(The Real Agenda) The choice between security and freedom is a false argument, but the Establishment continues to present it as a necessary decision that we should make.
Make no mistake, both Apple and Microsoft are globalist corporations at their core and their leadership is very clear about this. Apple’s alleged public fight for privacy and against government violation of privacy is just a distraction. More on this later.
The debate about whether Apple should give the keys of its operating system to the FBI is a false one. It has nothing to do with a choice between security and freedom or about a threat to mobile users worldwide.
The support thrown behind Apple by industry giants reveals what we were all expecting a move towards leaving the decision of handing over the key to Apple’s kingdom in the hands of a ‘special commission’, most likely a congressional group and industry leaders, who will ultimately decide what is done about the issue.
It is unexpected that Mr. globalist in chief, Bill Gates, the father of modern eugenics and a supporter of government spying has positioned himself in favor of the US authorities intention of getting access to Apple’s decryption mechanism to access the data of their devices.
Giving the key to the FBI is not about a concrete and specific issue, but it could have global consequences.
Bill Gates disingenuously says that the request made by the FBI “is a specific case in which the government requests information” and not something general. Gates thinks that the public is ignorant about the real intentions behind the FBI’s request.
Gates is on the side of senators like Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who want to change the law so companies can be forced to provide data to the authorities.
Richard Burr, who chairs the Intelligence Committee, wrote in USA Today that “the precedent of the iPhone in the San Bernardino case “is important to our courts and our ability to protect innocent American and to enforce the law.”
The terrorists from San Bernardino, Siad rizuan Faruk and Tashfin Malik destroyed their phones before getting in the shooting, which killed 14 people and wounded 22.
Faruk’s mobile was an iPhone 5C that he had received while he worked as an inspector of Health. The FBI believes that the decryption of data recorded by Apple could lead to other terrorists, as the couple could have been inspired by the Islamic State.
If mobile data is decrypted “what is at stake is the security of data on hundreds of millions of people”, has said Apple’s Tim Cook. Gates does not share this concern as his company already spies on users without any approval of the courts.
Tim Cook sent a message to all employees on Monday, saying that “this case is much more than just a phone or a single investigation. What is at stake is the security of data on hundreds of millions of law-abiding people, and this creates a dangerous precedent which threatens the freedom of all. “
No less dramatic is the letter released by the FBI Director James Comey, last Sunday. Comey said that victims of San Bernardino and their families deserve a thorough investigation and that the FBI does not intend to have a “master key” to decrypt the phones of anyone.
“Maybe this phone is the key to finding more terrorists, maybe not. But we can not look into the eyes of the survivors or ourselves in the mirror, if we do not.”
It is the first time, says Reuters, that a matter of this nature is exposed publicly in this way: the Department of Justice has issued an order to Apple, something that would not otherwise have done.
The US authorities want people to believe that decrypting a phone will make a big difference in its supposed fight against terrorism while its armed wing, the Pentagon, provides intelligence and weapons to ISIS in Libya and Syria.
Justice said in writing to Apple that the software that the company would have to make available to the FBI may be later “destroyed”, ensuring “that other devices or users without a warrant shall not apply”.
But that is not enough, and Apple and other companies believe that this precedent would “open a door”. It would open a door indeed, as authorities may request similar access in future cases, in which they may demand a key to many iPhones, iPads etc, and not only one iPhone.
The head of the firm, Tim Cook, wrote that “the implications of this government demand are chilling” and that the precedent of San Bernardino “makes it easier to decrypt your iPhone … intercept your messages, access your data, health or financial records, detect where you are or even access the microphone and the camera on your phone. “
Basically, Apple does not want to give the government the power to do what it already does: spy on its users. In fact, one of Apple’s features, according to Edward Snowden, already allows the government to spy on users.
It would seem that Apple wants to keep its monopoly on spying and archiving data of millions of people as leverage for the future. That is what this case is all about. Apple’s competitor, Bill Gates’ Microsoft, has been more cooperative with the government. It has already built in back doors for the NSA and other agencies to spy on people at will.
Cook also warns that police forces across the country have a lot of phones that would like to decrypt. This seems clear, as noted yesterday by Jenna McLaughlin from The Intercept, who cited the words of Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr.:
“There are tens of thousands of cases across the country related to murder, sexual abuse, where smartphones whose data could be decrypted, would help prosecutors and the police if they had access.”
So you see; it is not just about one case of terrorism. What the families of those who perished in San Bernardino want is not an all mighty government that can spy on everyone’s phone, but a government that respects the rule of law.
The attitude of those who support government spying is the same as always, “if you are innocent, there is nothing to fear” as if people needed to surrender their rights in order to be safe or to demonstrate their innocence.
Whether Apple’s position is merely a strategic one or not, the truth is that what the company says is a dangerous precedent in the United States, it has already surrendered to the government of China, where market analysts believe, Apple is more concerned about market share than user privacy.
Although Tim Cook dismissed the rumors that Apple would allow a “back door” to the Chinese authorities, no one knows what requirements were accepted, given that the Chinese government exerts great control over the Internet and social networks. “Only Apple and the Chinese government know,” says expert Samm Sacks, from the Lawfare website while reviewing Chinese law.
Apple is eager to devour the huge market that is China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and a year ago the People’s Daily tweeted that the company had been “the first foreigner to accept the Chinese rules governing the administration of cyberspace”.
The Chinese Cybersecurity law dates from July 2015, days after the Chinese government concluded its negotiations with Apple.
Remember to share and distribute this article through the social networks below.
Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.