mshumbullah
Member
- Jan 29, 2015
- 35
- 23
Kuna watu bado hawajapata usahihi wa anachokisimamia Maxence Melo hasa kile ambacho leo kimebainika kuwa ndicho kiini cha shtaka lake la kwanza na la pili. Ili kuwasaidia kupata mwanga, nimejaribu kutafsiri kesi ya mapambano ya kisheria kati ya Kampuni namba moja kwa teknolojia ya mawasiliano duniani, Apple dhidi ya Shirika la Upelelezi la Marekani (FBI).
Nisimalize uondo, jisomee na kisha jipe jibu kama kweli Maxence ndiye mwenye jukumu la kuthibitisha uhalifu na kama kweli jeshi la polisi lina haki ya kudai na kupewa faragha za wateja wa @JamiiForums.com
Endelea Hapa Chini.....
Mapambano ya Kisheria kati ya Taasisi ya Uchunguzi nchini Marekani(FBI) na Kampuni ya uzalishaji wa vifaa vya kieletroniki zikiwemo simu za mkononi Apple yamefikia mwisho.
FBI ilitaka kupatiwa taarifa za siri zilizokuwa kwenye simu ya muuaji, Syed Farook aliyewaua kwa risasi watu 14 katika eneo la San Bernardino Desemba mwaka jana.
Katika sakata hilo Jaji aliitaka Kampuni ya Apple kuipatia FBI na mamlaka zote ushirikiano wa kutosha, ambapo Apple walitakiwa kufumua mfumo unaoifunga simu baada ya kufanya majaribio 10 ya kuingiza nywila(password) bila mafanikio.
Apple waligomea agizo hilo la Mahakama na ndipo mabishano ya kisheria yalipoanzia.
Mkurugenzi Mtendaji wa Apple, Tim Cook alisema agizo hilo halikubaliki na kama wakiwapatia uwezo wa kuiingilia simu hiyo ya Syed Farook hakuna jinsi FBI watashindwa kuziingilia simu nyingine zote za wateja wao. FBI waliendelea kushikilia msimamo wao wa kutopatiwa taarifa hizo.
KWA NINI SUALA HILI LILILETA MABISHANO MAKALI
Kesi hii iliibua mjadala mkubwa kuhusu usiri/usalama wa taarifa za watu wanaotumia mitandao au vifaa vya kieletroniki dhidi ya Serikali pale zinapohitajika.
Taasisi zinazosimamia sheria zinasema kwamba njia wanazotumia makampuni ya teknolojia kulinda taarifa za wateja wao(encrpytion) zinapelekea kazi zao kuwa ngumu hasa kwenye mapambano dhidi ya ugaidi.
Lakini makampuni ya teknolojia yanashikila msimamo wao kuwa, njia wanazotumia kulinda taarifa(encryption) ni kwa ajili ya kupambana na wadukuzi(Hackers) na kulinda taarifa za wateja wao.
Mjadala kuhusu ulinzi wa taarifa za watumiaji wa mitandao na vifaa vya kieletroniki ulichochewa baada ya Mwanausalama Edward Snowden kuibuka na kuonyesha jinsi serikali inavyodukua na kufuatilia mawasiliano ya watu mitandaoni kwa kisingizio cha kupambana na ugaidi.
NINI KILITOKEA
Baada ya mapambano hayo ya Apple na FBI, hatimaye serikali ya Marekani iliamua kutumia mtu wa tatu(Third Party) ili aweze kuingilia simu ya muuaji Syed Farouk na kupata taarifa. Taarifa ambazo sio rasmi zinasema kuwa kampuni ya Israel Cellebrite ndio imepewa kazi hiyo ya kuiingilia simu ya Syed Farouk.
Serikali ya Marekani imeshaitaka mahakama kuitupilia mbali kesi hiyo dhidi ya Apple na FBI imekataa kusema lolote kuhusu jinsi gani wameiingilia simu hiyo.
Apple imesema kuwa itaendelea kushirikiana na FBI pamoja taasisi zote zinazosimamia sheria katika uchunguzi na wataendelea kuongeza ulinzi katika bidhaa zao ili kulinda wateja wake dhidi ya matishio yote.
=====================================
The legal tussle between Apple and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over access to the iPhone used by a shooter in last year's San Bernardino attacks is now over after authorities announced they had accessed the device.
