lifelibertytech.com Open in urlscan Pro
207.246.88.149  Public Scan

Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOM

GET https://lifelibertytech.com/

<form method="get" class="searchform search-form" action="https://lifelibertytech.com/" role="search"><input type="text" value="Search this website …" name="s" class="s search-input"
    onfocus="if ('Search this website …' === this.value) {this.value = '';}" onblur="if ('' === this.value) {this.value = 'Search this website …';}"><input type="submit" class="searchsubmit search-submit" value="Search"></form>

POST https://feedpress.it/e/mailverify

<form style="border: 1px solid #ccc; padding: 3px; text-align: center;" action="https://feedpress.it/e/mailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://feedpress.it/e/mailverify?feed_id=LifeLibertyTech', 'popupwindow',
'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=400');return true">
  <p></p>
  <p style="text-align: center;"><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;">Get Life, Liberty, and Technology in Your E-mail</strong></p>
  <p>Enter your e-mail address:</p>
  <p><input style="width: 140px;" type="text" name="email"></p>
  <p><input type="hidden" name="feed_id" value="LifeLibertyTech"> <input type="submit" value="Subscribe"></p>
</form>

Text Content

 * Home »
   * Life
   * Liberty
   * Tech
 * About This Blog
 * About “New Liberty Bell”
 * Contact the Author
 * The MB Tech Network


LIFE, LIBERTY, AND TECHNOLOGY

Digital Enlightenment


REMEMBERING 9/11, SIXTEEN YEARS LATER

September 11, 2017 by Marcel Brown 2 Comments
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

I’m not usually an overtly “patriotic” type of person. Two years ago my oldest
daughter played the national anthem at one of her first football games as part
of her high school marching band. It happened to be 9/11. I did feel something
stir inside me. It probably was because on September 11th, 2001 the birth of my
first child was imminent and my life was changing forever. So these events are
forever intertwined in my mind.
 
I remember a lot of that day 16 years ago. Minor little things like I had just
watched the Monday Night Football game the evening before. It featured the New
York Giants and Denver Broncos. Wide receiver Ed McCaffrey broke his leg during
that game. However, I also remember important details of my life. My wife was
very pregnant and was basically on restricted activity so I had been driving her
to work for a week or two. We were listening to the The Steve & DC Show show
that morning as we had done for many years. When news of the first plane
crashing into the towers came across, my first thought was of one of the Die
Hard movies where the terrorists manipulated the airport’s guidance system to
make a plane crash. Commercial jetliners don’t just crash into buildings. This
either had to be a horrible mistake or it was intentional. Not knowing for sure
what was happening (and assuming it was simply just a terrible accident) I went
ahead and began driving my wife to work. When the news of the second plane was
announced I remember exactly where I was. I-255 South right before the exit ramp
to I-55/50 West. At that point I knew it was no accident. Had I known better I
would have turned around and brought my wife back home. But being young and
naive, I went ahead and took her to work, then went to my parking lot in
downtown St. Louis (where the new Busch stadium now stands) to wait for a
shuttle to bring me to work.
 
While waiting for the shuttle to come around, there wasn’t really anyone near
me. I looked around and thought to myself how the calm in that parking lot was
such a contrast to what was happening in New York. I felt that the relative
peacefulness surrounding me at that moment was like the calm before a storm.
These events, even before I heard about the Pentagon attack and the scale of the
tragedy to unfold, were unlike anything that had happened in this country and I
knew that things would change drastically for everyone after that day.
 
When I got to work there was of course very little work going on. Most people
were talking about the news and trying to watch a TV. People were still
beginning to hear about the 2nd plane and realizing it was no accident. As word
kept coming in about further attacks and the towers collapsing, it felt weird to
be at a job where work tasks seemed so insignificant by comparison to what was
happening in the rest of the world. I had a relatively important call scheduled
with someone in another department that morning and we went ahead with that, but
talking about some mundane technology details of some corporate network system
felt surreal as none of that really mattered on that day. I recall where a woman
co-worker came crying frantically down the hall saying she saw a plane circling
near our high-rise building. I remember trying to calm her down and realizing
just how much this was affecting people who I had never seen act in a
non-professional way. Eventually our management felt that anyone who wanted to
go home could and that was good with me because I was going to leave anyway, as
my wife had already left her job and I should have been the one to pick her up.
 
We spent much of the afternoon at a friend’s house who was home recovering from
a recent kidney transplant: his own life changing event. Having had kidney
problems for literally all of his life, he had said previously that this was the
first time that he expected to live past his 20’s. He shared that he never
really saved much money because he didn’t think he’d be around long enough to
spend it. And now he was set to marry his fiancé (who incidentally was the
person who donated the kidney) in a couple of months. So as I was ready to bring
a child into the world, he was basically starting his life anew. The set of
circumstances that were surrounding us all at that time seemed odd, but also
perhaps fitting. All our lives would have never been the same after that fall
regardless, but now the world was changing in front of our very eyes in a very
dramatic way.
 
So as it is, every milestone birthday in my oldest daughter’s life is
synchronized with the anniversary of that horrific day in our history. This
year, being her sweet 16, perhaps it is a little more poignant. She is about to
get her driver’s license and essentially begin to venture out into the world on
her own. The world where 16 years ago on this day we suddenly we all wondered
about our future and our children’s future. However, don’t be mistaken. As sad
as all this sounds I choose to look at the positive. Where great evil was
perpetuated on that day, we saw incredible heroism and selfless behavior.
Afterwards, we saw an outpouring of support from people in this country and all
over the world. Since that time I have come to believe that there is far more
good in the world than evil and that humanity is generous, kind, and full of
love by nature. Perhaps symbolically we are seeing a lot of that kindness and
generosity right now with the recent hurricanes that have caused a lot of
devastation in Texas and Florida, among other places. While we all had our own
particular circumstances that shape the way we remember 9/11, my own with the
forthcoming birth of my first daughter ultimately taught me that life goes on. I
don’t worry for either of my daughters becoming young women even in a post-9/11
world. I know there will always be evil but I also know that we can’t dwell on
the possibility of bad things happening. So my advice to my daughters will be to
seek the good in this world, surround yourself with kind people, and work to
help others in whatever way we can. We must live our lives as we are meant to
live them and not be afraid of what the future holds.
Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Life


BERNIE SANDERS’ LAST CHANCE FOR PRESIDENT

November 1, 2016 by Marcel Brown 1 Comment
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Let me be clear: I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders’ politics. I do not believe
socialism is a good economic system, nor that it is compatible with the United
States Constitution. However, I do agree in principle with one idea that Bernie
Sanders symbolized: that the political system in the United States is corrupt
and tilted in favor of the rich and politically powerful. While at first I was
diametrically opposed with what Bernie Sanders stood for, I eventually gained a
respect for the man and the movement that grew around him. I believe that many
of his supporters are less true socialists and rather hold more
anti-establishment ideals. I can definitely see why someone who claimed they
were going to level the political playing field received so much support.
Therefore I was a bit surprised when Bernie Sanders seemed to sell out and
support Hillary Clinton as nominee of the Democratic Party. He had just spent
many months painting her as everything he stood opposed to and then it was
revealed that the Democratic National Committee conspired to ensure Hillary
Clinton was their nominee. Having some time to ponder the situation, I’ve come
to two conclusions.


BERNIE IS DOING WHAT HE MUST

First, Bernie Sanders is being an extremely smart politician. If he had bucked
the DNC and withheld his support for Hillary Clinton, he would be politically
finished. The DNC is too powerful for him to stand against. His best chance at
moving his political agenda forward was to ally with Hillary Clinton and give
her his full support. In exchange, she claims she will adopt some of his ideals
and the DNC will keep Bernie at the forefront of their party. Bernie is doing
exactly what he needs to do to remain politically relevant. I can not blame him
as a politician for doing what he is doing. He has worked to bring himself
mainstream visibility in national politics and he wants to leverage that base of
support the best way he can. However, Bernie supporters are not beholden to
Hillary Clinton or the DNC. They can continue Bernie’s mission even if he can
not currently do so himself. Obviously he can no longer tell his supporters to
not vote for Hillary Clinton, but it doesn’t take much to read between the lines
on how he really feels about her.

The problem with supporting Hillary Clinton is that no one can trust her any
farther than they can throw her. Of course she says now that she will
advocate the policies that Bernie Sanders promoted. She needs the votes of
Bernie Sanders’ supporters to get elected! Like Barack Obama said in 2008,
Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. But what happens after she
gets elected? She will say and do anything it takes to keep political favor and
reward those who helped get her elected, which if you believe Bernie Sanders,
include a lot of Wall Street and big money donors. She is as just as likely to
align with Republicans (as her husband did in the 90’s) if that will help her
get re-elected or help her contributors. If I were a a Hillary Clinton
supporter, I would be scared to death that she will keep any of the promises she
is giving now – and so should Bernie Sanders supporters. There is nothing
keeping her from dropping you like a bad habit if she gets elected. She won’t
need you in the next election.


