Summary: The U.S. government is crying foul over Apple and Google's efforts to bolster smartphone encryption. Because accusations that they're going \"beyond the law\" goes both ways.<\/p>\n
NEW YORK For the past two weeks, federal agencies and the executive branch have launched acacophony of critique of Apple and Google for bolstering the encryption on their users' smartphones. <\/p>\n
That, the opposition camp says, will result in drug dealers, pedophiles, identity thieves, and other violent criminals evading capture, leading to an uptick in crime. That will affect millions of Americans who each year are classified as victims of theft and robbery, violence, and sexual crimes. <\/p>\n
Made up of the FBIand the NSA,the outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, andmembers of Congress, they are calling for laws to be changed, and Apple and Google to face sanctions for their privacy protections. <\/p>\n
But this was described by The Guardian's Trevor Timmas a \"misleading PR offensive\" to scare Americans into believing encrypted devices are a bad thing. <\/p>\n
The federal agencies' opposition to Apple and Google's move to double-down on device security is nothing short of fearmongering. <\/p>\n
To make matters worse, on Saturday a piece by The Washington Post's editorial board declared there must be a \"compromise\" on smartphone encryption, adding yet another major voice to the chorus of criticism. <\/p>\n
The \"too-long, didn't read\" version is that the Post's editorial board believes that this level of security affects \"relatively few cases\" and is \"not about mass surveillance.\" It adds that this \"seems reasonable and not excessively intrusive.\" <\/p>\n
Its solution? A \"back door\"for law enforcement exactly the kind of back door that Apple, Google, and other Silicon Valley technology giants denied they installed in the wake of the PRISM program's disclosure. <\/p>\n
In a naive example of wishful thinking, the Post's board idealizes that a \"kind of secure golden key\" that Apple and Google would retain and would use only when a court has approved a search warrant. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n