Your smartphone is a civil rights issue Christopher Soghoian

In the spring of 2016,

a legal battle between Apple
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

captured the world’s attention.

Apple has built security features
into its mobile products

which protect data on its devices
from everyone but the owner.

That means that criminals, hackers
and yes, even governments

are all locked out.

For Apple’s customers,
this is a great thing.

But governments are not so happy.

You see, Apple has made
a conscious decision

to get out of the surveillance business.

Apple has tried to make surveillance
as difficult as possible

for governments and any other actors.

There are really two
smartphone operating systems

in the global smartphone market:

iOS and Android.

iOS is made by Apple.
Android is made by Google.

Apple has spent a lot of time and money

to make sure that its products
are as secure as possible.

Apple encrypts all data
stored on iPhones by default,

and text messages sent from one
Apple customer to another Apple customer

are encrypted by default

without the user having
to take any actions.

What this means is that,

if the police seize an iPhone
and it has a password,

they’ll have a difficult time
getting any data off of it,

if they can do it at all.

In contrast, the security of Android
just really isn’t as good.

Android phones, or at least
most of the Android phones

that have been sold to consumers,

do not encrypt data stored
on the device by default,

and the built-in text messaging app
in Android does not use encryption.

So if the police seize an Android phone,

chances are, they’ll be able to get
all the data they want

off of that device.

Two smartphones

from two of the biggest
companies in the world;

one that protects data by default,

and one that doesn’t.

Apple is a seller of luxury goods.

It dominates the high end of the market.

And we would expect a manufacturer
of luxury goods to have products

that include more features.

But not everyone can afford an iPhone.

That’s where Android
really, really dominates:

at the middle and low end of the market,

smartphones for the billion
and a half people

who cannot or will not spend

600 dollars on a phone.

But the dominance of Android
has led to what I call

the “digital security divide.”

That is, there is now increasingly a gap

between the privacy
and security of the rich,

who can afford devices
that secure their data by default,

and of the poor,

whose devices do very little
to protect them by default.

So, think of the average Apple customer:

a banker, a lawyer,
a doctor, a politician.

These individuals now increasingly have
smartphones in their pockets

that encrypt their calls,
their text messages,

all the data on the device,

without them doing really anything
to secure their information.

In contrast, the poor
and the most vulnerable in our societies

are using devices that leave them
completely vulnerable to surveillance.

In the United States, where I live,

African-Americans are more likely
to be seen as suspicious

or more likely to be profiled,

and are more likely to be targeted
by the state with surveillance.

But African-Americans
are also disproportionately likely

to use Android devices
that do nothing at all

to protect them from that surveillance.

This is a problem.

We must remember
that surveillance is a tool.

It’s a tool used by those in power

against those who have no power.

And while I think it’s absolutely great

that companies like Apple
are making it easy for people to encrypt,

if the only people
who can protect themselves

from the gaze of the government

are the rich and powerful,

that’s a problem.

And it’s not just a privacy
or a cybersecurity problem.

It’s a civil rights problem.

So the lack of default security in Android

is not just a problem
for the poor and vulnerable users

who are depending on these devices.

This is actually a problem
for our democracy.

I’ll explain what I mean.

Modern social movements
rely on technology –

from Black Lives Matter to the Arab Spring
to Occupy Wall Street.

The organizers of these movements
and the members of these movements

increasingly communicate
and coordinate with smartphones.

And so, naturally governments
that feel threatened by these movements

will also target the organizers
and their smartphones.

Now, it’s quite possible

that a future Martin Luther King
or a Mandela or a Gandhi

will have an iPhone and be protected
from government surveillance.

But chances are,

they’ll probably have a cheap,
$20 Android phone in their pocket.

And so if we do nothing
to address the digital security divide,

if we do nothing to ensure
that everyone in our society

gets the same benefits of encryption

and is equally able to protect themselves
from surveillance by the state,

not only will the poor and vulnerable
be exposed to surveillance,

but future civil rights
movements may be crushed

before they ever reach
their full potential.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Helen Walters: Chris, thank you so much.

I have a question for you.

We saw recently in the press

that Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook
covers over his camera

and does something
with his headphone mic jack.

So I wanted to ask you
a personal question, which is:

Do you do that?

And, on behalf of everyone
here, particularly myself,

Should we be doing that?

Should we be covering these things?

Christopher Soghoian: Putting a sticker –
actually, I like Band-Aids,

because you can remove them
and put them back on

whenever you want to make
a call or a Skype call.

Putting a sticker over your web cam

is probably the best thing
you can do for your privacy

in terms of bang for buck.

There really is malware,
malicious software out there

that can take over your web cam,

even without the light turning on.

This is used by criminals.
This is used by stalkers.

You can buy $19.99 “spy
on your ex-girlfriend” software online.

It’s really terrifying.

And then, of course,
it’s used by governments.

And there’s obviously
a sexual violence component to this,

which is that this kind of surveillance
can be used most effectively

against women and other people
who can be shamed in our society.

Even if you think
you have nothing to hide,

at the very least, if you have
children, teenagers in your lives,

make sure you put a sticker
on their camera and protect them.

HW: Wow. Thank you so much.
CS: Thank you.

HW: Thanks, Chris.