BERNIE SANDERS 2020?

My second conclusion is that for Bernie Sanders to ever have any chance at the
presidency, Hillary Clinton can not be elected president this year. The reality
for Bernie Sanders supporters is that the Senator is 75 years old. He would have
already been the oldest president ever elected this year. Four years from now at
79 years old is realistically his last chance at becoming president. If Hillary
Clinton or any Democratic Party member (Hillary Clinton might be impeached if
she is elected president) is the president 4 years from now there’s no way
Bernie Sanders will have an opportunity to run. Unless a Hillary Clinton
presidency is an absolute train wreck of unprecedented proportions, he can’t
honestly run against the party he supports. His only chance is for someone other
than a Democratic Party member to be president in 2020 so he can mount a viable
campaign. If you are a true Bernie Sanders supporter, electing Hillary Clinton
will kill any chance he has of ever becoming president and she likely will
suffocate his agenda to appease her big money supporters. A vote for Hillary
Clinton is shooting yourself in the foot and also excusing the DNC shutting for
out Bernie Sanders’ campaign and his supporters.


BUT DONALD TRUMP!

Ok, I get it that you can not support Donald Trump. I’m not asking you to vote
for him. In fact I’m not voting for him. There are ways besides voting for Trump
to show that you are not satisfied with the establishment candidates in this
presidential election. You also get an opportunity to punish the DNC for
disenfranchising your vote.

The simplest thing you can do is vote for a third-party candidate of your
choice. The most likely options are Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and
Jill Stein of the Green Party. The simple choice is that if you are more
anti-establishment, Gary Johnson is your man and if you identify as a true
socialist then Jill Stein better represents you. But do your own research to
make your own conclusions. That being said, I will add that if any third party
gets over 5% of the popular vote this election cycle, it gets them automatic
ballot access in the next election plus significant federal funding which will
start them on equal footing with the establishment parties. They can then put
more resources towards campaigning instead of fighting tooth and nail to get on
the ballots in all 50 states. Certainly having more political voices can only
help us all, much like Sanders did in his presidential bid. The most popular
third party candidate thus far is Gary Johnson, so if you want to help third
parties get more viability, then a vote for Gary Johnson will be the most likely
way to make that happen. If one third party can break the political glass
ceiling, then it will pave the way for others as well.

If you honestly can not vote for a third party, then a write in vote is an
option, but do note that write-in votes will not help any third-party gain
viability. You could also not vote, but that is truly wasting your voice. The
establishment parties are more than happy if you do not vote because then it
means your vote simply doesn’t exist and they get to keep the status quo. A vote
for a third party or even a write-in vote is an unmistakable message that you
are not happy with the political establishment. A non-vote simply disappears and
doesn’t really say anything at all. So whatever you do vote in some way, just
not for Hillary Clinton.

A lot of you will say that a third-party vote is still a vote for Donald Trump.
I respectfully disagree, but even if we accept this assumption, it is actually
more helpful for Bernie Sanders if Trump were elected than Hillary Clinton. If
Donald Trump is as bad as you think he is, then it makes it all the more likely
that Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic Party nominee next election cycle.
As a Bernie Sanders supporter, you believed that the best chance of defeating
Trump was Bernie Sanders. If you believed it then, you must believe that one
term of a Trump presidency will make it even more likely for Bernie Sanders to
win the next election. Yes, I agree this option stinks, but you were robbed of
your opportunity this election. If you want any chance at getting Bernie elected
president, you may need to put up with 4 years of Donald Trump. If anything this
is Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s fault so how can you reward them with your
vote?


WHO DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN?

It simply comes down to this for Bernie Sanders supporters: what do you believe
about Hillary Clinton? Do you believe what Barack Obama said in 2008 and what
Bernie Sanders said in the primaries about her corruption and big money
influences, or do you believe she will actually keep her word after she’s taken
your vote? If you trusted your candidate back then, know that he is doing what
he can as a politician to keep his influence by aligning with Hillary Clinton
now, but that doesn’t mean you must. Send a message to the DNC that they can not
get away with disenfranchising your vote and you will not support Hillary
Clinton this election so that Bernie Sanders can have one last chance at
becoming president next election.

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty


MATHEMATICAL PROOF GARY JOHNSON CAN WIN – THE POWER OF TWO!

August 24, 2016 by Marcel Brown 1 Comment
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

It should be no surprise to anyone that the level of voter dissatisfaction with
the candidates presented to us by the establishment parties is at an all-time
high. A huge number of people do not want to vote for either Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton. So what are they to do? An ever increasing number of people are
considering voting for a third party candidate, but when discussing it with
others, they start to doubt the validity of voting for a third party.

Sadly, the number one objection to voting for a third party is that people think
they would be wasting their vote on a candidate that can’t win. With thinking
like that, it virtually guarantees that no third party will ever become relevant
and the political status quo will remain. How can a candidate ever get enough
support to win if people are waiting first for everyone else to get on the
bandwagon?

I’m sure you’ve all heard that if one person shares an idea with two people and
those two people each tell two more people, and so on, that idea will spread
very quickly. Mathematically speaking, this is called geometric (or exponential)
growth. When doubling something each time, the math formula is based
upon exponents of the number two, or in other words, the power of two. I bring
it up now to end the narrative that a third party presidential candidate,
specifically Gary Johnson, can not possibly win the presidential election and
hopefully help convince people to vote their conscience and bring about
political change in this country.


IT’S SIMPLE MATH

For purposes of this exercise, let’s ignore the electoral college and simply
surmise that it will take approximately 50 million votes to win in a three-way
race (it would probably be closer to 47 million, but 50 is a nice round number).
This assumes there would be about 130 million votes total, which would about
equal the highest ever number of popular votes in a presidential election: the
131 million cast in 2008. Mathematically speaking, if we started with a single
voter convincing two other voters, it would take only 25 “generations” of
subsequent voters convincing other voters to reach over 67 million votes, far
more than the 50 million needed. (The formula for computing the exponential sum
of a number taken to a certain power is basically to calculate one power higher
and subtract 1. So if 226 = 67,108,864, the sum of the powers of 2 up to the
25th power is 226 – 1.)

To put a timeframe around this calculation, what if we concluded that one voter
could convince two other voters in a single day? Then it would only take 25 days
to generate enough votes for a presidential candidate to win. If we slowed down
the process and assumed it took two days to convince two voters, then that is
still only 50 days needed to convince enough voters for a presidential win in a
three-way race. Pushing the timeframe out to three days equals 75 days, which at
the time of this writing is almost exactly the amount of time left before the
election. That is plenty of time for enough people to become convinced to vote
for any candidate, let alone one that already has growing popularity like Gary
Johnson.

If you feel that convincing two voters every few days is not realistic, realize
that we are not starting at one single voter. Gary Johnson received 1.2 million
votes in 2012 (with ballot access in only 48 states) – the most ever for a
Libertarian Party candidate. If we round down and make the starting point just 1
million voters, then it would only take 5 generations to reach 64 million votes,
much more than the 50 million he would need. If we started with one million
voters today, at the pace of convincing only two voters every week, that would
only require five weeks. If we stretch that out to every two weeks, that would
still be fast enough to get enough votes to win – with time to spare. Certainly
persuading two voters over the course of a week or two must seem feasible.

Still not convinced? Consider these facts:

 * Gary Johnson’s base of support has been growing steadily since he was
   officially nominated as the candidate of the Libertarian Party back on May
   29th – over 12 weeks ago. As it became clear that Donald Trump and Hillary
   Clinton were to be the official candidates of the Republican and Democratic
   parties 4 and 5 weeks ago, interest in third party candidates including Gary
   Johnson increased significantly. Given the exponential growth possibilities,
   that is a lot of time passed in which voters may have already been convinced.
 * If various polls are accurate (and they generally are skewed against third
   party candidates), with Gary Johnson approaching 15% of the vote, that is
   currently about 19 million out of 130 million votes. With that base of
   support, if those 19 million people each convinced just two other voters,
   that ALONE would be enough to go over the 50 million need to win in a
   three-way race.
 * If Gary Johnson is allowed to participate in the presidential debates, a lot
   of potential voters could be convinced “spontaneously,” adding to the base of
   people who could convince other voters.
 * Gary Johnson already has ballot access in all 50 states this election cycle.
   There’s no reason people won’t be able to vote for him if they so choose.
 * What if one voter could convince three other voters? Suddenly, the number of
   generations shrink significantly. Assuming one voter to start, it would take
   just 15 generations to reach over 43 million votes, which is close to the
   rounded-up 50 million number needed (a 16th generation would reach over 129
   million in theory). Assuming one million voters to start, it would only take
   3 generations to reach 81 million votes, obviously well more than needed. At
   19 million voters to start, convincing just three people each (a single
   generation) would be enough for 76 million votes, once again significantly
   more needed to win in a three-way race.
 * In this day and age of social media, just how many other people can one
   person help convince? They don’t call it “going viral” for nothing. Suddenly,
   convincing just two or three other voters seems too easy. What if one voter
   could convince four or five other voters? Or more?

