First of alll, full disk encryption will slow any device, and my hunch is that iPhone would be ever so slightly faster without.
Reading the 42 page PDF linked, I think the article weighs in a little biased.
Under “The Problem” heading, they say “The debate may be characterized as one weighing individuals’ right to privacy against society’s interest in providing governments with tools that they require to maintain safety and provide security.”
[B]Is it so? The debate may also be characterized as on taking away even more privacy from the individual in a society showing too clear signs of “big brother sees you” already.[/B]
Further reading reveals that law enforcement are worried about the new encryption:
"Appleâ€™s and Googleâ€™s decisions to enable full-disk encryption by default on smartphones means that law enforcement officials can no longer access evidence of crimes.
And further notes:
“Apple and Google are not responsible for keeping the public safe. That is the job of law enforcement. But the consequences of these companiesâ€™ actions on the public safety are severe.”
[B]Now is it necessarily so that the consequences to public safety are severe?[/B]
Could it be that it also could be used to silence the ever so needed critical voices too.
How critical can a voice become before being viewed as a threat to society? Before being accused of conspiracy to whatever?
The all overshadowing anti-terror laws may come in and put all other laws aside because i [B]may[/B] have said something critical they take out of its context and isolate…
The very ones that wants access to my phone decides that question and I somehow do not find it reassuring.
The public are already harazzed at airports all over the world every day, still the ones these security meassures are in place to catch manage to bring bombs on board…
We are watched by cameras most everywhere downtown and in other centras, for you an my security they say… And their control I would like to add.
The document lines up serious crimes like Homicide, Rape and Robbery Conspiracy, Child pornography, Cybercrime and Identity Theft among the reasons to make it look good to the public.
Now, do not get me wrong, these are all serious matters, but they do take the individual’s right to personal security too lightly.
However, this is to be expected from a document created with the sole purpose of getting access to retrieve data from phones.
They even bring in circumstantial reasoning that other nations are exploring similar solutions…
Does that make it ok then??
I have not spent enough hours to read the document thoroughly, but as far as I can tell, it fails to address proprietary encryption available to large criminal and terrorist organizations and that leaves Jane and John Doe as casualities again “for no apparent reason” as far as I can tell so far.
It seems what it is all about, is to have access to the phones of the general public, and that goes way too far in the “control” direction.
They mention that the Fourth Amendment dictates that search warrants may be issued only when a judge finds probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence or proceeds of the crime might be found on the device.
There are to much if how above for me to be buy into it - [B]probable cause to believe that evidence may be found? You may have done it so evidence could be found if he [U]believes[/U] it[/B]. I guess…
My point is that they strive hard for general access to devices which largely does not serve its purpose. How big percentage of the population that are criminals will vary, but imo it does not justify what they set out to achieve.
We are still at the start of the “all connected” society, and I will be here to defend the right of the common man as long as I live… We are not all criminals, in fact, not too many of us are, even though they like convince us otherwise.