Close Menu
TechCentralTechCentral

    Subscribe to the newsletter

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube LinkedIn
    WhatsApp Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentralTechCentral
    • News

      World Bank set to back South Africa’s big energy grid roll-out

      20 June 2025

      The algorithm will sing now: why musicians should be worried about AI

      20 June 2025

      Sita hits back at critics, promises faster, automated procurement

      20 June 2025

      The transatlantic race to create the first television

      20 June 2025

      Listed: All the MVNOs in South Africa – 2025 edition

      19 June 2025
    • World

      Watch | Starship rocket explodes in setback to Musk’s Mars mission

      19 June 2025

      Trump Mobile dials into politics, profit and patriarchy

      17 June 2025

      Samsung plots health data hub to link users and doctors in real time

      17 June 2025

      Beijing’s chip champions blacklisted by Taiwan

      16 June 2025

      China is behind in AI chips – but for how much longer?

      13 June 2025
    • In-depth

      Meta bets $72-billion on AI – and investors love it

      17 June 2025

      MultiChoice may unbundle SuperSport from DStv

      12 June 2025

      Grok promised bias-free chat. Then came the edits

      2 June 2025

      Digital fortress: We go inside JB5, Teraco’s giant new AI-ready data centre

      30 May 2025

      Sam Altman and Jony Ive’s big bet to out-Apple Apple

      22 May 2025
    • TCS

      TCS+ | AfriGIS’s Helen Hulett on how tech can help resolve South Africa’s water crisis

      18 June 2025

      TechCentral Nexus S0E2: South Africa’s digital battlefield

      16 June 2025

      TechCentral Nexus S0E1: Starlink, BEE and a new leader at Vodacom

      8 June 2025

      TCS+ | The future of mobile money, with MTN’s Kagiso Mothibi

      6 June 2025

      TCS+ | AI is more than hype: Workday execs unpack real human impact

      4 June 2025
    • Opinion

      South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

      17 June 2025

      AI and the future of ICT distribution

      16 June 2025

      Singapore soared – why can’t we? Lessons South Africa refuses to learn

      13 June 2025

      Beyond the box: why IT distribution depends on real partnerships

      2 June 2025

      South Africa’s next crisis? Being offline in an AI-driven world

      2 June 2025
    • Company Hubs
      • Africa Data Centres
      • AfriGIS
      • Altron Digital Business
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Altron Group
      • Arctic Wolf
      • AvertITD
      • Braintree
      • CallMiner
      • CYBER1 Solutions
      • Digicloud Africa
      • Digimune
      • Domains.co.za
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • Incredible Business
      • iONLINE
      • Iris Network Systems
      • LSD Open
      • NEC XON
      • Network Platforms
      • Next DLP
      • Ovations
      • Paracon
      • Paratus
      • Q-KON
      • SevenC
      • SkyWire
      • Solid8 Technologies
      • Telit Cinterion
      • Tenable
      • Vertiv
      • Videri Digital
      • Wipro
      • Workday
    • Sections
      • AI and machine learning
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud services
      • Contact centres and CX
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Electronics and hardware
      • Energy and sustainability
      • Enterprise software
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Lifestyle
      • Motoring
      • Public sector
      • Retail and e-commerce
      • Science
      • SMEs and start-ups
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Events
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home » David Glance » Apple vs FBI has left us more vulnerable

    Apple vs FBI has left us more vulnerable

    By David Glance30 March 2016
    Twitter LinkedIn Facebook WhatsApp Email Telegram Copy Link
    News Alerts
    WhatsApp

    david-glance-180The FBI has succeeded in hacking into an iPhone that belonged to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook without Apple’s help. As a consequence, the bureau has dropped its legal case in which it was trying to force Apple to do what has now been done by an unknown “third party”.

    Given the emotional investment by the FBI in this case and the apparent ease of giving it up, it is confusing many as to the motivation of bringing the case up in the first place.

