The battle between Apple vs FBI is heating up. Whose side are you on? As I reported yesterday, the FBI, through a magistrate judge, ordered Apple to help the Feds break into an encrypted iPhone. That encrypted iPhone belonged to deceased terrorist Syed Farook of the San Bernadino shootings. Apple refuses to comply.
Now everybody from tech companies to presidential candidates are taking sides. Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter stand with Apple. Civil liberties group ACLU says this order is unlawful and unwise. Human rights group Amnesty International support Apple’s right to fight back and says the FBI’s request sets a dangerous precedent. Edward Snowden tweeted the whole world is depending on Apple’s case. WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum also believes freedom and liberty are on the line. Anti-virus expert John McAfee wrote an article in International Business Times comparing an Apple encryption break to giving our enemies nuclear weapons. But not everyone is on Apple’s side. The Chinese government will most likely side with the FBI, as they don’t take individual’s privacy rights. Presidential candidate Donald Trump says he agrees 100% with the court order. Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the FBI has the White House’s full backing and blessing on this issue.
Battle lines are being drawn. I noticed those in governments and those running for government positions are siding with the FBI. Those either in tech or civil liberties side with Apple. I just find that interesting. What if Apple continues to stick their ground? Could a case of Apple vs FBI go all the way to the Supreme Court? In the wake of Justice Antoni Scalia’s death, and depending on who gets the vacant seat, what would the ruling be? How significant is this case? Was Jan Koum right when she said all of our liberties on the line due to this one battle? Whose side are you on?
Since 1975, United Technologies has led the way in building and researching high tech products. You can find their influence in everything from aircraft to security systems to military equipment. But now, United Technologies gets press for the wrong reasons.
In Indianapolis, Indiana, there is an air conditioning manufacturing plant called Carrier, which United Technologies owns. Carrier announced the plant will begin a move to Monterrey, Mexico starting next year. Eventually, this will cost 1,400 American jobs. A meeting was called. When workers heard this plan, let’s just say, they didn’t hide their disappointment and frustration. As company president Chris Nelson delivered the bad news, it was returned with jeering and cursing. Here’s the video, but viewer discretion advised: Some of the language is graphic. Him saying things like, “This was strictly a business decision” and “We’re committed to treating you with respect during this transition…” hardly made workers feel better. Even political leaders are getting involved. Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett plans to issue an executive order to help out workers. Indiana Governor Mike Pence authorized his state to offer job training and education to those affected. Meanwhile in Huntington, Indiana, a town approximately 100 miles north of Indianapolis, another United Technologies plant announced it’s move to Mexico. Around 700 jobs will be lost…in a town of only 17,000 people.
Can you blame the workers for the reaction? I can’t. Imagine working hard, being loyal and doing the right thing for years, only to have your job shipped to a foreign land. Of coursed you’re going to be ticked off. Then they tell them it’s just business. That’s like a hit man or gangster telling the victim, “We have to kill you know. But it’s just business.” Unfortunately, their ordeal isn’t unique. So far in 2016, many businesses are cutting down or letting good workers go. By moving to Mexico, United Technology thinks they’re going to save money because they can pay employees less in Mexico and the unions aren’t as strong. That means they can exploit workers more without consequence. This is a total move of greed on United Technologies’ part. The only ones winning here are the CEO and top VP’s. Some may say, “Oh, that’s just capitalism.” I beg to differ. This looks more like crony capitalism to me, where only a few have a shot at the American dream while the vast majority starve. ?Is this just business or personal to you?
Earlier this week, venture capitalist Mark Andreessen tweeted, “Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now.” I’m sure he didn’t mean it as bad as it sounded. But this is a heavily connected and very PC world we’re in. The firestorm was fast and furious.
Since then, Andreessen has apologized and deleted the tweet. But criticism from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and India’s business leaders ?came in a hurry. Andreessen is a Facebook board member. Andresseen expressed frustration over free but limited mobile Internet access being banned in India. Some lawmakers in India fear Facebook’s major influence. But Andreessen quickly took the comments back, saying he is a huge admirer of India and the Indian people. Zuckerberg called the original tweet ‘deeply upsetting’. But Zuckerberg did say we need to understand India’s past. Hopefully, the apology is accepted and the business relationship between Facebook and India can move on. But the issue of Free Basics will not go away anytime soon. He still criticizes India’s government for the ban on Free Basics, saying, “Denying world’s poorest free partial Internet connectivity when today they have none, for ideological reasons, strikes me as morally wrong.” Zuckerberg ?praises India for the progress they made.