Now obviously, convincing someone to vote for a candidate isn’t a simple
mathematical formula. It takes more than just merely telling someone about a
candidate – although with the high negative numbers the two establishment
candidates have this election cycle, it might not take all that much! This
article is not proof that Gary Johnson is GOING to win. It simply is proof that
it is entirely POSSIBLE for virtually anyone to get enough support to win a
presidential election in a relatively short timeframe IF voters are willing to
personally convince a few other voters. If we even allow for imperfect geometric
growth on the power of two, there is plenty of time left at this point in this
election cycle to convince enough voters for Gary Johnson to win outright, not
to mention that this process has been going on for at least a few months and
there is already momentum on his side.


YOU’VE GOT TO DO YOUR PART

Of course, convincing other voters requires people taking part in
conversations and discourse – and that is the entire point! It does require some
work and people need to be willing to put themselves out there a little bit.
However, if you aren’t satisfied with the political status quo and want to
effect substantive change, you need to put a little effort into it. If you feel
like it is impossible to help a third party candidate win, that you can’t do
much as one person, simply try to convince at least two other people to vote
third party and make sure to tell them to each convince at least two other
people. Feel free to share this article with them for emphasis. As this article
shows, you might just start the ball rolling on real political change in this
country. Even if you can’t vote yourself but you are politically inclined, as
many teenagers and immigrants may be, you can help influence the votes of
others. The two or more people you convince can start a tidal wave.

As I mentioned at the start of this article, when you are telling people about
third party candidates like Gary Johnson, the first thing you’ll likely hear is
that the person likes the idea of a third party candidate, but they don’t think
they can actually win. Therefore they don’t want to waste their vote. Hopefully
the information in article can be your first response to this objection and you
can start to change a few minds. By using the Power of Two, it only takes a few
people convincing a few other people and so on …

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty


9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULING IS ELITIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, AND
RACIST

June 9, 2016 by Marcel Brown 1 Comment
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

This is how the state of California and the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals view the
free people they supposedly serve

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not
protect the right of individuals to carry concealed weapons. Certainly I have
much to say on the implications that this ruling has on our rights and freedoms.
However, that is the low-hanging fruit. I prefer to look a little deeper. In
reviewing the ruling, I think many people are overlooking the inherent elitism
that the court ruling implies, possibly going as far to be called sexist,
homophobic, and dare I say racist.

The basic crux of the matter at hand are that people in California are only
legally allowed to carry concealed weapons if they are granted a permit. Part of
being approved for this permit is dependent on the applicant proving that “good
cause exists” for carrying a concealed weapon. Each county in California is
allowed to define what exactly “good cause” means for the applicants in their
jurisdiction. One of the counties in question, Yolo County, does not explicitly
define “good cause,” but only gives examples of what they consider to be valid
reasons to carry a concealed weapon:

 * Victims of violent crime and/or documented threats of violence.
 * Business owners who carry large sums of cash or valuable items.
 * Business owners who work all hours in remote areas and are likely to
   encounter dangerous people and situations.

Additionally, both Yolo and San Diego County, the other named county in the
lawsuit against the state of California, explicitly define that “self protection
and protection of family” or “simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone”
are not valid reasons for carrying a concealed weapon. So let’s
further examine these “good causes,” shall we?


ELITISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN BIG GOVERNMENT

Basically what these counties are saying, and by extension the state of
California and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals endorse, is that the life
of a person or their family are not “good causes” worth protecting, but large
sums of cash or “valuable” items are. So cash and material items are more
“valuable” than human life according to these various big government entities.
Besides the inherent condescension of a government imposing where and how the
people they serve may exercise their own rights, not allowing people to defend
their own lives unless they have “valuable” cash or items smacks of
unabashed elitism. If one is looking for a situation where real privilege is
handed out, look no further than the state of California and their concealed
carry legislation. Apparently, only certain lives are privileged enough to
defend themselves.

The state of California and the United States government is basically telling
women that their bodies and health are not valuable enough to protect against
rapists. How sexist of them. Talk about a war on women, big government believes
women aren’t capable enough to determine for themselves when they have a “good
cause” to protect themselves from violent sexual predators. The same goes for
homosexuals. Big government in California does not allow the LGBT community to
decide for themselves when they think they posses “good cause” to
safeguard themselves from violent people. Are the state of California and the
United States government homophobic? Sure sounds like it.

However, if you are a business owner, and only a business owner, you apparently
are “likely to encounter dangerous people and situations.” Now, I wonder exactly
how the state of California defines “dangerous people.” Would they be people who
live in certain areas? Maybe those areas would include inner cities? Don’t
people of minority status live in inner cities? Racists!

Now, I admit that this last point may be a bit of a stretch. But, I would be
willing to bet that if the records of who was given concealed carry permits were
reviewed and for what circumstances, it could be interpreted in a way that would
show tendencies to give permits to people who were more affluent and
non-minority. I wonder if anyone has this information or if the state of
California would be willing to divulge such data?

So what do you think? Do you like the fact that certain governments think they
know better than you where and how you may protect yourself or your family? Or
are you happy that they consider cash and material items to be more valuable
than you and your family’s lives?

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty


DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES TOTALLY LAME ON APPLE, FBI

March 3, 2016 by Marcel Brown 0 Comments
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Having no position is basically the same as siding with the FBI.

Last week I wrote an article taking the Republican presidential candidates to
task for not understanding the broad implications of the Apple and FBI
situation. I didn’t consider at the time what the two Democratic candidates’
positions were. So I did a little reading and found that while the Democratic
candidates were not firmly on the side of the FBI as the Republicans were, they
too didn’t seem to grasp the possible ramifications of Apple being forced to
comply with the FBI order. In some way, their weak-kneed refusals to choose a
stance are perhaps even worse than what the Republicans stated. I’ll explain
why.

Bernie Sanders said he is on “both” sides of the issue. He said he is fearful of
“Big Brother” but he also worries about another terrorist attack. Ultimately he
says that he believes that middle ground can be reached. At first glance this
seems like a perfectly balanced, rational answer, but it shows a tacit ignorance
of the technical issues involved. Political compromise will not work in the real
world of data encryption.

Hillary Clinton basically offered the exact same answer as Sanders. She also
fears abuse of encryption backdoors by “authoritarian regimes,” but believes
that there must be a way to find a solution that both keeps data secure and
allows law enforcement access. Again, seemingly reasonable but only if one does
not understand the underlying technical issues.


WISHY-WASHY PANDERING

The answers given by both Democratic candidates are political cop-outs. They are
not true position statements. While I appreciate the fact that at least these
two candidates aren’t calling for Apple to comply with the FBI order, by not
specifically siding with Apple, they are leaving the door open for some sort of
“compromise.” In this situation, to call for compromise is to implicitly end up
on the side of the FBI, which is to stand against individual privacy and
security.

The reality of strong encryption is that *ANY* sort of backdoor weakens the
encryption protocol to the point of insecurity. Any weakness will eventually be
exploited. I find it hard for anyone who does not understand the underlying
technical aspects of strong encryption, let alone government officials or
political candidates, to propose solutions that verge on pure fantasy. The type
of compromise that the the Democratic candidates floated (which is basically
what the FBI director wants) is what is termed the “magic pony” solution because
it is more wishful thinking than technical reality. I do not know of a single
cryptographic expert who would claim otherwise, and even publications like the
MIT Technology Review agree that there can be no technical middle ground on
strong encryption.

I stated earlier that the Democratic candidates’ responses are potentially worse
than the Republican candidates’ positions. By floating false solutions, the
Democrats are setting the stage for people to believe that a “compromise” is
possible. There is no more dangerous position to hold than one which deceives
people into a false sense of security. If people believe that a solution can be
created that allows for truly secure encryption that law enforcement can
decrypt, they are going to be sorely disappointed when the final political
solution shows itself to be insecure. At least we know where the Republicans
stand and we can fight their positions with no pretense. When a candidate shows
no position or shows a proclivity towards political compromise, we may not know
what we will end up with until after they are elected and it is too late.

