LIVE AS IF YOU WERE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU WERE TO LIVE FOREVER. (Gandhi)
Monday, March 5, 2018
Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 8
Should any designer of an operating system for a smartphone or tablet that is manufactured, leased or sold in the United States be legally required to ensure that data on such devices is accessible pursuant to a search warrant?
I do not believe that data should be made to be accessible to the government. Since your phone is your personal property I believe that you have an expectation to privacy for what you put on there. However, the catch with this is that any of your texts or pictures or anything else that you send to others is probably valid to be searched because you added in 2 third parties in the recipient of your message and also your mobile carrier and if the government wants to get a warrant to search through the carrier I believe that is fine. I just don't think that they should be able to directly access a warrant to your phone. I just think that with how much you almost need a cell phone to live in the modern age it is a hard thing to force people to have searched. There is so much private information that even if you were searched and found to be innocent, someone would have seen your privacy conversations and photos and other info.
Part of obtaining a search warrant is describing the exact place, persons, and things to be searched or acquired. I believe this is difficult when dealing with a device like a phone. Does the warrant allow the police to access only one app? Parts of the phone? Who is enforcing? These questions make me lean toward allowing companies to make inaccessible devices, because these devices can be a gateway to our entire lives. You shouldn't be able to get a search warrant for a person's entire life.
I think Apple has the correct stance on this question. I think we need a sense of security through their company especially when It is our property. A cell phone is our property once It is bought and all of the data on the phone is ours. I think a back door allows the bad people to get in as well as the good just like apple said. Its better to be safe then sorry is how I look at It.
Although it creates complications for law enforcement, I think that manufacturers of phones should NOT create backdoors. Creating backdoors introduces intentional vulnerabilities which will become exploits for hackers. Additionally, phones are consumer devices purchased by individuals for their personal use; they are not tools for surveillance that people carry for the ease of use by law enforcement organizations. As it stands, law enforcement has already found alternative ways to obtain the information on cell phones (e.g. third-party security firms, MDSec IPBox for iOS, any series of fastboot/adb commands for rooted Android devices), and I feel that any information they cannot recover through those methods is likely not worth the potential privacy implications for the millions of users who would suffer from the implementation of intentional security flaws.
No, I do not think devices made or sold in the U.S. should have a "back door" for law enforcement to access data on the device, even with a search warrant. This requirement would be intended to protect the public, but at the same time would expose people to hackers who would, presumably, also find a way to the "back door," so their safety would be heightened in one way but lost another. Also, to me, phones and similar devices are now the equivalent of personal "papers." Although a phone could just be destroyed, like papers can be burned, it also likely contains other information that couldn't be selectively destroyed or avoided in a search like paper documents allow, and so the lock prevents unnecessary destruction of data and unintended invasions of privacy. Finally, I would imagine that devices without a "back door" could just be manufactured and sold in other countries and brought into the U.S., so the problem of inaccessible devices wouldn't actually be solved, but the general public would still lose privacy rights.
I agree with Andrew. My first thought when reading the question of the week was how long it would take hackers to unencrypt phones and exploit the built in back door. When company’s like Equifax can’t keep over 100 million social security numbers from getting hacked, what faith should I have in any other companies’ ability to protect my information? A phone has exponentially more information then Equifax. This would be too juicy of a target for hackers to not attempt to hack. Imagine what would happen if a manufacture of cell phones got hacked and all their phones became exposed. All your information available in one hacking sweep. For that reason alone, putting a backdoor on phones is too risky.
No, I do not think there should be a backdoor built into devices. I think the personal security concerns combined with personal privacy concerns outweigh national security concerns. The potential for misuse of a backdoor is too great to risk, in my opinion.
I don't believe that designers should be required to build phones so that they ensure law enforcement can get access to the information. If all phones are forced to have a backdoor for law enforcement to use, that means every phone will have the same type of backdoor. This means if someone has enough knowledge they'd be able to hack into any phone through these backdoors, which sacrifices a person's privacy and information to complete strangers. On top of that, if Law enforcement already has a search warrant on the phone, they shouldn't need access to the phone through a back door. If there's probable reason that a suspect's phone contains important information to a case, law enforcement should legally be able to access the phone's contents with the password and with the user's knowledge. Being forced to add back doors to every phone seems more dangerous than it is necessary.
I do not believe there should be a backdoor for data on devices. I think this raises complicated issues for the government and for citizens. A search warrant would need to specify the exact perimeters of the search on the device. Searching a smart device that contains sensitive information can raise potential privacy violations. As Riley v. California illustrates the potential privacy violations smartphone can have, because they retain valuable information that may not be accessed otherwise. I also want to clarify that that court ruling stated it “warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California) But I argue, that even with a warrant, they should be very specific to what should be accessed, for how long, and for what purpose. What keeps government officials from looking into other aspects of the phone without these restrictions? If a back door were to be created I believe there would be easier access to these devices not only from government agencies but also other parties.
