The debate of privacy vs security is one that has lasted for hundreds of years, if not longer. With people claiming that while security is important, if that is compromised or done without checks, such as with the PRISM program, then our privacy means nothing to those who could abuse the system. Currently, Apple is debating this very same matter with the FBI in Congress, and it seems that one of the people who have come out in support of the FBI may have been using tall tales to back up his argument.
We’ve reported on Michael Ramos’s (a San Bernardino County District Attorney) claims that Apple must unlock the iPhone involved in the current case. His claims involved the fact that the phone, which was given to a county employee, had access to the San Bernardino infrastructure and could hold a “dormant cyber pathogen” which would be used to perform a terrorist attack on their infrastructure.
These claims were met with skepticism and some people even said it was like saying that you may find a “magic unicorn” on the iPhone. It now seems that even Ramos can’t hide from people as he has come out and told the Associated Press that he has no proof or knowledge that the phone could be used in that way.
In his response he states:
“This was a county employee that murdered 14 people and injured 22. Did he use the county’s infrastructure? Did he hack into that infrastructure? I don’t know. In order for me to really put that issue to rest, there is one piece of evidence that would absolutely let us know that, and that would be the iPhone.”
Jonathan Zdziarski commented on his personal blog about this response, talking about the original comments by explaining that “Ramos’s statements are not only misleading to the court, but amount to blatant fear mongering”.
It would seem like his original claims were just that, fear mongering, in the hopes of providing support to a personal point of view. The move seems to have backfired, offering only more fuel for the pro-encryption people backing Apple and their arguments that they need people who know about cyber-security making the decision.