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology


UNDERSTANDING APPLE’S SIDE OF THEIR FIGHT WITH THE FBI

February 29, 2016 by Marcel Brown 0 Comments
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

In analyzing the Apple and FBI court case over the iPhone used by a San
Bernadino terrorist, it has become quite obvious that many people are not
completely comprehending the entirety of the facts. Unfortunately for Apple, I
believe the complexity of the situation is hurting their position in the public
eye. The FBI’s side of the issue has generally become overly-simplified. “Apple
needs to unlock the iPhone of a terrorist,” is all that many people comprehend.
I believe it has been hard for most people to understand the nuances of Apple’s
defense. As with anything relating to technology, people can get easily
bewildered by explanations of complex topics. Given an overly simplistic and
one-sided viewpoint, it really is no wonder that there is much confusion over
the issue. When people are not clear on a subject, they tend to fall back to
whatever side feels the “safest.” In a case like this, it is no wonder public
opinion appears to lean towards the side of “national security.” As proof of
this, all one has to do is consider the fact that no candidate from either the
Democratic or Republican party has shown explicit support for Apple.

That being said, I believe Apple could be doing a better job of simplifying the
perception of their case in the court of public opinion. Unless someone wants to
study Apple’s public statements in detail, it can be hard to get to the heart of
Apple’s defense and understand why their position speaks to more broad-ranging
issues than simply the data on one terrorist’s phone. So to help simplify
Apple’s position, I have read Tim Cook’s open letter, watched his interview with
ABC, read every page of Apple’s Motion to Vacate, and just this morning, Apple’s
prepared statement to the House Judiciary Committee so that I can explain and
clarify Apple’s position plus impart why it is so important for everyone to
understand.

If you want a quick summary, Apple’s position basically states:

 * The FBI’s order goes far beyond any precedent set before.
 * It is unduly burdensome to Apple and the technology industry in general
 * The precedent set would give government virtually unlimited power to trample
   on personal liberties well outside of the scope of this case
 * Finally the FBI order is quite simply illegal. If anything, this is a matter
   for congress to legislate, not for the FBI or a judge to decide.

In a nutshell, the FBI’s actions could end up having far-reaching
repercussions that devastate the very freedom they are supposed to be
protecting. If you’d like a more through explanation, keep reading.


APPLE’S DEFENSE EXPLAINED

First, it can not be stressed enough that the FBI’s order is NOT a simple
warrant to search for some data. Nor is it a request for Apple to do something
they can easily do or have done before. It is not as simple as “pushing a few
buttons” or just removing some code. If it were so straightforward, Apple would
have already complied, as they have in the past and have cooperated so far in
this situation. Complying with the FBI’s order will be a massively complex
technical undertaking for Apple, taking hundreds or thousands of man-hours to
complete, plus potentially a significant amount more resources to maintain after
the fact. Never has a private company ever been forced to go through such
lengths on an investigation they are not a direct party to. Additionally, the
FBI unilaterally decided to change the iCloud password of the terrorist’s
account prior to consulting with Apple. Why they did this is not known at this
time, but by doing this they wasted a great opportunity to have access to the
data on the phone without needing to go through extraordinary measures. It is
entirely possible the FBI could have avoided this situation altogether had they
not make such a grievous error.

Second, the veritable Pandora’s box that would be opened by complying with the
FBI order would be an incredible burden to not only Apple but potentially much
of the technology industry. While the FBI claims this would be a one-time
request on a single phone, the reality is that many law enforcement departments
are already lining up to make the same request as the FBI – and the FBI
themselves already have several other cases in waiting! Besides being a
significant and costly burden for Apple or any other company with similar
products, the creation and maintenance of an insider hacking tool has serious
implications on the security of American technology products. If companies can
be forced to hack their own products, would they actually be able to create
truly secure devices anymore? The monumental burden for companies to create,
maintain, and keep secure these self-inflicted hacking tools would be unlike any
ever sustained before. Companies are used to protecting trade secrets from other
companies, but can they honestly be asked to protect hacking tools that
criminals and foreign espionage would no doubt target?

Now the two points I have brought up above are somewhat arbitrary. They
primarily speak to the undue burden that the government would place on Apple and
other technology companies. It is not hard to see that someone who takes a
hardline on national security could brush away these arguments with a simple,
“tough luck” rationale. However, the next two points are what I believe are the
meat and potatoes of Apple’s position, which truly should be the position of
anyone who is concerned with protecting privacy and individual liberties in this
country, as well as national security.

Apple’s third argument contends that legal enforcement of the FBI’s order
implies that they can literally enforce any request of any kind on any company
or individual as long as they claim it is “necessary” for the purposes of law
enforcement. There would be virtually nothing that could not be requested,
including forcing a company to create encryption backdoors. This is quite
literally the definition of conscription, impressment, or involuntary servitude.
While the FBI may not be technically asking for an encryption backdoor in this
particular case, it is in essence a legal back door to eventually forcing
technology companies to cripple the security of their products for the
convenience of law enforcement. It is precisely this legal back door that
privacy and liberty advocates should be the most concerned about, especially
because it could be so broadly applied to almost any company in any industry as
well as private individuals.

This argument dovetails right into perhaps Apple’s most powerful defense, namely
that the federal government simply does not have the authority to make such a
request. It is categorically outside the power given to them through the
Constitution by we the people. Therefore such a request is plain illegal. I
don’t know how anyone could justify the federal government violating the very
Constitution they are sworn to defend and uphold. Tim Cook himself said, “To
oppose your government … on something where we are advocating on civil liberties
which they are supposed to protect, it is incredibly ironic.”


WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT WHAT APPLE IS DEFENDING

While the FBI and the Obama administration may be semantically correct that this
particular request is just about one iPhone,  it should be obvious that what the
FBI is trying to force Apple to comply with has ramifications far beyond just a
single investigation. Absolutely nothing would stop the FBI or other law
enforcement agencies from pursuing the same strategy on other cases. If the
software Apple were forced to develop were ever leaked into the public,
criminals and foreign governments would have a dangerous tool at their disposal.
The odds of the software leaking would increase every single time another agency
ordered its use.

As Tim Cook reiterated many times during his televised interview, this isn’t
about one iPhone, it is about the future. He brought up a great point that my
wife especially took notice of: your smartphone likely has more personal
information about you, including the location of your family and children, than
anything else in the world. The security of people’s data on their smartphones
is no trivial matter. If the FBI’s actions end up endangering the private data
on millions of people’s phones, that is potentially a disaster of
monumental proportions. When viewed as a public safety issue, Apple has just as
much of an argument on the side of national security as the federal government
does.

The bottom line is that if you care about the security of your most private
data: your finances, health data, and even the safety of your family, you must
realize that what the FBI is asking for is very dangerous. It would be
undermining the extensive security precautions Apple and other technology
companies have been refining in addition to subverting many of the principles of
individual liberties that this country was founded on. If we are working to
protect this country from terrorists who want to destroy our freedoms and
principles that we hold dear, why would we accept our own government destroying
them instead?

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology


REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES SCREW THE POOCH ON APPLE, FBI

February 26, 2016 by Marcel Brown 1 Comment
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

The party of small government? Apparently not when it comes to technology
issues.

The topic of the Apple vs FBI situation came up during the Republican
Presidential Debate on CNN last night. To my dismay, all the candidates of the
supposed party of small government took a hardline, big government stance
against Apple. I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, as I expected this position
from a couple of the candidates, but it did confirm my fears on how the
situation is being misperceived amongst many in the public. I  would have loved
to see at least one candidate take a principled stand against the FBI (et tu,
Ben Carson?), which is one reason I really wish Rand Paul had stayed in the race
to provide a contrast when the other Republicans stray into the weeds on certain
issues. That being said, let’s do a quick run-down on each candidate’s comments:

Donald Trump: The frontrunner was not actually asked about this situation during
this debate, but based on his earlier comments, we know Donald Trump’s
position (and I’m paraphrasing): Terrorist BAD … FBI GOOD … Apple make me ANGRY!
But seriously, his position is based on a simple misunderstanding of the
situation, which it seems most of the candidates shared as I’ll explain below.

Marco Rubio: As he usually is, Marco Rubio seemed very rehearsed in his response
to the question. He delivered the best zinger of the night saying that “Apple
doesn’t want to do it, because they think it hurts their brand. Well let me tell
you, their brand is not superior to the national security of the United States
of America.” He correctly pointed out that the FBI’s request was not an
encryption backdoor but just a way to crack the password on one phone. So it was
clear that he had been well coached on the topic, but unfortunately those who
were advising him focused on the FBI’s side of the argument, ignoring the
positions Apple has brought up. Rubio however was clear that he did not support
encryption backdoors in general, so perhaps his team hasn’t had a chance to
review Apple’s court filing that was released earlier in the day. Perhaps he
will change his position upon further view.

