While most politicians have come down on the side of the FBI, Bloomberg reports Hillary Clinton is an exception. Not that she’s on Apple’s side: from her remarks, she doesn’t know whose side she’s on, she just wants there to be a solution but has no idea what it should be.
There has got to be some way to protect the privacy of data information. There has got to be some way to avoid breaking data encryption and opening the door to a lot of bad actors. But there has to be some way to follow up on criminal activity and prevent crimes and terrorism […] I am someone who is just feeling like I am in the middle of the worst dilemma ever.
[Clinton] said that there is “real mistrust” between technology companies and govt now that is a “serious problem that has to be somehow worked through […] It’s a problem we’ve got to come up with some way to solve. And I am not expert in any way to tell you how to do it”
So ‘something must be done,’ then.
Less equivocal was NYPD’s head of counter-terrorism John Miller, who yesterday accused Apple of “providing aid to the kidnappers, robbers and murderers,” and Apple’s Craig Federighi, who said that what the FBI wants is a tool “that hackers and criminals could use to wreak havoc on the privacy and personal safety of us all.”
Photo: AP Photo/Stephan Savoia
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Interesting take… and I think it shows that this very public and highly charged issue will not be resolved by politics, law enforcement or technology alone. The implications of the Apple VS FBI issue are very deep indeed. most people that use smartphones aren’t criminals and use them for legitimate reasons. These same people put faith in the fact that the information on these phones is secure and that in the event of a theft, the phone, although lost, can be wiped clean and bricked.
My business runs from a smartphone. I am a consultant and track my time and invoice my clients via my phone. All of my taxes and dues for the govt are paid via that same phone. A breach of security will guarantee that I will abandon the smartphone idea and go back to laptops & whole disk encryption.
Now, politicians usually like to polarize the audience and in this case.. their profit goes with the FBI (of course) however, I find that understanding is a three edged sword (blatantly taken from Babylon 5). Your side, Their side and the truth.
I don’t think that we’ve actually heard the truth in this matter yet.
There is a certain level of irony for me personally here. I’ve been trying to figure out who I think is the best candidate for POTUS of the remaining few. She was never my top pick, but she is slowly becoming so, more because of the other choices being so bad than anything that she is doing/has done.
But this response, if it is her true belief, and not just trying to play both sides, is something she is doing that I approve of. First, she is not giving a 140 character response to the issue. She is not pretending to understand all the intricacies of the issue. She is saying that, from what she knows, the current options on either side don’t seem to be the right answer. In fact, she is showing something I have not seen in any of the other remaining candidates. Leadership.
Where do you get leadership out of that? She simply is saying that she doesn’t agree with the current sides rather than take a side. That’s not leadership and if anything she is showing a lack of it. This is a huge issue and she’s not getting involved enough to learn about it in any way to express the direction she thinks it should go. Methinks your bias is coloring things.
you don’t know me, so I can see where you would think my bias is coloring things. If you knew anything about me, you would know that, historically, I have been on the opposite end of the spectrum of the Clintons.
My leadership comment is based on the points that she is (1) Admitting this isn’t her area of expertise (2) recognition of the issues on both sides (3) willing to have an open discussion on the merits of each side (4) looking at this from a logistical/non-emotional view and (5) willing to work with others who do know to help solve it.
So, yes, it is leadership, on this issue, and this issue alone.
I will let others judge if she is a leader in their view on all other issues. But for this issue, I think she has. She is acknowledging the complications, and not tweeting “boycott”
Nope. She is the worst dilemma ever! Hillary Clinton should be in jail. If she is not sent there after all of this email server business, then there’s something seriously wrong with the justice system. Hillary Clinton is a crook.
Why not stick to the topic and thread conversation and not try to publicize your political views?
That point is extremely on topic. Somehow who goes out of her way to keep her government emails out of the hands of the government has NO PLACE TO HAVE AN OPINION on what a private company does except that they can do the same as her.
Unfortunately, you are off topic. It’s not about Clinton’s stance as much as how to resolve this issue. Don’t let your hate for someone blind you to the greater issue.
Clinton is really not saying anything. it’s Political Nothingness. Not taking any side while trying to be on everyone’s side. Both Clinton’s should have been thrown in jail.
I happens to agree w/ Hillary on this one. Politicians should really just shut up about things they don’t understand. Instead you let some tech moron decide how to solve an encryption issue? No. Not to mention hot mess Donald.
Basically she just don’t want to mess w/ this one.
While this could be considered her taking the “I’m in the middle of a presidential election, best not to piss anyone off” view, I actually believe her here, and this is the exact type of response she should be giving. She shouldn’t be telling a technology company what to do since she isn’t versed in these things.
Actually this raises her stock just a hair with me.
Yeah Mrs Private Server out of government eyes is “in the middle” psh sure thing. #sheep
She knows about providing information to the government in an open transparent way! Thats why she kept a private service out of their supervision.
Hillary Clinton isn’t exactly someone to whom we should be looking for wisdom concerning technology. Her actions in the “email scandal” show that she is either:
A) a liar who can’t be trusted (Why would you want her for President?)
B) knows little to nothing about even the most basic web technologies. (Then cares what she has to say on this matter? She is woefully uneducated on this topic and the implications of this case.)
Clinton has legitimate knowledge on many issues and has many positions behind which someone can support her candidacy. But, her opinions on this case are completely irrelevant. We might as well ask Kim Kardashian what she thinks! At least she knows how to use Instagram…
*(The who cares what she has to say on this matter?..)
*Then… I give up. I can’t type today and not being able to edit your comments on a tech blog is painfully ironic.
I think she is exactly correct. I believe this is a problem that cries out for a blended technical and political solution. I don’t know what it will be, though.
Encourage all companies to improve security and not create back-doors and/or weaken security efforts. If the FBI is able to set a precedent, the “bell” will have been rung. Make your voice be heard on this issue.
Also, please join me in signing the White House petition at http://1.usa.gov/1R9A4cM