[kictanet] Of Data Security, Terrorism, National Security and Marketing

Fri Feb 26 15:54:18 EAT 2016

I honestly think the whole debate is one of those where we are doomed if
Apple complies and doomed if it doesn't. It has been stated in some
quarters that this is a fight Apple can afford to have right up to the
supreme court,the issue of resources is not a hindrance and it strengthens
their brand integrity in the eyes of their customers.

Legally, the FBI chose to use an outdated law whose modern application may
be questionable and that may be their undoing. Apple has stated that the
All Writs Act does not provide a basis to conscript Apple to create
software enabling the government to hack into iPhones. It has further
stated that the Act does not grant authority to compel assistance where
congress has considered but chosen not to confer such authority.

It is a battle between the right to the protection of privacy versus the
protection of national security and the prevention of terrorism, the
question is which right will prevail over the other? The final outcome of
this case will have far reaching consequences which will determine the
future of security in technology, if the  supreme courts force Apple to
 comply then no one will waste time and resources in developing highly
secure  platforms however if Apple wins it gives criminals a guilt free
pass to store all criminal data on their phones knowing that no one, not
even the government will have access(who needs a dark web? just use your
iPhone).

Let us see how this plays out.

 Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu
Twitter: @TechWakili
Tel: +254 718181644/771632344

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Tony White via kictanet <
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

> Apple has now filed an appeal against the ruling:
>
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/300521994/Motion-to-Vacate-Brief-and-Supporting-Declarations
>
> Perhaps the list's 'legal friends' can comment?
>
>
> On 22/02/2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> wrote:
> > It is amusing that the law in question was drafted over two hundred years
> > ago. For the courts this is a good opportunity to interpret the limits
> > within which law enforcement can operate.
> >
> > --
> > keybase.io/kipyegonmark
> >
> > On 22 Feb 2016, at 11:11, "Dennis Kioko" <dmbuvi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the
> FBI's
> >> request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device.
> >>
> >> However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is
> coming
> >> from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the
> >> stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and
> >> countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software.
> >>
> >> In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have
> >> been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers.
> >>
> >> Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean
> any
> >> iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by
> >> however who has access to this "God" version of iOS.
> >>
> >> Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism
> >> escapes from a lab.
> >>
> >> What would you do were you the judge in this case?
> >>
> >> On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet
> >> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> >> It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement
> >> agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.
> >>
> >> Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :
> >>
> >> The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend
> their
> >> rights, rather than the other way around.
> >> (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17)
> >>
> >> --
> >> keybase.io/kipyegonmark
> >>
> >> On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, kictanet-request at lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted
> >> > information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of
> >> > legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not
> >> > misused to collect any information they think they need about a
> society.
> >> > Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the
> >> > order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.
> >> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tony White
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chemukoechk%40gmail.com
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20160226/5ed56ab0/attachment.htm>