Ted Cruz: For being such a strict Constitutionalist and generally a principled
defender of individual liberties, I was most dismayed that Cruz didn’t take a
more nuanced stance on the situation. He basically thought that Apple should
comply with a legal court order, clearly missing the point that the the legality
of the court order is in question – which is truly the heart of the issue. He at
least did clarify that he does not support government enforcing encryption
backdoors, but he apparently is not aware of the full implications of the FBI’s
orders on our rights and freedoms. I’m hoping that once he gets a chance to read
Apple’s court filing, he will modify his stance.

Ben Carson: Ben Carson has been a fairly principled small-government advocate
and one of the least hardline when it comes to national security issues. So it
was odd to hear him say that he believed Apple should comply with the FBI order.
However, I also got the impression that Carson was simply not up to speed on the
issue. Which again, if one only listens to the soundbites coming from the FBI
side of things, Apple just needs to “click a few buttons” and the FBI will have
their data. But it is far more complicated than that. Carson was basically just
repeating what the other candidates said which was that they believed Apple
should comply with a legal court order. Well, sure they should, but this court
order is possibly illegal. I’m sure Rand Paul would have pointed that out.

John Kasich: I think John Kasich is just trying to emulate Donald Trump the
longer the campaign drags on. Kasich did not actually express an opinion whether
or not Apple should comply with the FBI order, but instead just stuck out his
chest and admonished President Obama for not forcing Apple and the FBI to come
up with a solution. He said that if he were president, he would lock the two
sides into a room and not let them out until they reached an agreement. Well,
Mr. Kasich, that may work for someone who is an employee of the government under
your charge, but Tim Cook is a private citizen, Apple is a private company, and
locking up Cook or any Apple employee would basically be kidnapping or unlawful
detention. So Kasich showed he doesn’t understand the complexity of the
situation either and in some ways, his answer was the worst of any of the
candidates. Not all issues can be solved through political compromise,
especially when core issues of liberty and privacy are at stake. Going along to
get along might make good politics, but it doesn’t protect our freedoms very
well.


LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR THE CANDIDATES

The bottom line is that it was clear none of the candidates understood the
technical underpinnings of this situation. This is not a simple warrant to
search for some data. If it were that easy, Apple would have already complied,
as they have in the past and already have cooperated so far in this situation.
There are four main points to consider in Apple’s defense. They are not hard, so
even a politician should have no trouble comprehending them:

First, the action the FBI is requesting is not as simple as pushing a few
buttons. It will be a complex technical undertaking for Apple to be able to
comply with the FBI’s request, taking hundreds or thousands of man-hours to
complete, and potentially a significant amount more to maintain after the fact.
As I mentioned already, Apple has already complied with all lawful requests from
the FBI and has even turned over data in their possession from previous iCloud
backups of the iPhone in question. Clearly it’s not like Apple isn’t complying
with all reasonable and legal requests. Additionally, had the FBI not
unilaterally made the decision to change the iCloud password prior to consulting
with Apple, they would have been able to make the iPhone initiate a new backup
and avoid this situation altogether.

Second, the veritable Pandora’s box that would be opened by complying with the
FBI order would be tremendously burdensome to not only Apple but potentially
much of the technology industry. While the FBI claims this would be a one-time
request on a single phone, the reality is that many law enforcement departments
are already lining up to make the same request as the FBI – and the FBI
themselves already have at least four other cases in waiting! Besides just being
a significant and costly burden for Apple or any other company with similar
products, the creation and maintenance of an insider hacking tool has serious
implications on the security of American technology products. If companies can
be forced to hack their own products, would they be able to create truly secure
devices anymore? The significant burden for companies to create, maintain, and
keep secure these self-inflicted hacking tools would be unlike any ever endured
before. Companies are used to protecting trade secrets from other companies, but
can they honestly be asked to protect hacking tools that criminals and foreign
espionage would no doubt target?

Third, the implications of the FBI’s order is that they can literally
enforce any request of any kind on any company or individual as long as they
claim it is “necessary” for the purposes of law enforcement. There would be
virtually nothing that could not be requested, including forcing a company to
create encryption backdoors. This is quite literally the definition
of conscription, impressment, or involuntary servitude. While the FBI may not be
technically asking for an encryption backdoor in this particular case, as Marco
Rubio pointed out, it is in essence a legal back door to eventually forcing
technology companies to cripple the security of their products for the
convenience of law enforcement. It is precisely this back door that
small-government advocates should be the most concerned about and why I’m
surprised they had not yet caught on to this critically important aspect of the
situation.

Which dovetails right right into the final argument, that the federal government
simply does not have the authority to make such a request. It is simply outside
the power given to them through the Constitution by we the people. Therefore
such a request is illegal. I don’t know how anyone could justify the federal
government violating the very Constitution they are sworn to defend and uphold.
I wish Apple were pushing this point harder, because then I believe it would
make it crystal-clear to those who claim to support small government and privacy
rights.

It is not surprising to me that the campaigns of these candidates are not up to
speed on complex technical issues. A technology advisor is not something that
has been part and parcel of a political campaign in the past. But with
technology issues becoming more and more of a part of modern politics, perhaps
it is time for politicians to consult with technology experts prior to drafting
policy positions? I’m certainly willing to lend my expertise to any of these
campaigns, if they are willing to listen.

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology


TIM COOK, APPLE, ENCRYPTION, THE FBI, AND A CHANCE TO CHANGE THE WORLD

February 23, 2016 by Marcel Brown 0 Comments
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

It’s no secret I have a great interest in the technology industry, especially
when it comes to the topic of Apple. I also have a great interest in history and
politics, hence the name and topic of this blog. So when the situation with
Apple and the FBI came to a head last week, I knew I had to write about it. In
case you’ve been living under a rock, the FBI is attempting to force Apple
to help them break into the iPhone of a San Bernadino terrorist. Apple is
currently refusing to comply with the order, claiming the FBI’s specific
request would jeopardize the safety of their customers’ data and set a bad
precedent for the ability of government to force technology companies to
compromise the security of their own products.

There are strong opinions on both sides. There are people who believe in strong
privacy rights and applaud Apple for standing up against what they perceive as
government overreach. The other side can’t understand why anyone would want to
prevent law enforcement from investigating a terrorist. Both sides make good
points at certain times, which makes the situation far from black and white.
This is why I took my time in crafting this article so I could study all the
points involved and give a well-reasoned and through examination. So strap on
your seat belts because you are about to go on a wild ride through the topics of
technology and politics!


THE ISSUES ARE CONFLATED

There has been a long-running debate in techno-political circles regarding
strong encryption technology and law enforcement. Simply put, modern encryption
technology like that used by Apple and other smartphone manufacturers work so
well that no one is able to crack it – not even law enforcement agencies of the
federal government nor the manufacturers themselves. Obviously law enforcement
wants to be able to decrypt data from technology devices that are part
of criminal investigations. Government officials are suggesting that technology
companies should create “backdoors” into their products so that law enforcement
can decrypt their products. They are also threatening to create regulations that
will force them to do so if they do not comply voluntarily. It is against this
backdrop that the current predicament with Apple and the FBI is taking place.

However, this situation with Apple, the FBI, and the iPhone of the San Bernadino
terrorist is NOT the same as the above debate. In this instance, the FBI is not
attempting to force Apple to create or use an encryption technology with a
backdoor. Even if they were, it could not help them in this particular
scenario because the iPhone in question is already encrypted with virtually
unbreakable technology. Rather, what the FBI is asking of Apple is to create a
modified operating system that would remove safeguards against brute-force
password attacks for this particular iPhone. The FBI claims that if Apple were
to comply, they could crack the password on the iPhone and decrypt the data
without a backdoor.

Apple contends that complying with this order would require compromising the
security precautions they have built into their products. They claim that by
doing so they would put at great risk the privacy and security of the data of
all their customers. They are calling what the FBI is requesting a “backdoor.”
However, while Apple is technically correct in describing the FBI order as
exploiting a backdoor, it is NOT the same type of encryption backdoor that has
been the subject of much debate that I described above. The FBI has
responded that they are not asking for a backdoor to encryption (in which they
are technically correct), but rather just a one-time way to crack a password
on one particular iPhone.

Let me be clear. I wholeheartedly believe that the idea of government enforcing
encryption backdoors is a terrible idea and additionally they have no authority
to mandate this. However, in this case the backdoor already seems to exist. The
FBI claims they have discovered a way to work around the passcode protections on
an iPhone and Apple’s response seems to have confirmed that this exploit would
work. Apple is not fighting a battle on the front of encryption technologies in
this instance. It is an entirely, albeit related, confrontation here.

