Ethics Assignment #4

If the authors of The Right to Privacy, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis were alive today and they encountered the Apple/FBI case they would side with Apple on the matter. In Tim Cook's message to their customers about the need for encryption he states that "Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information...All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission.". Warren and Brandeis would agree with Cook that the information needs to be protected since they believed that as new inventions are developed there should be steps "which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right 'to be let alone' (pg.195)". Apple has already provided the FBI all the information that they had in the aftermath of the San Bernardino attacks related to the investigation. Apparently that wasn't enough "Apple has been ordered to write a new software tool that would make breaking Farook's iPhone password a much simpler process for the FBI".(Apple and FBI look to Congress to settle battle over iPhone encryption). If the software tool were to be created by Apple and implemented into the iOS it would be easier for hackers and criminals to get to your personal information. Warren and Brandeis believes that "It is our purpose to consider whether the existing law affords a principle which can properly be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual; and, if it does, what the nature and extent of such protection is."(pg. 197). Having the court order Apple to create a tool that allows the government to violate that privacy would be against what they believe.

References

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/29/apple-lawyer-fbi-bruce-sewell-more-crime

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/582/582%20readings/right%20to%20privacy.pdf

The Right of Privacy (EWA #4)

The authors of "The Right to Privacy" would have been undoubtly terrified if they were to live today. I would believe their main concern would be how easy you could use a smartphone to take a picture or record people against their will or knowledge.

Brandeis and Warren believed that it was the right of the individual to retreat from the world, and sometimes, it is not very clear what Facebook or other social media companies do with the data of users once they decide to delete or suspend their profiles. It also implies that both authors would treat Apple and social media giants such as Facebook with suspicion "(...)but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain(...)". Brandeis and Warren, however, will acknowledge that those individuals like Facebook would receive their data from willing users, even though, with several loopholes and fine prints all along. "The right to privacy ceases upon the publication of the facts by the individual, or with his consent"

They acknowledge also that data that it is intended for private use would definitely have the potential to destroy the reputation of individuals, and they would fiercely oppose the creation of a "Master Key", on which, in wrong hands, would create plenty of situations similar to the "iCloud - Jennifer Lawrence" fiasco. People would be on risk to lose their jobs as well, since private texts and messages could contain sensitive (and inflammatory) information, further destroying the reputation of the victim. This was a major concern of Brandeis and Lawrence, and it is repeated with plenty of examples on the article: letters and literacy work (such as personal diary entries or letters), artistic material, trademarked material, that Copyright laws were unable to protect entirely.

Social Engineer Task 5 (Failed)

1 My task was to "bump" into Rev. Cyan on a day other than Tuesday. I failed the task.

2 After my Wednesday and Thursday classes, I usually head to the computer lab to complete some homework with a friend before going home. I think it was Thursdays that I see Rev. Cyan in what I think is the computer forensics room. I see him there every week working on the lab assignments. When I got this assignment, I figure it was perfect and I can just "bump" into him on Thursday that week.

3 I'd like to think my strategy was rather simple and straight forward. The problem was that this week, just when I picked this assignment, he wasn't there. I would see him there every week, but this week he suddenly didn't appear.

4 Failed.

5 I guess you can consider this recon even though I wasn't actively following him around. I did learn he likes to work on the labs in the computer forensics room from the many times I went to do my assignments. Also learned things don't go as expected in the most crucial moments.

6 Failed.

Ethics Assignment 4

For this assignment, I chose the article The Right to Privacy. Despite being written in the past, it is still relevant today. I believe the authors would side with Apple refusing to create tool/backdoor for their product. Such a tool would render be a breach in privacy as it effectively renders the security systems on the phones useless. In page 205 of The Right to Privacy, the authors states “-general right of the individual to be let alone. It is like the right not to be assaulted or beaten, the right not to be imprisoned, the right not to be maliciously prosecuted, the right not to be defamed.” The authors are comparing the right to privacy to basic rights. The creation of such a tool violates the Fourth Amendment which protects the rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The authors also state on page 207 “If we are correct in this conclusion, the existing law affords a principle which may be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual from invasion either by the too enterprising press, the photographer, or the possessor of any other modern device for recording or reproducing scenes or sounds.” In their time, they dealt with newspaper and photography, but that statement can apply for the government today as well.