I do not believe that a 'back door' should be built into devices such as smart phones, one reason is any backdoor created for government or law enforcement use can be exploited by hackers or other nefarious parties to gain access to the phone circumventing password protection. Also, with today's technology, a smart phone is much more than just a phone and gaining access to a smartphone often times includes access to bank records, personal data, photos, and maybe even location history. In my opinion the spectrum of possible information is too large to be accurately weighed by anyone issuing a warrant and a warrant should not cover such a broad spectrum of information.
No, I don't think that the designers of operating systems for smartphones or tablets should be legally required to ensure that data on the devices is accessible with a search warrant. Fist of all, it is likely that creating a "back door" for law enforcement would make the devices less secure overall. Second, although a warrant does allow law enforcement to seize private property, I believe the amount of information accessible via someones phone makes it a special case. In addition, as mentioned in some of the other comments, it is unclear how the specificity required for a search warrant would be applied to a phone or other device. If the warrant covers the whole phone then law enforcement would have access to emails, back records, friends/contacts lists, etc. And who would provide oversight to ensure law enforcement doesn't overstep the bounds on the warrant? Besides these points I don't believe the government should issue regulations for such things as mobile device operating system design. That itself feels like an overreach.
Here is a good story about a backdoor (albeit a very, very poorly hidden one): https://www.wired.com/1999/08/hotmail-hackers-we-did-it/
But to answer the question: No...with a condition. Creating a universal password/backdoor would give people with ill intentions access to bank records/credit cards, photos, location history, etc etc. Additionally, how would a search warrant limit the reach of an investigator once inside the phone? Maybe the warrant is only for text messages, but once the phone is unlocked, EVERY feature is available.
I oppose the idea of a universal backdoor. I do NOT oppose having the data available for those with a search warrant. Perhaps OS designers create a system that, once the phone is plugged in to a very specific machine, can spit out the requested data without unlocking the phone. ex: someone's text messages are requested under a search warrant. Once the officers have the iphone, they take it to a verified Apple store where the manager/someone at the top of the managerial chain is able to plug in the device and retrieve ONLY the requested info.
Why would you need a specific machine when authorities can just get a search warrant to get company’s like Verizon or AT&T to give the desired information?
No. It seems like that would enable government abuse (they would be invading privacy rights). I feel like Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple summed my own position up pretty well when it comes to creating "backdoors" for electronics for law enforcement (here's the link: https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/). My biggest worry is that such technology would get into the wrong hands, which was also one of Apple's major concerns when declining to create this "backdoor." They also worried, like I do, and like I'm sure the question is targeted towards, government abuse. For these two important reasons alone, I'm very much against this proposal.
I do want to add that I think it's amazing thus far that no one has responded positively to the question. It seems like this is one of the only instances where everyone's overarching response is unanimous, albeit with different conditions and reasons for each person.
I do not believe that data should be made to be accessible to the government. Since your phone is your personal property I believe that you have an expectation to privacy for what you put on there. However, the catch with this is that any of your texts or pictures or anything else that you send to others is probably valid to be searched because you added in 2 third parties in the recipient of your message and also your mobile carrier and if the government wants to get a warrant to search through the carrier I believe that is fine. I just don't think that they should be able to directly access a warrant to your phone. I just think that with how much you almost need a cell phone to live in the modern age it is a hard thing to force people to have searched. There is so much private information that even if you were searched and found to be innocent, someone would have seen your privacy conversations and photos and other info.
ReplyDeletePart of obtaining a search warrant is describing the exact place, persons, and things to be searched or acquired. I believe this is difficult when dealing with a device like a phone. Does the warrant allow the police to access only one app? Parts of the phone? Who is enforcing? These questions make me lean toward allowing companies to make inaccessible devices, because these devices can be a gateway to our entire lives. You shouldn't be able to get a search warrant for a person's entire life.