It is clear that Apple is waging a larger war. Apple has been very steadfast on
the encryption technology debate, staunchly rebuffing government suggestions for
backdoors and even calling out the Obama administration for not taking a stand
on the side of privacy rights. Perhaps that is why they are conflating the
issues at hand. Maybe they believe that these issues are similar enough and they
should just combine them for public debate. I can not blame them for taking this
tactic. To some degree, the idea that government can force a technology company
to exploit a security hole in their own product is related to the idea that
government can force a technology company to purposely create backdoors into
their products. But at the same time, I feel that Apple is possibly doing a
disservice to the cause in the way they are approaching this fight.


LAW VS OPINION

There are two battles being fought. One is playing out in an actual courtroom.
The other is being wrangled in the court of public opinion. Certainly in a
society with a government of the people, public opinion is extremely important.
With the support of enough people, government can be compelled to take or not
take certain actions. However, there is danger in popular democracy. Just
because a majority of people believe in a certain way does not mean they are
right. The opinion of the people can also be swayed by those with power and
influence. Additionally, the perception of popular opinion can be skewed to fit
a narrative. This is all especially true when dealing with complex technical
topics, given that most people will base their opinions upon only brief
soundbites.

Apple is taking a great risk by conflating the larger encryption debate with the
San Bernadino iPhone issue. It is entirely possible that the situation plays out
against Apple in either the courts of law or of public opinion. If that happens,
it could have negative ramifications for protecting strong encryption
technologies in general. The problem is that currently Apple’s main argument
seems to be in the realm of the theoretical. They are saying that the FBI’s
actions could have serious ramifications. It could set a very bad precedent.
However, there is nothing clear-cut that would immediately happen if Apple is
forced to comply with the FBI’s court order.

It is easy for naysayers to dismiss a theoretical argument when there is a
real-world situation at hand. I fear it will be all too easy for those on the
side of the FBI to wrap their messaging around the tragedy that took place in
San Bernadino and sway the courts as well as popular sentiment. Once they have
this momentum on their side, it could create new support (or at least the
perception of it) for restricting the type of encryption technologies companies
like Apple can use. If the FBI gets their way, it would be a simple task for
proponents of encryption backdoors to argue that the San Bernadino situation
is an example of why law enforcement needs an easy way to decrypt anyone’s
device. If I can imagine this scenario, it is certain that political strategists
have already played out this chess game in their minds.

While I don’t mind Apple bringing the issues at hand to the public’s attention,
I believe that Apple should also be taking a stronger approach. An approach
based in law that is not bound to the whim of popular opinion or that of
politicians. If they were to do this, Apple has a great opportunity to strike at
the root of not only the encryption debate, but also possibly tackle much
broader issues impacting privacy and freedom as well.


SHOULD NOT VS MAY NOT

It’s one thing to point out why the government should not do something, as
Apple’s strategy seems to be so far. However, it is entirely more powerful to
point out that government is not allowed to do something based on constitutional
law. It’s the difference between a philosophical discussion and a mathematical
equation. The first is open to interpretation while the second is based on hard
and fast rules that simply can not be broken. People may not agree on the
meaning of life, but 1+1 always equals 2.

If one believes that any law passed by a majority vote in a legislature is
valid, then theoretical arguments rule the day. Politicians can rationalize
almost any argument in their favor and they certainly have. For example, if
legislators can argue that a farmer growing wheat on their own land for their
own use should be considered interstate commerce AND they can get the Supreme
Court to agree with them, then politicians can rationalize just about anything.
While this scenario may sound like fantasy, it is sadly a very real case that
was decided in 1942 (Wickard v. Filburn).

Political power knows no bounds. In the United States, the only thing standing
in the way of unbridled government action are the limits upon it defined in the
Constitution. Politicians can not make the case they are going to
break constitutional law in order to accomplish something. Obviously that would
not fly with the public. This is why they will go through mental gymnastics to
try to fit something under their authority as they did in Wickard v. Filburn.
Astute readers will point out that politicians have been very successful at
rationalizing/ignoring laws for a long time and I definitely agree. The problem
is that there have been too few situations where a defendant has challenged the
government to prove their authority. While Wickard v Filburn was decided in
favor of unfettered government, more recently United States v. Lopez in 1995 was
the first significant decision since 1942 that ruled government had overstepped
its bounds. So there is still some glimmer of constitutional limits upon
government power that exist and I think Apple has an incredible opportunity to
make history if they are willing to go full bore against government overreach in
this situation.


HOW APPLE COULD MAKE LEGAL HISTORY

If Apple truly wants to close the door on government attempting to control the
use of strong encryption, as well as other related government infringements on
privacy and intrusions into personal technology, they need to force the
government’s hand. They need to make the federal government explain where they
claim to derive the authority to force a private company to comply with the type
of request they have made of Apple. Going further, Apple could challenge the
idea that government may simply pass a law that would require technology
companies to comply with these types of orders including the creation of
encryption backdoors. So how could Apple accomplish this?

To start, we must understand how the FBI is currently attempting to force Apple
to comply with their order. The FBI has cited a law called the All Writs Act of
1789 as their justification to force Apple into compliance. Yes, this law was
written in 1789, the first year of George Washington’s presidency. If there were
any other law on the books that the FBI could have cited that would have more
specifically forced Apple to comply, they would have used it. But there is not,
which is why the FBI must fall back to using the All Writs Act. Here is the
entire text:

> 28 U.S. Code § 1651 – Writs
> 
> (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue
> all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
> and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
> 
> (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a
> court which has jurisdiction.
> 
> (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 944; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 90, 63 Stat.
> 102.)

A “writ” is basically a legal order. The All Writs Act of 1789 states that
federal courts may issue all writs necessary or appropriate, which is a fairly
broad statement. However, it then says that those writs must be agreeable to the
usages and principles of law. Ok, so federal courts may issue legal orders but
those orders must be lawful themselves. How do we know if a writ is lawful?
Well, we could consult with an attorney to comb through volume after volume of
federal codes to find if certain writs fall within the authority of the courts …
OR we could consult for ourselves the supreme law of the land to see if the
federal government has any jurisdiction to begin with. The great thing about the
US Constitution is that it was written in plain language so anyone can read and
understand it. Since the founders intended this to be a government of the
people, they didn’t want it to be a government that only lawyers could
understand.

The fundamental question is does the federal government, or more specifically a
federal court, have the authority to force a company like Apple to create a
method to break into one of its products? A lot of people think that this
particular court order is a very simple warrant like most warrants, which allow
law enforcement to search a particular place. As I’ve explained already, this
case is nowhere near that simple. The FBI already has possession of the phone in
question and the phone technically belongs to the employer the terrorist worked
for, which has already given permission for the phone to be searched. Also,
Apple does not have in their possession any of the data currently on the phone.
In fact, Apple has already provided the FBI copies of old backups from this
iPhone that were stored on their iCloud servers. Apple claims they had already
complied with every legal request from the FBI to this point. What this
particular court order asks Apple to do is create a modified version of the
iPhone operating system that would work to effectively bypass some security
features.

So can a judge of a federal court make such an order? The judicial power of the
United States is defined entirely in Article III of the Constitution, which
itself is comprised of just three short sections. Section 1 merely defines that
the judicial power shall be vested in one supreme court and inferior courts as
Congress may establish. Skipping to Section 3, it only defines the crime of
treason and that congress can declare the punishment for treason within a few
limitations. The meat of the judicial power is contained within Section 2 of
Article III and all it really says is where judicial power extends. Part of
Section 2 says that this power extends to all cases arising under the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, which is sufficient enough for
discussion of this particular situation. The real question is does the
Constitution and/or any other law of the United States cover this particular
situation? If laws do not apply, then the courts should have no authority.

Does United States law cover the Apple and FBI situation? Obviously a crime has
been committed and the FBI has taken jurisdiction, investigating the San
Bernadino murders as an act of foreign terrorism. If the federal government has
the authority to investigate and prosecute terrorism, that power applies to the
subjects of the investigation. But Apple is not a subject of this investigation.
Other than the data they had in their possession that they’ve already turned
over, Apple has no involvement in this case. They are simply the manufacturer of
a product that was possessed by a criminal. We don’t even know if the phone was
used to communicate with anyone involved in the crime or if there is any data on
the phone that would be useful in the investigation. For most intents and
purposes, Apple is an independent third party to this investigation. It is one
thing for an independent party to offer to help law enforcement or to help when
requested. It is another thing entirely for a third party to be forced into
servitude of the government, especially when that servitude stands to materially
harm that party.