But the larger debate between technology firms and law enforcement authorities over data privacy and access remains. CNBC explains the case and why it was such a big deal.
What was the battle over?
Last month, a federal judge asked Apple to help the FBI unlock an iPhone belonging to Syed Farook, who was responsible for the shootings in San Bernardino in December which left 14 people dead.
The judge asked Apple to provide "reasonable technical assistance" to the U.S. authorities, which would require the technology giant to overhaul the system that disables the phone after 10 unsuccessful password attempts. Once this feature kicks in, all the data on the phone is inaccessible. Apple declined to help the FBI.
At the time, Apple chief executive Tim Cook called the order "chilling"and said that it would require writing new software that would be "a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks". Cook's argument was that if the FBI could access this iPhone, nothing would stop them from doing it to many others.
Law enforcement authorities insisted that it was a one-off request. As a result the case went to court.
Why was it controversial?
The case marked one of the highest-profile clashes in the debate over encryption and data privacy between the government and a technology company.
Law enforcement authorities say that encryption used by the likes of Apple makes it harder for them to solve cases and stop terrorist attacks
Technology firms have kicked back, saying that encryption is key to protecting user data from hackers.
Data privacy has been a sensitive topic particularly after revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about the extent of the government's surveillance activities.
What was the outcome?
A hearing set for last week was postponed after the government said that it had found a third-party that was able to unlock the iPhone. Reports suggested that it was Israeli firm Cellebrite. This was never confirmed by the company.
On Monday, the Department of Justice said it had managed to access the data on the iPhone in question and asked the judge to drop the case. The FBI said in a statement that it could not comment on the "technical aspects" of how the iPhone was unlocked nor the third-party that was involved.
Apple said that it "will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data".
Who won?
It appears to be the best of a bad situation.
Apple stuck to its guns on defending civil liberties.
"From the beginning, we objected to the FBI's demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. As a result of the government's dismissal, neither of these occurred," Apple said in a statement following the dropping of the case.
The FBI got their desire result – getting access to Farook's iPhone.
Still, there are questions about the effectiveness of Apple's security.
Is this the end of it all?
Probably not. Rumblings between technology companies and the government are likely to continue.
Last month, several news outlets revealed that there have been numerous requests from law enforcement agencies across the country for Apple to help unlock other iPhones.
Apple will want to know how the FBI got into the iPhone in order for it to patch up any vulnerabilities in its software. The iPhone maker is likely to continue bolstering security in its software and devices.
Source: Apple vs FBI: All you need to know
Nisimalize uondo, jisomee na kisha jipe jibu kama kweli Maxence ndiye mwenye jukumu la kuthibitisha uhalifu na kama kweli jeshi la polisi lina haki ya kudai na kupewa faragha za wateja wa @JamiiForums.com
Endelea Hapa Chini.....
Mapambano ya Kisheria kati ya Taasisi ya Uchunguzi nchini Marekani(FBI) na Kampuni ya uzalishaji wa vifaa vya kieletroniki zikiwemo simu za mkononi Apple yamefikia mwisho.
FBI ilitaka kupatiwa taarifa za siri zilizokuwa kwenye simu ya muuaji, Syed Farook aliyewaua kwa risasi watu 14 katika eneo la San Bernardino Desemba mwaka jana.
Katika sakata hilo Jaji aliitaka Kampuni ya Apple kuipatia FBI na mamlaka zote ushirikiano wa kutosha, ambapo Apple walitakiwa kufumua mfumo unaoifunga simu baada ya kufanya majaribio 10 ya kuingiza nywila(password) bila mafanikio.
Apple waligomea agizo hilo la Mahakama na ndipo mabishano ya kisheria yalipoanzia.
Mkurugenzi Mtendaji wa Apple, Tim Cook alisema agizo hilo halikubaliki na kama wakiwapatia uwezo wa kuiingilia simu hiyo ya Syed Farook hakuna jinsi FBI watashindwa kuziingilia simu nyingine zote za wateja wao. FBI waliendelea kushikilia msimamo wao wa kutopatiwa taarifa hizo.
KWA NINI SUALA HILI LILILETA MABISHANO MAKALI
Kesi hii iliibua mjadala mkubwa kuhusu usiri/usalama wa taarifa za watu wanaotumia mitandao au vifaa vya kieletroniki dhidi ya Serikali pale zinapohitajika.