If you want to say Andreessen’s wording of his frustration was wrong, it was. But he does have a point. Zuckerberg is right too. India has made tremendous economical, social and technological progress in recent decades. It’s home to one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It’s becoming one of the most respected nations in the world. That’s why it bothers me that lawmakers there hate Free Basics. If you’re going to continue to compete in the 21st century world, you need the Internet. The more people who have access to the Internet, the better, even if it’s free. I hope Facebook officials can convince India’s government to reconsider their ban on Free Basics. What’s the real reason they’re hating on free online access?
Mexican heroin kingpin and Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman is one of the biggest drug lords of all time. Now, he’s been caught after six months on the run. But that’s just the beginning.
Three months earlier, El Chapo conducted an interview with acclaimed actor Sean Penn, which was published in Rolling Stone magazine. In the interview, El Chapo bragged that he sold more illegal narcotics than anybody in the world, and bragged about his submarines, airplanes, and other fleet. This interview took place in a secluded Mexican jungle, but a follow-up was done on a videotape sent to Penn. Surveillance was critical. They tracked cell phones and other electronics of the people El Chapo kept in contact with. The US and Mexican officials shared intelligence. There are pictures everywhere of Penn and El Chapo shaking hands. Surveillance followed Penn as he touched down in Mexico. Major Mexican newspaper El Universal has pictures of Penn greeting the guys who took them to an airstrip and flew them to secluded jungle in which El Chapo hid. Mexican intelligence photographed Penn and actress Kate del?Castillo (who helped set up the interview). Eventually, intelligence got to the tunnel El Chapo hid in. Penn himself said he thought he was being spied on.
There are more questions than answers here. Did Penn and del Castillo deliberately help the authorities catch El Chapo? I doubt it very seriously. That’s not their style. But I do believe Penn gave an unwilling assist in El Chapo’s capture. So we can all learn a lesson here. Big brother is watching, especially when you’re dealing with one of the most notorious criminals in the world. And in 2016, governments can easily track you. One would think Penn would know better. But he went through the interview anyway. No matter what the promise, payout, or potential reward is, would you interview one of the biggest drug dealers ever?
The day of this attack, government counter-terrorism leaders and tech executives met behind closed doors. The main topic was combating terrorist organizations like ISIS and preventing events like what happened in Philadelphia. Companies represented included Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, You Tube, Yahoo and Pay Pal. Leaders of the FBI and NSA were there as well. One topic was to launch a social media campaign against ISIS. Both sides are exploring ways terrorists use and exploit the Internet for financial, recruiting and training purposes. For example, there’s a system on Facebook that deals with people who are suicidal. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told government agents in attendance how those expressing suicidal thoughts could be flagged. Some officials wondered if this could be used to flag a potential terrorist on the verge of committing a suicide attack. This was just one of the many scenarios discussed. ?Despite disagreement over civil liberties and First Amendment rights, a lot of common ground was found.
I could’ve added to that. Another scenario is jihadist could recruit those who are on the brink of suicide. Note how these terror groups usually recruit those who have little or nothing to live for. But it’s about time Washington and Silicon Valley come together and put their differences aside to fight this common, deadly, sadistic enemy. I don’t know if you believe in omens or not, but I find it interesting this conference happened the same day this Philadelphia terror attack took place. Is fate trying to tell us something? If you were in that room with tech and government officials, what would you suggest to them?
We all remember the Eric Snowden NSA scandal of 2013. We all remember the controversy that surrounded the government and telecommunication companies alike. Two and a half years later, this story is a dubious gift that keeps on giving.
We’re now learning the White House continued to spy on their ally Israel months after promises of curtailed eavesdropping of global allies. The alleged spying took place during the midst of the Iran nuclear deal, a deal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vehemently opposed. The NSA got plenty of conversations between Israeli leaders and members of the US Congress. Of course, that meant the NSA literally spied on Congress. White House leaders believed this NSA surveillance taught them just how bad Netanyahu hated this deal, and how to counter his campaign. It revealed the Israeli Prime Minister begged and negotiated with lawmakers to block the Iran deal. This surveillance campaign was so risky they made sure no paper trail was discovered. And this isn’t the first time the NSA was caught spying on it’s own allies. It was reveled they snooped on French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In January 2014, US President Obama pledged to curb this sort of eavesdropping.
President Obama said curb the eavesdropping; he didn’t pledge to drop it altogether. The relationship between Obama (and many Congress members) and Netanyahu has been rocky for quite a while. Earlier this year, when Netanyahu spoke to Congress, many in the White House and Congress didn’t show up. I doubt these revelations will thaw matters much. I’m not writing this to take sides or to say who was right and who was wrong. But this episode goes to show what a powerful tool technology, especially surveillance technology, can be on the global political landscape. And it shows it can help or hinder global alliances. Did it help or hurt the decades long alliance between the US and Israel?