As I said above, the FBI has no option other than to use the All Writs Act of
1789. Because they are using such an old law that is quite vague in its
definition, we must fall back onto more foundational law, so once again we
consult the United States Constitution. The way the federal government works (at
least, the way it is supposed to work), all legal authority must flow from the
Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution lays out
some very specific limited powers vested in the legislative body of the federal
government, as defined in Article I, Section 8. If one were to read the short
text of that section, one would not find any specific legal authority related to
this situation. Nowhere does it say that congress has the power to pass laws
forcing companies to help the government in a criminal investigation. Obviously
it does not say anything about computerized technology, given that this document
was written in the late 18th century. However, just because something did not
exist in the 1700’s, does not mean the government automatically gets authority
over it when it comes into existence. We the people must grant the government
any authority before it can legally exercise power. So it would appear from a
cursory review of the Constitution that the federal government would not have
authority to force Apple to comply with its request at this time, nor would they
even have the authority to pass a law requiring such things in the future. But
this situation can’t be so simple, could it?

Earlier I brought up Wickard v. Filburn as an example of the type of
rationalization government can use to justify their jurisdiction over an area of
law. This was not a random example. I brought it up because it will likely be
very relevant as this situation plays itself out over time. The federal
government has become quite astute at using the “interstate commerce clause” as
justification for nearly any and every law passed in the last 80 years that can
in any slight way be shown to somehow involve “commerce.” The government’s
go-to play would be to cite the Commerce Clause as the root of their power to
regulate Apple and the technology industry, given that they obviously are
involved in interstate commerce. So now it seems like a slam-dunk case for the
federal government, right? Not so fast. Finally we have arrived at the crux of
the situation and why Apple has a chance to make history.


APPLE VS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

As United States v. Lopez showed, the Supreme Court seems willing to roll back
some of the authority the federal government has claimed under the interstate
commerce clause. This case was decided in 1995, which was at the dawn of the
Internet going mainstream. In 2016 and beyond, Apple could certainly use the
power of the Internet to shine light on the absurd Wickard v. Filburn ruling.
Apple actually has a chance to take this case to the Supreme Court and have
Wickard v. Filburn overturned! This is no small matter! In my opinion, it would
rank up there with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka which overturned the
earlier Plessy v. Ferguson decision of “separate but equal.” The impact that
case had on civil rights could be the same type of impact that
overturning Wickard v. Filburn could have on privacy rights in this country. It
would significantly hamper the ability of the federal government to arbitrarily
infringe on our rights by strong-arming the companies that make our technology
products, making it a major victory for privacy rights and freedom.

Now let’s be clear, Apple may have no interest in taking on the Herculean
challenge of overturning Wickard v. Filburn. It would certainly be no easy road
to travel. Apple would make a lot of enemies among those who benefit from
establishment politics, which is to say they would piss off a lot of very
powerful people. This may not be something Apple wants to tackle, being that
they are not in the business of government reform. It may not exactly be
profitable for Apple to take on the full force of the federal government.

However, that being said, there may be no one in a better position to
overturn Wickard v. Filburn than Apple. They have several things going for them
that together could create just the right circumstances for this historic turn
of events. First, Apple has a lot of cash – a ridiculous amount of cash. This is
usually the primary requirement for mounting a legal challenge against the
federal government. Second, Apple is an extremely popular company. The public is
not likely to stand by idly if the federal government tries to bully Apple in
their quest to protect our privacy rights. No one wants to see a company as
iconically American as Apple get taken down by the federal government. Thirdly,
the privacy rights that Apple would be fighting for also seem to be extremely
popular among the general public and especially among the Internet-connected
younger demographics. Public support could definitely sway the political winds
as it has done a few times in the Internet/social media era.

Even with some potential advantages, Apple has to want to fight this fight. They
have every practical reason not to push the federal government that far,
settling for a smaller victory along the way. But I think they just might be
driven enough to eventually take on the misapplication of the Commerce Clause if
the federal government continues to try to regulate the technology industry.
While most may think of Apple as a technology company, those of us who have
studied Apple know that Apple’s mission has always been to change the world.
Steve Jobs did not want to start a business just to sell products, he wanted to
make products that were going to transform society. It just so happened that
technology was the avenue he saw to make that happen. Yes, Steve Jobs is gone,
but his legacy is instilled in the corporate culture of Apple. Based on what
I’ve seen from Tim Cook, his intensity in fighting this battle is a bit out of
character for him. Perhaps he has found a cause worth publicly fighting for.
This may be Tim Cook’s chance to change the world and leave a lasting legacy.
It’s now up to him and Apple to make that choice.

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology Tagged With: Apple, FBI


APPLE’S SECURITY CAN BE BYPASSED?

February 17, 2016 by Marcel Brown 0 Comments
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

A judge has ordered Apple to comply with the FBI’s request to bypass the
security features of an iPhone used by a San Bernadino terrorist. In an open
letter, Apple CEO Tim Cook has explained that what the government is requesting
threatens the security of all their customers. In effect, the FBI admits that
they can not decrypt the data on an iPhone without knowing the phone’s passcode.
The FBI knows that not even Apple can decrypt the data, however, they have
surmised that if they can load a version of the iOS that does not include
certain security features that defeat brute force password attacks, then they
can crack the passcode, which might only take minutes in a best case
scenario. They claim Apple can create a version of the iOS without these
security features, load it on the iPhone in question, and then the FBI can
attempt to brute-force guess the password.

Technology experts are warning that if Apple is forced to comply with this order
it would have far-reaching consequences for the technology industry, privacy,
and security. I am of the mind that the federal government does not have this
authority at all, either at the legislative or executive level, much less a
federal magistrate of a US District Court in California. It is an unreasonable,
overreaching request of a technology company to share a method of bypassing
security features in their own product. But there is plenty of discussion of
that already. The question I’m surprised so few are asking is why the
possibility even exists for Apple to defeat their own security functions?

The key point to consider is that the magistrate conceded that the FBI’s request
may not be technically feasible and allowed Apple to respond if that is the
case. Instead of stating that this request just isn’t technically possible as
Apple has done in the past with other law enforcement requests, Tim Cook instead
has vowed to fight this order. Which to me seems to imply that Apple COULD
comply with the order. I found one article that describes a technically workable
process by which Apple could comply with the FBI’s request. The article does
speculate that newer iOS devices with a feature called the Secure Enclave may
not be able to be hacked into in the process the FBI is requesting, but that is
not certain. The iPhone 5C in question does NOT contain the Secure Enclave
feature so that point is moot in this particular case, yet it does call into
question the overall security of older iPhones and possibly newer iPhones
pending the question of the security hardness of the Secure Enclave feature.

The reality is this: if Apple can technically comply with the FBI’s request, it
means that a backdoor to iPhone security does, in fact, exist. Yes, it is a
closely guarded secret by Apple, but in theory, this backdoor could be exploited
if the secret key that Apple uses to sign their iOS updates is compromised. I
would like to hear more about this from experts more versed in this topic than I
am as well as an explanation from Apple if this backdoor does in fact exist.

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology


DESPONDENT GOVERNMENT VEXED BY ENCRYPTION

February 17, 2016 by Marcel Brown 0 Comments
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

> The following is an article that I had been working on for some time. I’ve
> been editing and adding to this article to try to get it “just right” for
> several months now. However, with the situation Apple is facing today, I’ve
> decided that I must release this article now. So please forgive me if this
> article isn’t quite fully polished or rambles at times, but I felt that the
> core message had to be shared ASAP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s an issue that has been brewing over the last year-and-a-half. When Apple
introduced iOS 8 in the fall of 2014, one particular feature had privacy
advocates cheering. That same feature had certain law enforcement officials
seething. With the release of with iOS 8, all data on an iPhone or iPad is
encrypted when the devices are locked with a passcode. Not only that, but the
type of encryption used by Apple is not able to be bypassed, even by Apple
themselves. This means that even with a lawful search warrant or court order,
Apple can not extract data from any iOS device to provide to law enforcement. In
addition, the transmission of certain data, such as iMessages and FaceTime
calls, are encrypted from end-to-end, which means that those forms of
communication are not able to be intercepted by anyone, including Apple or law
enforcement.

At the time Apple introduced the new encryption feature, FBI director James
Comey criticized both Apple and Google for using encryption technologies that
were not able to be broken into by law enforcement. Apple CEO Tim Cook responded
in early 2015 by saying that Apple had no intention of preventing people from
encrypting their devices, in other words saying “tough luck” to government. The
issue heated up last summer as the FBI director testified during a hearing of
the US Senate Intelligence Committee, calling into question the idea that there
is no way to create a encryption system that can be circumvented by
manufacturers or law enforcement. He and representatives from the Obama
administration’s Department of Justice hinted that if technology companies were
not willing to cooperate in creating encryption with backdoor access,
legislation may be required to force them to comply. In September, Apple
formally declined compliance with a federal court order requiring them to turn
over real-time messaging between suspects using iMessage, stating that they
could not break the encryption technology used. All this was before the terror
attacks of Paris and San Bernadino where once again law enforcement officials
blamed technology companies for making it impossible for law enforcement to
intercept communications or retrieve data from devices. More recently, Tim Cook
strongly criticized the Obama administration for not issuing a strong public
statement defending the use of strong encryption. Finally, a recently proposed
bill in the the New York state assembly seeks to ban the sale of smartphones
that do not provide an encryption backdoor. Update: A judge has ordered Apple to
create a “hacked” version of the iOS that would bypass the security features
that defeat brute force password attempts on an iPhone for use on the particular
iPhone of a San Bernadino terrorist. More on this new situation in my next
article.