Taasisi zinazosimamia sheria zinasema kwamba njia wanazotumia makampuni ya teknolojia kulinda taarifa za wateja wao(encrpytion) zinapelekea kazi zao kuwa ngumu hasa kwenye mapambano dhidi ya ugaidi.
Lakini makampuni ya teknolojia yanashikila msimamo wao kuwa, njia wanazotumia kulinda taarifa(encryption) ni kwa ajili ya kupambana na wadukuzi(Hackers) na kulinda taarifa za wateja wao.
Mjadala kuhusu ulinzi wa taarifa za watumiaji wa mitandao na vifaa vya kieletroniki ulichochewa baada ya Mwanausalama Edward Snowden kuibuka na kuonyesha jinsi serikali inavyodukua na kufuatilia mawasiliano ya watu mitandaoni kwa kisingizio cha kupambana na ugaidi.
NINI KILITOKEA
Baada ya mapambano hayo ya Apple na FBI, hatimaye serikali ya Marekani iliamua kutumia mtu wa tatu(Third Party) ili aweze kuingilia simu ya muuaji Syed Farouk na kupata taarifa. Taarifa ambazo sio rasmi zinasema kuwa kampuni ya Israel Cellebrite ndio imepewa kazi hiyo ya kuiingilia simu ya Syed Farouk.
Serikali ya Marekani imeshaitaka mahakama kuitupilia mbali kesi hiyo dhidi ya Apple na FBI imekataa kusema lolote kuhusu jinsi gani wameiingilia simu hiyo.
Apple imesema kuwa itaendelea kushirikiana na FBI pamoja taasisi zote zinazosimamia sheria katika uchunguzi na wataendelea kuongeza ulinzi katika bidhaa zao ili kulinda wateja wake dhidi ya matishio yote.
=====================================
The legal tussle between Apple and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) over access to the iPhone used by a shooter in last year's San Bernardino attacks is now over after authorities announced they had accessed the device.
But the larger debate between technology firms and law enforcement authorities over data privacy and access remains. CNBC explains the case and why it was such a big deal.
What was the battle over?
Last month, a federal judge asked Apple to help the FBI unlock an iPhone belonging to Syed Farook, who was responsible for the shootings in San Bernardino in December which left 14 people dead.
The judge asked Apple to provide "reasonable technical assistance" to the U.S. authorities, which would require the technology giant to overhaul the system that disables the phone after 10 unsuccessful password attempts. Once this feature kicks in, all the data on the phone is inaccessible. Apple declined to help the FBI.
At the time, Apple chief executive Tim Cook called the order "chilling"and said that it would require writing new software that would be "a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks". Cook's argument was that if the FBI could access this iPhone, nothing would stop them from doing it to many others.
Law enforcement authorities insisted that it was a one-off request. As a result the case went to court.
Why was it controversial?
The case marked one of the highest-profile clashes in the debate over encryption and data privacy between the government and a technology company.
Law enforcement authorities say that encryption used by the likes of Apple makes it harder for them to solve cases and stop terrorist attacks
Technology firms have kicked back, saying that encryption is key to protecting user data from hackers.
Data privacy has been a sensitive topic particularly after revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about the extent of the government's surveillance activities.
What was the outcome?
A hearing set for last week was postponed after the government said that it had found a third-party that was able to unlock the iPhone. Reports suggested that it was Israeli firm Cellebrite. This was never confirmed by the company.
On Monday, the Department of Justice said it had managed to access the data on the iPhone in question and asked the judge to drop the case. The FBI said in a statement that it could not comment on the "technical aspects" of how the iPhone was unlocked nor the third-party that was involved.
Apple said that it "will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data".
Who won?
It appears to be the best of a bad situation.
Apple stuck to its guns on defending civil liberties.
"From the beginning, we objected to the FBI's demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. As a result of the government's dismissal, neither of these occurred," Apple said in a statement following the dropping of the case.
The FBI got their desire result – getting access to Farook's iPhone.
Still, there are questions about the effectiveness of Apple's security.
Is this the end of it all?
Probably not. Rumblings between technology companies and the government are likely to continue.
Last month, several news outlets revealed that there have been numerous requests from law enforcement agencies across the country for Apple to help unlock other iPhones.
Apple will want to know how the FBI got into the iPhone in order for it to patch up any vulnerabilities in its software. The iPhone maker is likely to continue bolstering security in its software and devices.
Source: Apple vs FBI: All you need to know
