The apple company from Cubertino seems to want to recommend itself as a new insider tip for reasonably secure communication on the Internet. So the company publicly protested against the order of a federal court to install backdoors in its operating system IOS. In another criminal case, the company allegedly refuses to allow the FBI to access the accused's iPhone. The time already attests that the company is "too good to be legal".
No sooner had whistleblower Edward Snowden pointed out that the most interesting thing in this debate is who does not speak publicly, also jumped Google's alphabet yesterday on the train. The global computer monopolists have a tangible image problem. They are all US companies and the country's intelligence services are extremely damaging to their business.
However, that seems to be clear to them now. Last year enabled Apple the FBI in at least 70 cases access to products with the apple. The computer specialist Felix von Leitner commented the debate with the words: "This is all false beauty."
"For years, the messages scroll past us, what GCHQ and NSA snorkeling everything. And where they do not get official access, they get unofficial access. And now we should seriously believe them that they do not unlock unlocked Iphone? How stupid do they think we are !? This is theater, this open letter from Apple. Of course everything can be unlocked. "
In the US, the debate over the loss of trust in American smartphones, computers and servers last winter has reached a new level of quality. The occasion was the decision of a foreign court. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that the exchange of data with the US was part of the Safe Harbor Agreement is invalid.
Suddenly, in the lighthouses of business and politics, a debate on how to repair the image damage is well underway.
Companies like Facebook responded by announcing that they would now be installing their servers in Ireland. Technical and security policy but also the eyewash. This shows a conflict from last year. As part of a criminal investigation, the US authorities called on Microsoft to return personal information from its data center in Ireland.
Rather than claiming data through a proper intergovernmental process, such as the US government making a regular request to law enforcement agencies in Ireland, the US relies on the alleged global reach of its legal system. Even in this case, a group protested technology giants, including Apple and Cisco Systems. They joined as Amicus Curiae partners with an open letter in the process.
If this kind of behavior on the part of the US government continues, it will damage the efforts of US companies to become global providers of cloud computing. This would threaten the "economies of scale for US providers" and discriminate against companies that are "more susceptible to US surveillance," argue the high-tech monopolists.
Currently, it seems that the US can not be both:
Largest provider of computer and Internet technology and the largest surveillance state.
The elite magazine for foreign affairs,Foreign Affairs, brought the bad news to Washington's decision-makers in its winter issue: since the publications by Edward Snowden, the reservations about a US-dominated Internet have turned into an "active position," Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman write about the "transatlantic data-war. "
By transforming US technology companies into tools of national intelligence, Washington has seriously damaged its reputation and imposed foreign sanctions. The EU's clear record is that US companies and security agencies are violating the privacy of European citizens.
"After the 9 / 11 attacks, the United States began deliberately to exploit the mutual relations for its economic power and as a national security instrument. Although they favor the free flow of capital, they have systematically imposed sanctions to force foreign banks and financial actors to isolate certain companies, people and states within the global financial system. Although they promote an open and secure Internet, they secretly undermined the encryption of online communications and secretly built large international surveillance systems, in collaboration with close allies, such as the UK. In short, the United States has taken advantage of the world's dependency to influence and spy on the economy and foreigners. "
"In the last 15 years, Washington has increasingly used its power as a weapon to influence the decisions of foreign governments and corporations, which depend on the currency of the United States of America, access to the information sector and the markets. Rather than trying to disseminate technical norms and policy preferences through indirect market mechanisms, the United States has used direct pressure to deploy the markets and information networks for its own security and foreign policy purposes. "
These interdependencies, the authors argue, are now directed against the United States. US companies are more prone to action from other countries in international markets. In that sense, the Internet giants now harm the US government taking measures that "irritate other governments."
"This is a particularly big problem for technology companies whose insatiable hunger for detailed data feeds indirectly from the surveillance state of the US."
Although foreign persons or states can not directly charge the NSA. But now they would make the US companies targets. Conclusion: Companies must force the US government to change their rules.
The United States has publicly proselytized for the free flow of information while secretly diverting the data streams into NSA server farms. The government strongly supported the global expansion of its technology companies, or the use of Twitter by political movements such as those of the Arab Spring. At the same time, the government expected companies to hand over their data and channel it overseas through their servers.
Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman announce a "profound decision" to Washington policy makers. The US can continue to work "in a world of blurred lines and one-sided demands" where concessions to the interests of other countries are not made on the subject of surveillance, and privacy rights are dismissed as "protectionism in political disguise". But if the US continues, "the US companies" will suffer.