THE POOR GOVERNMENT IS JUST BESIDE ITSELF

The government is admitting that publicly available encryption technologies
are thwarting their efforts to intercept communications or gather evidence.
Current encryption protocols are so good that there is simply no feasible way
for government agencies to break them, even with gobs of cutting-edge technology
at their fingertips. So they are “kindly” asking technology companies to give
them a back door and pushing lawmakers to pass new laws that would not-so-kindly
force technology companies to use encryption that can be circumvented. They
claim that without the ability to decrypt communications and data, they will be
hampered in their ability to investigate terrorists and people will die. Oh,
and kidnappers will also run willy nilly and kids will suffer horribly and they
will die too. Don’t forget about the kids.

During the Senate hearing in the summer of 2015, several senators seemed shocked
and awed that law enforcement couldn’t decrypt modern communications. Some
agreed with the FBI and DOJ that legislation may be necessary. Others wondered
if technology companies could be help in contempt. Senator John McCain even
suggested that technology companies should give the government a special
stockpile of encryption keys that could be used to decrypt any data or
communication on their devices. “What’s the problem with that?” he asked.


BUT, BUT, BUT … THE FOURTH AMENDMENT!

It would be funny how politicians twist the meaning of the Constitution if it
wasn’t so sad. Some in government argue that the Fourth Amendment “allows” for
reasonable search and seizure. Therefore creating laws (or taking executive
actions?) that force technology companies to use encryption protocols
with backdoors for law enforcement must be “reasonable.” It is humorous to hear
otherwise “conservative” politicians argue that the Fourth amendment gives the
government authority to define for itself the parameters of reasonable search
and seizures. This is clearly a situation where some members of the supposed
party of small government have no clue what small government really means.

Let’s take a moment and read the actual text of the Fourth Amendment:

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
> and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
> persons or things to be seized.

Hmmm … looking over that text it does not state anywhere that the government is
given the authority for “reasonable search and seizure,” nor that they can
define what that means. Here’s your constitutional lesson of the day: the Fourth
Amendment does not confer any power upon the federal government. Not a single
one. It only serves to protect “the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures.” It is not meant to grant power, as many politicians would try to
argue, but rather meant to strictly limit the power of government. It is a
guarantee against unreasonable search and seizures, not a license for the
federal government to define what is reasonable and unreasonable.


THE CONVENIENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT OVERRIDE OUR FREEDOMS

Even if we assume for a moment that the federal government has the authority to
perform reasonable search and seizures, nowhere in the Constitution is the
federal government given the authority to regulate encryption technology, nor
dictate how companies offer products or services in the chance that they would
need to perform a criminal investigation. If government has the authority to ask
for warrants to investigate something, it is not the same as having the
authority to require that they MUST be able to decrypt communications or data.
That power would be analogous to the federal government requiring that all lock
makers must give the federal government a way to easily pick their locks – just
in case they need to investigate something that is locked up by a suspected
criminal. If law enforcement has the means to decrypt communications or data,
that’s fine (in this context), but if they don’t, then that’s too bad.
Our freedoms are not subject to the convenience of law enforcement.


THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T KEEP ANYTHING SAFE

Finally, if we were to go so far as to allow the federal government to have
backdoor access into encryption technologies, do we have faith that they would
not abuse this privilege? Or do we trust that they could keep the backdoor keys
safe from criminals and other governments?

Edward Snowden pretty much blew out of the water the fantasy that government
does not seriously exploit its authority. Besides the documented blatant abuses
of the NSA, we also have government agencies like the IRS that can’t handle
running a simple e-mail server correctly and secretaries of state that claim
they can’t handle more than one mobile device. The purported lack of technology
knowledge in both of these instances led to the all-too-convenient loss of
communications that might have implicated government officials that were abusing
their power. It was either intentional deception by government officials or
cases of “innocence by incompetence.” Either way, this should not give anyone
the warm and fuzzies for the ability of government to handle technology
security. If certain people and agencies are given the power to decrypt the
private communications of virtually anyone in the world, just how long do you
think it will take for that authority to be abused or mishandled?

Also for a moment imagine just how valuable backdoor decryption keys would be.
Anyone who had possession of them would be able to pry into just about anyone’s
private lives, blackmail and extort people, and steal corporate secrets just to
name a few things. Backdoor encryption keys would be likely the most valuable
pieces of information the world has ever known!

We know humans are not perfect. How much money do you think criminal
organizations or other governments would pay to bribe the keepers of the keys?
That number would probably be astronomical and it would be hard for anyone to
not consider taking a bribe like that. Even if we completely trust the people
who would handle these incredibly valuable pieces of information right now,
what’s to say the next people in line won’t be corruptible?

Finally, even if we assume that those who have guard the backdoor encryption
keys will be paragons of morality, those secrets will be the most sought-after
data the world has ever known. Criminals and governments would likely stop at
nothing to steal them. The federal government can’t even keep hackers from
stealing information on tens of thousands of government employees, do we
honestly think they’ll be able to keep the keys to our private data safe?


THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T CARE ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY

If you want a more concrete example about the lack of the ability of government
to keep your privacy safe, take the TSA. The federal government forces air
travelers to only use TSA-approved locks on their luggage. The TSA has access
to special “master keys” that can open any TSA-approved lock. What would happen
if the patterns to those master keys were compromised and leaked out into the
public? Then anyone could create a copy of keys that could open a traveler’s
luggage without leaving proof of the break-in. Of course that would never happen
because the TSA would take extreme caution with those sets of master keys,
right? Wrong. The seven master TSA keys have been compromised and anyone with a
3D printer can create a set of keys that will open any TSA-approved lock. And
guess what? The TSA couldn’t care less that YOUR privacy and security has been
compromised, as long as they can still open your luggage.

Now granted, when luggage travels through various airports, one should not
expect that the contents of that luggage is truly secure. So this appalling
failure of the federal government is not truly that big of a deal in the grand
scheme of things. However, this does spotlight that no system of backdoor access
can be trusted to stay secure, even if agencies specifically tasked
with security are handling them. One could probably count with an egg timer how
long it would take for the proposed backdoor keys for encryption to be
compromised. Even worse, most of us probably wouldn’t even know they had been
compromised because it would be in the best interest of those with the keys to
not publicize the fact that they had them.


IT’S TIME TO STAND UP

The idea that privacy must be balanced against security is a red herring
argument. At best it is government being lazy. At worst it is government
creating convenient excuses to grab themselves the legal authority to infringe
on our privacy. Again, our rights are not subject to the convenience of
government. Additionally the government must prove their authority to exercise a
specific power, of which forcing the types of encryption technologies we the
people can use is not one of them.

For far too long the government has assumed that just because a specific
guarantee to a “right to privacy” doesn’t exist in the Constitution, then they
have the power to trample over our unalienable privacy rights. Of course, the
9th and 10th amendments prove them wrong, but until enough of us demand that the
government follow their own laws, their might makes right. The good news is that
technology has developed to a point where we can take measures to protect our
own privacy rights even from government. We must fight against any attempt by
government to deny, circumvent, or ban these technologies because as we’ve seen,
government is one of the worst infringers of our rights – and their meddling
would make us all much less secure from anyone with bad intentions.

Share the knowledge!
 * Share
 * Post
 * Share
 * Pin
 * Share
 * Share
 * Mail
 * Share

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology
Next Page »
Subscribe to RSS


Get Life, Liberty, and Technology in Your E-mail

Enter your e-mail address:





ARCHIVES

Archives Select Month September 2017 November 2016 August 2016 June 2016 March
2016 February 2016 November 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015
January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014
June 2014 May 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 October 2013 September
2013 August 2013 July 2013 May 2013 April 2013 January 2013 December 2012
October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012
March 2012

THE MB TECH NETWORK

 * New Publishing Partners Success Strategies for the New World of Publishing
 * Solo Tech Pros THE Resource for Independent Technology Professionals
 * Soulmate Proprietors How To Run a Business With Your Spouse and STAY Married!
 * State of the Tech The Technology Industry for Mere Mortals
 * Technology Bytes by Marcel Brown Technology Tips and Advice
 * The Queen's Blog by Danelle Brown A Resource and Sounding Board for
   Entrepreneur Mothers
 * This Day in Tech History The History of Technology in a Daily Blog!

Marcel Brown on Google+

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2024 · Marcel Brown