.

Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates has begun to jump into the discussion. Gates claims it is "worth having a debate" about the FBI's request, but ultimately the government should be able to access information to learn more about terrorist threats.

"I think we expect governments to find out everything they can about terrorism," he said in an interview with the BBC. "Particularly when the threat [is] not just of conventional terrorism, but of nuclear and biological terrorism.

"Should government be able to access information at all, or should they be blind?" he continued. "That's essentially what we're talking about."

In a separate conversation with the Financial Times (subscription required), Gates stated how government access to the iPhone shouldn't be considered "some special thing," but similar to requests for phone company information or bank records.

"Nobody's talking about a backdoor," he said in the interview, going against Cook's rhetoric. "This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing; they are asking for a particular case."

Gates claims Apple has access to the information but is refusing to give it. The courts will ultimately decide whether Apple has to provide the data in question, he continued.

Does this mean Gates has officially sided with the government in this situation? Not necessarily. In an interview with Bloomberg TV, he claimed he was "disappointed" by myriad reports stating he was backing the FBI.

"That doesn't state my view on this," he said.

(Image: The World Economic Forum via Wikimedia Commons)

(Image: The World Economic Forum via Wikimedia Commons)

Gates noted how government access to information is valuable "with the right safeguards," especially for stopping terrorism. However, it's important to strike a balance between government knowledge and consumer privacy.

"Clearly the government has taken information historically and used it in ways we didn't expect," he said. "I'm hoping now we can have the discussion. I do believe there are sets of safeguards where the government shouldn't have to be completely blind."

What does this mean for the Apple vs. FBI case? "The courts are going to decide," he replied, repeating his answer to the Financial Times.

Current Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has not openly voiced his opinion, but it has been implied he sides with Cook and the majority of the tech industry. The Financial Times reports a Microsoft spokesperson pointed to a statement from Reform Government Surveillance (RGS), which rejects the FBI's demand.

While it acknowledges the importance of deterring terrorists, the RGS states "technology companies should not be required to build in backdoors to the technologies that keep their users' information secure." Microsoft is a member of the organization.

It appears consumers tend to disagree with Silicon Valley on the matter. Pew Research, which conducted a survey among 1,002 adults, discovered 51% believe Apple should unlock Farook's iPhone and 38% disagree.

Are you an IT Hero? Do you know someone who is? Submit your entry now for InformationWeek's IT Hero Award. Full details and a submission form can be found here.

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
WATCHINGYOUNOW
100%
0%
WATCHINGYOUNOW,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/23/2016 | 5:07:58 PM
There is also several references in APPLES Rules, Conditions, and Terms pages that do specify
This is a pretty interesting thing that Apple is publically doing. They are making news conferences about not wanting or thinking they should comply with the specific requests of a National Security Investigation.  However if you read in depth, the ITunes Terms and conditions, for example, you will find Apple states everywhere there is a violation that serves Apple's express rights, such as piracy or unlawful content or third party apps or undisclosed info hidden in apps.... basically Apple states they will investigate ahd extract any information about a user or history or use of any kind without consent and withhout notice  and when circumstances they deem fit violate any law or copywrite infrindgement or any rule of any kind, Apple  will give content from investigations over to Government Officials and Investigations.  

Basically it is a full about face on what they say. Had these terrorists managed to steal apps, then Apple would then investigate and hand over information or account access to the Law Enforcement Officials in the National Secuirty Investigation. So that Apple can use law enforcement or the courts to serve them. But numerous deaths and terrorist posts etc  are not good enough reason.  WOW  really???  

This observation was made with no position as to whether  this "stand" Apple is making to media about why they are refusing to cooperate is right or wrong. It simply seems to offer proof that Apple regularly offers evidence that was obtained by any means they felt like to help prosecute any violators of laws or their own rules..    

To me its pretty cut and dry, by their own ruiles they have proclaimed Apple  can and will provide information when it suits Apple.  So in my opinion this is far worse than government investigations in direct involvement of terrorist activities.  Since Apple also states that anyone who violates their rules is subject to their handing over  of information, is Apple saying that the terrorists didn't violate their terms by posting details of their intended terrorist acts?.   There is some valid arguements hat can be extracted from the various terms and rules etc on the Apple website.
DavidG047
100%
0%
DavidG047,
User Rank: Strategist
2/23/2016 | 9:54:54 PM
FBI vs Apple
In 1755 Benjamin Franklin wrote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." With a government mandated backdoor we'll be giving liberty to the bad guys and sacrificing our safety based not on Apple's "marketing strategy" but on the government's.

 

https://articles.azstec.com/encryption-backdoor-battle-government-sues-apple/
Gary_EL
0%
100%
Gary_EL,
User Rank: Ninja
2/24/2016 | 3:46:27 AM
Re: FBI vs Apple
If information-age devices weren't invented, and terrorists communicated by letter, wouldn't the government have demanded to see that letter under circumstances like these? Why are smartphones sacrosanct if paper isn't? Five Hundred years ago, printers, the "tech giants" of their age, didn't direct policy on secrecy.

