Linked List: February 29, 2016

Monday, 29 February 2016

Apple Wins Major Court Victory Against FBI in a Case Similar to San Bernardino ★

Glenn Greenwald and Jenna McLaughlin, reporting for The Intercept:

Judge Orenstein applied previous legal decisions interpreting the AWA and concluded that the law does not “justif[y] imposing on Apple the obligation to assist the government’s investigation against its will.” In a formulation extremely favorable to Apple, the judge wrote that the key question raised by the government’s request is whether the AWA allows a court “to compel Apple — a private party with no alleged involvement in Feng’s criminal activity — to perform work for the government against its will.”

The court ruled that the law permits no such result — both because relevant law contains limits on what companies like Apple are required to do, and because Congress never enacted any such obligations. Moreover, the judge said of the government’s arguments for how the AWA should be applied: “The implications of the government’s position are so far-reaching — both in terms of what it would allow today and what it implies about congressional intent in 1789 — as to produce impermissibly absurd results.”

This seems like great news for Apple and supporters of civil liberties in this case.

Read Orenstein’s decision here.

San Bernardino Survivor’s Husband to Judge: Terrorist iPhone ‘Unlikely’ to Hold Valuable Information ★

I hope I don’t have to keep repeating this, but this is the wrong argument to make. The implication is that the result should be different if the iPhone in question was “likely” to contain valuable information. That’s wrong. Civil liberties apply equally in all situations.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m glad they’re saying this particular iPhone is unlikely to actually contain useful information. But someday there will be a locked iPhone that is either likely or certain to contain useful information.

Fred Wilson: ‘The Twitter Contradiction’ ★

Fred Wilson:

I just don’t understand the narrative around Twitter. “It is in trouble. It isn’t growing. It’s time has come and gone. The kids all use Snapchat and Instagram.”

That last part is true, to a degree. But it isn’t as simple as that.

The presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States has largely conducted his campaign on Twitter and in massive public appearances that feel like rock concerts. He has avoided the traditional media channels and taken his message direct to the people on Twitter. Not on Facebook. Not on Instagram. Not on Snapchat. Not on Pinterest. Not on his website or mobile app. On Twitter.

He makes a good point, but I don’t think there’s a contradiction. On the one hand, Twitter is a powerful publishing platform that has become the de facto official medium for famous people to make public statements about what is going on right now.

The problem is, that’s not the description of a social network. It’s a description of a publishing platform. Twitter’s trouble is that it’s being viewed by investors as a social network.

Getting Called Up From the Big Leagues ★

M.G. Siegler, on Bill Simmons putting his new publication, The Ringer, on Medium:

In a way, it almost feels like the thing to do now is the opposite of what is typical in professional sports. In most leagues, athletes play in minor leagues (or college) before graduating up to the big leagues. In our new era of publishing, writers may start at the big leagues, building up their skills and brands, before venturing out on their own (or with a group of peers).

The Washington Post on Industry Support for Apple in Encryption Fight ★

Ellen Nakashima, writing for The Washington Post:

Former Justice Department official Jennifer Daskal said both sides are overstating their arguments. “The government is wrong to say this is just about one case,” said Daskal, a law professor at American University. “On the other hand, it is wrong to say that if Apple loses this case, there’s absolutely no limits to what the government can order a company to do” in cases involving encrypted communications.

This is false equivalence. The government really is wrong about this case being about just this one particular phone. But nobody (and certainly not Apple) is using words like “absolutely no limits to what the government can order a company to do” to describe what will happen if the government wins and sets precedent. The results will be significant, and I think chilling — but not limitless. This is just a bullshit quote to make the story sound “balanced”.

One argument that companies and civil liberties groups are expected to make is that if the government’s order is upheld, then the FBI might be able to order a technology firm to create, say, malicious software to send to a user’s device in the form of a routine update. “That is the third rail for tech companies — to be forced to deliver a software update that breaks the security of the device,” said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is also filing a brief in support of Apple.

This would be one of the worst case scenarios I can imagine.

The State of Apple Music Connect ★

Dave Wiskus:

If Connect is a social network, it fails miserably. There’s nothing inherently social about the experience, which feels more like a local bulletin board than a way for artists to engage with fans.

It’s also not a very good broadcast medium. Sure, I can post to Connect and share out to Twitter and whatnot, but why? There’s nothing unique or powerful about Apple’s system that makes it a good hub. Because I have no idea how many followers we have, I can’t even make a numerical argument for Connect-first posting. And since we can’t even invite people from other places to follow us on Connect, there’s no incentive to try.

As a fan, it’s a confusing mess. As an artist, it’s a black hole. All media, no social.

Connect was a big part of the Apple Music introduction back in June, but I haven’t heard a word about it since other than when Dave writes about it.

Apple’s Statement to Congress on the FBI Warrant Fight ★

Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell testifies before Congress tomorrow. From his prepared opening statement:

As we have told them — and as we have told the American public — building that software tool would not affect just one iPhone. It would weaken the security for all of them. In fact, just last week Director Comey agreed that the FBI would likely use this precedent in other cases involving other phones. District Attorney Vance has also said he would absolutely plan to use this on over 175 phones. We can all agree this is not about access to just one iPhone.

The FBI is asking Apple to weaken the security of our products. Hackers and cyber criminals could use this to wreak havoc on our privacy and personal safety. It would set a dangerous precedent for government intrusion on the privacy and safety of its citizens.

It Doesn’t Matter Whether the San Bernardino iPhone Contains Useful Information ★

Jeff Gamet, writing for The Mac Observer:

The iPhone recovered from Syed Farook after he shot and killed 14 coworkers and then died in a shootout with police most likely doesn’t hold any valuable information. So says San Bernardino police chief Jarrod Burguan. Chief Burguan was asked about the phone during an NPR interview and he replied:

I’ll be honest with you, I think that there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone. What we are hoping might be on the phone would be potential contacts that we would obviously want to talk to.

There’s a small point to be made here, insofar as it suggests the FBI is being disingenuous. They’re saying that it’s not about precedent, it’s just about this one phone, this one investigation. But the real reason they’re making a big deal out of it is that it’s politically useful. The phone itself likely isn’t important but the situation surrounding the phone — “terrorism” and the tragedy of 14 innocent people being killed — lends sympathy to their desire for access to encrypted devices all the time.

But for those of us on Apple’s side, this is not a point to hang our hats on. Even if law enforcement claimed to know with certainty that the phone contained useful information, Apple’s arguments would all still stand. Eventually there will be such a phone.

And, likewise, I’m glad law enforcement is doing their best to check the contents of the phone. We want law enforcement to pursue all leads — within the confines of the law — even those that are unlikely to produce useful information.

Dan Frommer Named Editor in Chief at Recode ★

Kara Swisher:

As Re/code has grown and morphed, we have always been on the lookout for great talent to take the site to a new level.

That’s why I’m very excited to announce that we’ve hired Dan Frommer as the new editor in chief of Re/code. Dan brings our site the energy, curiosity and tech-savvy we need to succeed in digital publishing, an industry that gets more exciting — and challenging — daily.

Congratulations, pal.