    The most obvious possibility is that this case was all about the broader issue of encryption of software and the FBI’s case against software companies implementing technology that makes US law enforcement’s jobs more difficult in getting access to information.

    The second possibility is that the FBI used the publicity surrounding this case as a means of advertising to security firms and hackers that it needed help in cracking the phone. Either way, bringing the case to the courts was in the FBI’s interest.

    In the end, someone came forward to show the FBI how to do something it claimed was impossible. The exact technique used is not known and it is unlikely that the FBI will disclose this information to Apple.

    Apple has made it abundantly clear that it would plug any particular security holes it became aware of; it is in its long-term interest to create software that can’t be hacked by governments and even itself.

    Another consequence of the FBI not revealing its methods is that it is not known whether the particular exploit can be used against more modern phones with the latest version of iOS.

    Apple has since released a statement that it is committed to helping law enforcement but wants to increase the security of its products while engaging in a conversation about civil liberties, security and privacy.

    Whatever the FBI’s motives, it has successfully avoided the central issues that should have been discussed

    For the FBI, the ability to access the phone will in all likelihood be a pyrrhic victory. It is unlikely to reveal anything given that the San Bernardino shooters were careful about destroying other evidence before their rampage and the phone in question was a work phone and unlikely to contain any evidence related to their motives.

    To a large extent, technology, and in particular encryption, is being used as a convenient excuse for law enforcement’s general inability to prevent these sorts of crimes and to make meaningful progress after them. Blaming Apple or Google for the FBI’s inability to answer questions about the motives and means of these sorts of crimes is extremely convenient.

    It should be accepted that there will be limitations to the FBI’s ability to know about and prevent these sorts of acts of violence. It may be that the general public has to accept that some small part of this is a consequence of all of us having security and privacy.

    The FBI have successfully gained access to a locked iPhone 5c belonging to the San Bernadino shooter
    The FBI have successfully gained access to a locked iPhone 5c belonging to the San Bernadino shooter

    People will feel conflicted about this, and that is to be expected. Nobody wants to see the perpetrators of such gross acts of violence getting away with their crimes or to have the possibility of people who could be apprehended still at large. However, the other side of the argument is equally unacceptable: that everyone cannot expect a certain level of security and privacy against all agencies, friendly or otherwise.

    The questions being debated by Apple, the FBI and the general public are not ones of technology or pragmatic issues of convenient access. They are questions about whether the general public deserves a certain level of privacy and security that is effective even against their own government. The consequences of this may be inconvenient but then we are willing to accept a wider democratic political system despite its obvious failings.

    The FBI should never have brought this particular case to the courts. Whatever its motives, it has successfully avoided the central issues that should have been discussed and, as a side effect, broadcast to the world that the iPhone is vulnerable and can be hacked with relative ease. This has only succeeded in making things worse for the security of the general public, the very thing that the FBI was arguing that it was trying to protect.The Conversation

    • David Glance is director of the UWA Centre for Software Practice, University of Western Australia
    • This article was originally published on The Conversation


    Apple David Glance FBI
    Subscribe to TechCentral Subscribe to TechCentral
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email Copy Link
    Previous ArticleHow the big banks’ ATM networks stack up
    Next Article Malema to graduate with BA degree

    Related Posts

    Stolen phone? Samsung now buys you an hour to lock it down

    18 June 2025

    Samsung plots health data hub to link users and doctors in real time

    17 June 2025

    10 red flags for Apple investors

    13 June 2025
    Company News

    Making IT happen: how Trade Link gears up to enable SA retail strategies

    20 June 2025

    Why parents choose CambriLearn for online education

    19 June 2025

    Disrupt first, ask questions later – the uncomfortable truth about incident response

    18 June 2025
    Opinion

    South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

    17 June 2025

    AI and the future of ICT distribution

    16 June 2025

    Singapore soared – why can’t we? Lessons South Africa refuses to learn

    13 June 2025

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2025 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.