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. To be more safe, [nations] at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No 8, "The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States," New York Packet, Tuesday, November 20, 1787.
DavidG047
100%
0%
DavidG047,
User Rank: Strategist
2/24/2016 | 9:57:20 AM
Re: FBI vs Apple
Thanks for responding with a thoughtful post. Since the technology did not exist back then it is impossible to create what if's, and even if we could your analogy is not sound, since there are no letters laying around. I agree with you, the last thing we want is tech giants directing policy, and even worse is having an overbearing and intrusive government, which our founding fathers were very aware of and put in place protections against. The cost of liberty and freedoms in the US has its price and this means that the bad guys sometimes get to take advantage of those freedoms. The opening up of that iPhone for example would cost us much more if the other bad guys, hackers, foreign governments, etc got access to the process (which they would if they existed) and nearly every cybersecurity expert agrees with Apple on this one.

If you read our blog and all of the backup links you will get the full story but Apple was already helping the FBI, and because of their (FBI's) incompetence in securing evidence properly they may have rendered the information un-retrievable. The FBI and Justice Department are now asking for something that goes well beyond this one phone.

https://articles.azstec.com/encryption-backdoor-battle-government-sues-apple/

 
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
2/24/2016 | 1:20:54 PM
Re: FBI vs Apple
The iPhone was not encrypted with the intention of keeping the government out, it was to keep bad guys out. Creating any mechanism for subverting that, whether you call it a backdoor or not, defeats that purpose. The government can't guarantee their access won't be subverted by someone else, those morons can't even keep our IRS data safe. Or my VA nurse wife identity information secure. Apple is just trying to keep people from stealing our money and our identity. Like all good things, the bad guys will find ways to take advantage of that for their purposes.

I find it humorous Bill Gates decided to weigh in on this. His product never had this problem, it enabled the malware infested world we live in. Who needs a court order, a 10 year old with an internet connection and a laptop can get whatever they want out of his products.

Where does this end? A ban on apps like Snapchat which autodestroy communications? No end to end encryption because you can't wiretap anymore? Just where do you want to draw this line so court orders can be enforced?

Technology is pretty much here where all of us can be GPS tracked and video monitored at all times. Gov can certainly argue that would make us all safer and make crime fighting so much easier for them. We ready for that? And in the end, does any of that protect you from the nutcases in San Benadino or Kalamazoo? To live is to risk dying and at some point the reduction in risk becomes marginal, you'll never make it zero.

 
nasimson
100%
0%
nasimson,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 8:37:06 AM
What's Google's stand?
What is Google's stand on all this? It would be surprising if FBI hasn't asked Google of a back door in Android. And Google wouldn't have provided it.
Technocrati
50%
50%
Technocrati,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 7:30:04 PM
Re: What's Google's stand?

@nasimson   That is a great point.  Are we to believe that criminals and terrorist only use iPhones ?   I would like to know what Google's stance is on this as well - I have an uneasy feeling that they have a much more relaxed position towards Government petitions for data. 

 

I really hope I am wrong though.

Technocrati
50%
50%
Technocrati,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 7:40:31 PM
Re: FBI vs Apple

"...I find it humorous Bill Gates decided to weigh in on this. His product never had this problem, it enabled the malware infested world we live in. Who needs a court order, a 10 year old with an internet connection and a laptop can get whatever they want out of his products."

 

@TerryB   I find it humorous as well.   Who knew he had so much time on his hands especially with all the humanitarian work he is supposed to be doing.  

Hey, Bill got news for you, humanity can still use some help.  Focus.

DavidG047
50%
50%
DavidG047,
User Rank: Strategist
2/26/2016 | 7:45:03 PM
Apple vs FBI
We updated our information after the Apple filing as well as uncovered information that seems to indicate that the FBI may have already cracked this phone and this is all a "thin edge of the blade" case for the Justice Department. We have also updated all legal summaries as well as other interesting links.

https://articles.azstec.com/

 
Technocrati
50%
50%
Technocrati,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 7:55:46 PM
Re: FBI vs Apple

@DavidG047    You make some excellent points, but we also have to remember Apple does not want to lose the trust of their user base either.  

Apple has touted the security of these phones since Jobs, and we can only imagine how much business they might lose if a post Jobs turn in policy were ever carried out.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Slideshows
Reflections on Tech in 2019
James M. Connolly, Editorial Director, InformationWeek and Network Computing,  12/9/2019
Slideshows
What Digital Transformation Is (And Isn't)
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/4/2019
Commentary
Watch Out for New Barriers to Faster Software Development
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  12/3/2019
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
The Cloud Gets Ready for the 20's
This IT Trend Report explores how cloud computing is being shaped for the next phase in its maturation. It will help enterprise IT decision makers and business leaders understand some of the key trends reflected emerging cloud concepts and technologies, and in enterprise cloud usage patterns. Get it today!
Slideshows
Flash Poll