That’s not to say the investigation of the shooting is not important. In page 214, the author state “To determine in advance of experience the exact line at which the dignity and convenience of the individual must yield to the demands of the public welfare or of private justice would be a difficult task”. The author also followed up with “The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest.” In class, we mentioned that public figures essentially gives up their right to privacy. The perpetrators of this very public event do lose their rights to privacy, which allows for the investigation and publications of their persons and items.

So in conclusion, the FBI has the right to investigate the items and the perpetrators themselves, but not request for a backdoor into the iPhones. If the single phone itself was made vulnerable and not all the iPhones in existence, then I’m pretty sure the authors would agree. Breaching the phones of millions to investigate one may not be the “line” the authors are comfortable with.

References

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/582/582%20readings/right%20to%20privacy.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/apple-fbi-privacy-encryption-fight-san-bernardino-shooting-syed-farook-iphone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/22/fbi-director-urges-apple-to-help-unlock-killers-iphone-in-passionate-statement-its-about-the-victims-and-justice/

Social Engineering Task # 5

My social engineering task was to find out what King Blue does on Thursday at 12 noon, which I took to mean where he would he be, and what would he be doing.

The fastest way to determine this is to merely log into his school account and take a look at his class schedule, but doing this would have violated school policy, and violated both state and federal law. While it is unlikely that such a misuse of his student account to determine his class schedule would be detected, I did not wish to violate school policy or violate any laws. I also felt that it would be a bad moral practice to access another persons account, even if it were legal to do so. Thus, I viewed the access as violating school policy, violating state and federal laws, and also to violate my own moral code, so I did not use this method.

Another tactic would have been to use an common device that would briefly jam the cell phones in the classroom, and then purport to be a cellular carrier to collect the electronic serial numbers of all the cell phones in the classroom, then to stake out the home of King Blue and repeat this jamming/spoofing activity, as this would allow me to isolate a series of serial numbers of devices active both in the classroom and their home (at 2 or 3 AM). Then through their cell phone carrier track them by pinging their cellphone to determine distance from three cell phone base stations, and/or remotely turn on a mode on their phone that would return the GPS location of the phone, and provide data as to movements and position just prior to 12 noon on Thursday, or any other position. But as I know that this form of manipulation is legally prohibited (and against school policy), I did not resort to this or any related method.

As I am close associated with other Cyberoperatons folks in the employ of the U.S., NZ, AUS, Canadian and British governments, I need only to use a burner phone to text one message the UK and ask for a "geofence" around the school the position of my burner phone, to be sent back an Excell spreadsheet with all cell phones on campus and their position in relationship to my phone. This method would not actually be illegal, but the morality of such an action is questionable, and not something I wish to engage in unless it is in response to a legitimate exigent emergency. Even though the government call unlawfully tamper with the phone(s) in question, and that there is no oversite of such activities, I did not feel that it was moral to engage in such access, as it would be morally repugnant to do so.

I did not perform any electric access to either the targets phone, nor their accounts to determine where they would be at the designated time, even though it is technical possible to do so, but not legal, or moral to do so.

I could have also called their cell phone with a ruse of vehicle damage, or a found textbook, but this would constitute fraud by wire, and would be a criminal action, which I will not engage in.

If I knew where the target would be at a certain time on a certain day of week, there is a wide range of misfortune that could be applied at that time, and at location, and very evil deeds could be caused to fester and visit this person at that time. Fortunately, they are in no danger of either evil or non-evil deeds originating from my hands.

I failed on the social engineering aspect, but did score points in moral reasoning.