ReplyDeleteI think Apple has the correct stance on this question. I think we need a sense of security through their company especially when It is our property. A cell phone is our property once It is bought and all of the data on the phone is ours. I think a back door allows the bad people to get in as well as the good just like apple said. Its better to be safe then sorry is how I look at It.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it creates complications for law enforcement, I think that manufacturers of phones should NOT create backdoors. Creating backdoors introduces intentional vulnerabilities which will become exploits for hackers. Additionally, phones are consumer devices purchased by individuals for their personal use; they are not tools for surveillance that people carry for the ease of use by law enforcement organizations. As it stands, law enforcement has already found alternative ways to obtain the information on cell phones (e.g. third-party security firms, MDSec IPBox for iOS, any series of fastboot/adb commands for rooted Android devices), and I feel that any information they cannot recover through those methods is likely not worth the potential privacy implications for the millions of users who would suffer from the implementation of intentional security flaws.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think devices made or sold in the U.S. should have a "back door" for law enforcement to access data on the device, even with a search warrant. This requirement would be intended to protect the public, but at the same time would expose people to hackers who would, presumably, also find a way to the "back door," so their safety would be heightened in one way but lost another. Also, to me, phones and similar devices are now the equivalent of personal "papers." Although a phone could just be destroyed, like papers can be burned, it also likely contains other information that couldn't be selectively destroyed or avoided in a search like paper documents allow, and so the lock prevents unnecessary destruction of data and unintended invasions of privacy. Finally, I would imagine that devices without a "back door" could just be manufactured and sold in other countries and brought into the U.S., so the problem of inaccessible devices wouldn't actually be solved, but the general public would still lose privacy rights.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew. My first thought when reading the question of the week was how long it would take hackers to unencrypt phones and exploit the built in back door. When company’s like Equifax can’t keep over 100 million social security numbers from getting hacked, what faith should I have in any other companies’ ability to protect my information? A phone has exponentially more information then Equifax. This would be too juicy of a target for hackers to not attempt to hack. Imagine what would happen if a manufacture of cell phones got hacked and all their phones became exposed. All your information available in one hacking sweep. For that reason alone, putting a backdoor on phones is too risky.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think there should be a backdoor built into devices. I think the personal security concerns combined with personal privacy concerns outweigh national security concerns. The potential for misuse of a backdoor is too great to risk, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that designers should be required to build phones so that they ensure law enforcement can get access to the information. If all phones are forced to have a backdoor for law enforcement to use, that means every phone will have the same type of backdoor. This means if someone has enough knowledge they'd be able to hack into any phone through these backdoors, which sacrifices a person's privacy and information to complete strangers. On top of that, if Law enforcement already has a search warrant on the phone, they shouldn't need access to the phone through a back door. If there's probable reason that a suspect's phone contains important information to a case, law enforcement should legally be able to access the phone's contents with the password and with the user's knowledge. Being forced to add back doors to every phone seems more dangerous than it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe there should be a backdoor for data on devices. I think this raises complicated issues for the government and for citizens. A search warrant would need to specify the exact perimeters of the search on the device. Searching a smart device that contains sensitive information can raise potential privacy violations. As Riley v. California illustrates the potential privacy violations smartphone can have, because they retain valuable information that may not be accessed otherwise. I also want to clarify that that court ruling stated it “warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California)
ReplyDeleteBut I argue, that even with a warrant, they should be very specific to what should be accessed, for how long, and for what purpose. What keeps government officials from looking into other aspects of the phone without these restrictions? If a back door were to be created I believe there would be easier access to these devices not only from government agencies but also other parties.
I do not believe that a 'back door' should be built into devices such as smart phones, one reason is any backdoor created for government or law enforcement use can be exploited by hackers or other nefarious parties to gain access to the phone circumventing password protection. Also, with today's technology, a smart phone is much more than just a phone and gaining access to a smartphone often times includes access to bank records, personal data, photos, and maybe even location history. In my opinion the spectrum of possible information is too large to be accurately weighed by anyone issuing a warrant and a warrant should not cover such a broad spectrum of information.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think that the designers of operating systems for smartphones or tablets should be legally required to ensure that data on the devices is accessible with a search warrant. Fist of all, it is likely that creating a "back door" for law enforcement would make the devices less secure overall. Second, although a warrant does allow law enforcement to seize private property, I believe the amount of information accessible via someones phone makes it a special case. In addition, as mentioned in some of the other comments, it is unclear how the specificity required for a search warrant would be applied to a phone or other device. If the warrant covers the whole phone then law enforcement would have access to emails, back records, friends/contacts lists, etc. And who would provide oversight to ensure law enforcement doesn't overstep the bounds on the warrant? Besides these points I don't believe the government should issue regulations for such things as mobile device operating system design. That itself feels like an overreach.
ReplyDeleteHere is a good story about a backdoor (albeit a very, very poorly hidden one): https://www.wired.com/1999/08/hotmail-hackers-we-did-it/
ReplyDeleteBut to answer the question: No...with a condition. Creating a universal password/backdoor would give people with ill intentions access to bank records/credit cards, photos, location history, etc etc. Additionally, how would a search warrant limit the reach of an investigator once inside the phone? Maybe the warrant is only for text messages, but once the phone is unlocked, EVERY feature is available.
I oppose the idea of a universal backdoor. I do NOT oppose having the data available for those with a search warrant. Perhaps OS designers create a system that, once the phone is plugged in to a very specific machine, can spit out the requested data without unlocking the phone. ex: someone's text messages are requested under a search warrant. Once the officers have the iphone, they take it to a verified Apple store where the manager/someone at the top of the managerial chain is able to plug in the device and retrieve ONLY the requested info.
Why would you need a specific machine when authorities can just get a search warrant to get company’s like Verizon or AT&T to give the desired information?
DeleteNo. It seems like that would enable government abuse (they would be invading privacy rights). I feel like Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple summed my own position up pretty well when it comes to creating "backdoors" for electronics for law enforcement (here's the link: https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/). My biggest worry is that such technology would get into the wrong hands, which was also one of Apple's major concerns when declining to create this "backdoor." They also worried, like I do, and like I'm sure the question is targeted towards, government abuse. For these two important reasons alone, I'm very much against this proposal.
ReplyDeleteI do want to add that I think it's amazing thus far that no one has responded positively to the question. It seems like this is one of the only instances where everyone's overarching response is unanimous, albeit with different conditions and reasons for each person.
ReplyDelete