(Applause)

2016 年春天,

苹果与联邦调查局之间的一场

官司引起了全世界的关注。

Apple 已
在其移动产品

中内置了安全功能,可保护其设备上的数据
免受除所有者之外的所有人的影响。

这意味着犯罪分子、黑客
,是的,甚至政府

都被拒之门外。

对于苹果的客户来说,
这是一件好事。

但政府并不那么高兴。

你看,苹果
有意识地

决定退出监控业务。

苹果试图

让政府和任何其他行为者尽可能难以进行监控。 全球智能手机市场

实际上有两种
智能手机

操作系统:

iOS 和 Android。

iOS 是由 Apple 开发的。
安卓是谷歌制造的。

苹果花费了大量时间和金钱

来确保其
产品尽可能安全。

默认情况下,Apple 会加密存储在 iPhone 上的所有数据,

并且从一个
Apple 客户发送给另一个 Apple 客户的短信

默认情况下会被加密,

而无需
用户采取任何行动。

这意味着,

如果警察没收了一部
有密码的 iPhone,

他们将很难从中
获取任何数据,

如果他们能做到的话。

相比之下,Android 的安全性
确实没有那么好。

Android 手机,或者至少

已经卖给消费者的大部分 Android 手机,默认

不加密存储
在设备上的数据

,Android 内置的短信应用程序
也不使用加密。

因此,如果警方没收了一部 Android 手机

,他们很有可能会从该设备上获取
他们想要的所有数据

来自世界上最大的
两家公司的两款智能手机;

一种默认保护数据,

另一种不保护。

苹果是奢侈品销售商。

它主导着高端市场。

我们希望
奢侈品制造商拥有

包含更多功能的产品。

但并不是每个人都能买得起 iPhone。

这就是 Android
真正、真正占据主导地位的地方:

在中低端市场,

为 15 亿

不能或不会

在手机上花费 600 美元的人提供智能手机。

但安卓的主导地位
导致了我所说

的“数字安全鸿沟”。

也就是说,现在富人

的隐私
和安全之间的差距越来越大,

他们可以买得起
默认情况下保护数据的设备,

而穷人

的设备
默认情况下几乎没有保护他们的数据。

所以,想想普通的苹果客户

:银行家、律师
、医生、政治家。

这些人现在越来越多地
在口袋里装着智能手机,这些智能手机

可以加密他们的电话
、短信

和设备上的所有数据,

而他们却没有做任何事情
来保护他们的信息。

相比之下,
我们社会中的穷人和最脆弱的人

正在使用使他们
完全容易受到监视的设备。

在我居住的美国,

非裔美国人更有
可能被视为可疑

或更有可能被定性,

并且更有可能成为
国家监视的目标。

但非裔美国人
也极有

可能使用 Android 设备
,这些设备根本

无法保护他们免受监视。

这是个问题。

我们必须记住
,监视是一种工具。

这是当权者用来

对付无权者的工具。

虽然我认为

像 Apple 这样的公司
让人们更容易加密绝对很棒,但

如果唯一
能保护自己

免受政府注视的

人是有钱有势的人,

那就是个问题。

这不仅仅是隐私
或网络安全问题。

这是一个民权问题。

因此,对于依赖这些设备的穷人和易受攻击的用户来说,Android 缺乏默认安全

性不仅仅是一个问题

这实际上
是我们民主的一个问题。

我会解释我的意思。

现代社会运动
依赖于技术——

从“黑人的命也是命”到“阿拉伯之春”
再到“占领华尔街”。

这些运动的组织者和
这些运动的成员

越来越多地
使用智能手机进行交流和协调。

因此
,受到这些运动威胁的政府自然

也会针对组织者
及其智能手机。

现在,

未来的马丁·路德·金
、曼德拉或甘地

很有可能拥有一部 iPhone,并
免受政府监控。

很有可能,他们口袋里可能会有一部便宜的
20 美元的 Android 手机。

因此,如果我们不采取任何措施
来解决数字安全鸿沟,

如果我们不采取任何措施来
确保我们社会中的每个人都能

从加密中获得相同的好处,

并且同样能够保护自己
免受国家的监视,

那么不仅穷人和弱势群体将
暴露在监视之下,

但未来的民权
运动可能在

充分发挥其潜力之前就被粉碎了。

谢谢你。

(掌声)

Helen Walters:克里斯,非常感谢。

我有一个问题问你。

我们最近在媒体

上看到,来自 Facebook 的马克扎克伯格
遮住了他的相机

,并
用他的耳机麦克风插孔做了一些事情。

所以我想问你
一个个人问题,那就是:

你这样做吗?

而且,代表这里的每个人
,尤其是我自己,

我们应该这样做吗?

我们应该覆盖这些东西吗?

Christopher Soghoian:贴上贴纸——
实际上,我喜欢创可贴,

因为您可以

想要
拨打电话或 Skype 通话时将其取下并重新贴上。

在您的网络摄像头上贴一张贴纸

可能是
您可以为您的隐私做

的最好的事情,因为它是物有所值的。

确实
存在恶意软件

,即使没有打开灯,也可以接管您的网络摄像头

这是犯罪分子使用的。
这是跟踪者使用的。

你可以在线购买 19.99 美元的“
窥探你的前女友”软件。

这真的很可怕。

然后,当然,
它被政府使用。

这显然
包含性暴力成分,

即这种监视
可以最有效地用于

对付女性和其他
在我们社会中可能会被羞辱的人。

即使您认为
自己没有什么可隐瞒的,

至少,如果
您的生活中有孩子、青少年,请

确保
在他们的相机上贴上贴纸并保护他们。

侯:哇。 太感谢了。
CS:谢谢。

HW:谢谢,克里斯。

(掌声)