Ethical Writing Assignment 4

When we look at the current case of FBI vs Apple, there is a lot of controversy around that argument. Should Apple create the backdoor just for the phone for a one time use in order to help the investigations? It could end up with a simple answer, at the eyes of all the common people. Yes. But what are the implications around this from the privacy point of view? As Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis state, in their review article called "The Right of Privacy", - the individual shall have full protection in person and in property. If we look at the limitation they have set on the long review article that covered many matters that go against and protect privacy, we cannot find any that can be applied to this case. They talk about the fact that the right of privacy to cease if the facts are published by the individual, if the facts are true or not, or even if the matter is of public or general interest. Well, the last limitation I talked about, the fact that the matter is of public interest, could be the only "exploitable" limitation in this case. Though, this limitation is contradictory to every other single line of the article that is trying to cover every peculiar aspect of the right of privacy, because at the end of the day, even the two words, private and public are the opposite. In fact, if we would apply this limitation not only to the Apple-FBI case, but to others, then whoever would be a public figure, will find themselves deprived of their privacy, even if not asked for. But the privacy matter in this case it is not only limited to the San Bernardino attackers, but to anyone that has an iPhone in their possession. As Tim Cook explained in his open letter on February 16th, "Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case. In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge." which means that if Apple was going to comply with the FBI requests, it would be a disaster on a massive scale, giving the opportunity not only to the government, but also to whoever has the knowledge of hacking, to access the data of millions of users. Are the people around the world ready to give up their privacy for this matter? I personally don't think so. Is Apple doing the right thing? Well apparently yes. In fact, it has emerged in one of the court sessions, that the government "has failed to demonstrate that the requested order was absolutely necessary to effectuate the search warrant, including that it exhausted all other avenues for recovering information", therefore it cannot force Apple to comply with its requests. The real question now is, why hasn't the FBI asked the NSA yet, to hack the terrorist's iPhone? Are they exploiting this case to force apple to create a backdoor in order to control all its users? Who knows. As per Warren and Brandeis, I think they would stand besides Apple in this matter. But who knows. Technology has made such an advancement in the last 100 years that they probably could not even imagine how privacy could be compromised like it is right now. Sources: http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/582/582%20readings/right%20to%20privacy.pdf http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-asks-why-hasnt-fbi-asked-nsa-break-iphone-encryption-2325047

Ethical Writing Assignment 4

     I will be discussing about the topic “Why Privacy is Important” by James Rachels. One of the quote from “Why Privacy is important” that I want to star with is “…Why, exactly, is privacy important to us? There is no one simple answer to this question, since people have a number of interests that may be harmed by invasions of their privacy.

(a) Privacy is sometimes necessary to protect peoples interests in competitive situations”.

There are many ways a person can be harmed by the revelation of sensitive personal information. Medical records, psychological tests and interviews, court records, financial records--whether from banks, credit bureaus or the IRS--welfare records, sites visited on the Internet and a variety of other sources hold many intimate details of a person's life. The revelation of such information can leave the subjects vulnerable to many abuses.

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, replied: “The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that's simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable”. The FBI is basically asking Apple to create a back door on their system which will take many months for them to do.

They use to have back door in software back in the days and that did not work out because they would always get hacked and the only reason was because the backdoor was used by tech support people to help people when they had problems. Hackers are not what they use to be they’re more sophisticated now. James Comey said that they would only use it for on phone and they will protect the software. The FBI on it’s on was hacked by a 15 year old who walk off with sensitive information pertaining to personnel and active agents. If you can’t protect your own network with the tools from the government at your disposal how will you be able to protect this software? Smartphone are computer asking everyone to make their phone susceptible to hackers. Security and protection are one of the same thing. John McAfee has offered the FBI his help to take that one phone and to have his team look at it. Basically to take apart and see what is in it and then give back which would not violate any laws and will not create any backdoor which cannot be applied to any other iPhone user which he says would take 3 weeks to do. People in the tech industry will stand behind Apple because they understand these issues but the CEO of Apple has a court order which they can come in and make his programmers work on it which will take time to do. I don’t understand how a federal judge in America which does not know anything about cyber security would allow the order to go through. Even Donald Trump which might be the next Republican runner said that we need to boycott Apple because he has zero understanding of the larger issues of cyber security.” Boycott all Apple products until such time as Apple gives cellphone info to authorities regarding radical Islamic terrorist couple from Cal”. If this happens then the FBI will go to Google and ask then to do the same thing then everybody is compromised. Everyone needs some room to break social norms, to engage in small "permissible deviations" that help define a person's individuality. People need to be able to think outrageous thoughts, make scandalous statements and pick their noses once in a while for that I think that with the situation going on with Apple Rachels would totally disagree.

 References:

Why Privacy is Important

James Rachels

Philosophy & Public Affairs

Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer, 1975), pp. 323-333

McAfee, John. "JOHN MCAFEE: I'll Decrypt the San Bernardino Phone Free of Charge so Apple Doesn't Need to Place a Back Door on Its Product." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 18 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Moyer, Justin. "FBI Director Makes Personal, Passionate Plea on Apple-San Bernardino Controversy." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 22 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.