DOCSLIB.ORG

FBI–Apple Encryption Dispute - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 6/2/16, 6:59 AM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FBI–Apple Encryption Dispute - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 6/2/16, 6:59 AM FBI–Apple encryption dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 6/2/16, 6:59 AM FBI–Apple encryption dispute From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The FBI–Apple encryption dispute concerns whether and to what extent courts in the United States can compel manufacturers to assist in unlocking cell phones whose contents are cryptographically protected.[1] There is much debate over public access to strong encryption.[2] In 2015 and 2016, Apple Inc. has received and objected to or challenged at least 11 orders issued by United States district courts under the All Writs Act of 1789. Most of these seek to compel Apple "to use its existing capabilities to extract data like contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhones running on operating systems iOS 7 and older" in order to assist in criminal investigations and prosecutions. A few requests, however, involve phones with more extensive security protections, which Apple has no current ability to break. These orders would compel Apple to write new software that would let the government bypass these device's security and unlock the phones.[3] The most well-known instance of the latter category was a February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The FBI wanted Apple to create and electronically An iPhone 5C, the model used by one sign new software that would enable the FBI to unlock a work-issued of the perpetrators of the 2015 San iPhone 5C it recovered from one of the shooters in a December 2015 Bernardino attack terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people and injured 22. The two attackers later died in a shootout with police, having first destroyed their personal phones. The work phone was recovered intact but was locked with a four-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after ten failed password attempts. Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying they had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone and, on March 28, it announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request. In another case in Brooklyn, a magistrate judge ruled that the All Writs Act could not be used to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone. The government appealed the ruling, but then dropped the case on April 22 after it was given the correct passcode. Contents 1 Background 2 Apple ordered to assist the FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute Page 1 of 15 FBI–Apple encryption dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 6/2/16, 6:59 AM 2.1 Technical details of the order 2.2 Apple's opposition to the order 2.3 Legal arguments 2.4 FBI withdrawal of request 3 Other All Writs Act cases involving iPhones 4 Reactions 4.1 Support for Apple 4.2 Support for FBI 4.3 Calls for compromise 4.4 Proposed legislation 5 See also 6 References 7 External links Background In 1993, the National Security Agency (NSA) introduced the Clipper chip, an encryption device with an acknowledged backdoor for government access, that NSA proposed be used for phone encryption. The proposal touched off a public debate, known as the Crypto Wars, and the Clipper chip was never adopted.[4] It was revealed as a part of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures by Edward Snowden that the NSA and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had access to the user data in iPhones, BlackBerry, and Android phones and could read almost all smartphone information, including SMS, location, emails, and notes.[5] According to The New York Times, Apple developed new encryption methods for its iOS operating system, versions 8 and later, "so deep that Apple could no longer comply with government warrants asking for James Comey, Director of the FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute Page 2 of 15 FBI–Apple encryption dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 6/2/16, 6:59 AM customer information to be extracted from devices."[6] Throughout 2015, prosecutors advocated for the U.S. government to be able to compel decryption of iPhone contents.[7][8][9][10] In September 2015, Apple released a white paper detailing the security measures in its then-new iOS 9 operating system. The iPhone 5C model can be protected by a four-digit PIN code. After more than ten incorrect attempts to unlock the phone with the wrong PIN, the contents of the phone will be rendered unaccessible by erasing the AES encryption key that protects its stored data. According to the Apple white paper, iOS includes a Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) mode, and that "[r]estoring a device after it enters DFU mode returns it to a known good state with the certainty that only unmodified Apple-signed code is present."[11] Apple ordered to assist the FBI Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer of Apple Inc. Cook and FBI Director The FBI recovered an Apple iPhone 5C owned by the San Bernardino Comey have both spoken publicly County, California government, that had been issued to its employee, about the case. Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters involved in the December 2015 San Bernardino attack.[12] The attack killed 14 people and seriously injured 22. The two attackers died four hours after the attack in a shootout with police, having previously destroyed their personal phones. Farook's work phone was recovered intact, however.[13] The phone had been locked with a four-digit password.[14] On February 9, 2016, the FBI announced that it was unable to unlock the county-owned phone it recovered, due to its advanced security features, including encryption of user data.[15][16] As a result, the FBI asked Apple Inc. to create a new version of the phone's iOS operating system that could be installed and run in the phone's random access memory to disable certain security features that Apple refers to as "GovtOS". Apple declined due to its policy to never undermine the security features of its products. The FBI responded by successfully applying to a United States magistrate judge, Sherri Pym, to issue a court order, mandating Apple to create and provide the requested software.[17] The order was not a subpoena, but rather was issued under the All Writs Act of 1789.[18][19] The court order, called In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.[20][21][22] The use of the All Writs Act to compel Apple to write new software was unprecedented and, according to legal experts, it was likely to prompt "an epic fight pitting privacy against national security."[23] It was also pointed out that the implications of the legal precedent that would be established by the success of this action against Apple would go far beyond issues of privacy.[24] Technical details of the order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute Page 3 of 15 FBI–Apple encryption dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 6/2/16, 6:59 AM The court order specified that Apple provide assistance to accomplish the following: 1. "it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled"[21] (this user- configurable feature of iOS 8 automatically deletes keys needed to read encrypted data after ten consecutive incorrect attempts[25]) 2. "it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available"[21] 3. "it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware"[21] The order also specifies that Apple's assistance may include providing software to the FBI that "will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the [software] would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE"[21] There has been much research and analysis of the technical issues presented in the case since the court order was made available to the public.[26] Apple's opposition to the order The February 16, 2016 order issued by Magistrate Judge Pym gave Apple five days to apply for relief if Apple believed the order was "unreasonably burdensome". Apple announced its intent to oppose the order, citing the security risks that the creation of a backdoor would pose towards customers.[27] It also stated that no government had ever asked for similar access.[28] The company was given until February 26 to fully respond to the court order.[29][30] On the same day the order was issued, chief executive officer Tim Cook released an online statement to Apple customers, explaining the company's motives for opposing the court order. He also stated that while they respect the FBI, the request they made threatens data security by establishing a precedent that the U.S. government could use to force any technology company to create software that could undermine the security of its products.[31] He said in part: The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.[31] In response to the opposition, on February 19, the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Apple & Deloitte Team up to Accelerate Business
    NEWS RELEASE Apple & Deloitte Team Up to Accelerate Business Transformation on iPhone & iPad 9/28/2016 Deloitte Introduces New Apple Practice to Help Businesses Design & Implement iPhone & iPad Solutions CUPERTINO, Calif. & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Apple® and Deloitte today announced a partnership to help companies quickly and easily transform the way they work by maximizing the power, ease-of-use and security the iOS platform brings to the workplace through iPhone® and iPad®. As part of the joint effort, Deloitte is creating a first-of-its-kind Apple practice with over 5,000 strategic advisors who are solely focused on helping businesses change the way they work across their entire enterprise, from customer-facing functions such as retail, field services and recruiting, to R&D, inventory management and back-office systems. This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160928006317/en/ Apple CEO Tim Cook and Deloitte Global CEO Punit Renjen meet at Apple's campus to Apple and Deloitte will also announce a joint effort to accelerate business transformation using iOS, iPhone & iPad. collaborate on the development (Courtesy of Apple/Roy Zipstein) of a new service offering from Deloitte Consulting called EnterpriseNext, designed to help clients fully take advantage of the iOS ecosystem of hardware, software and services in the workplace. The new offering will help customers discover the highest impact possibilities within their industries and quickly develop custom solutions through rapid prototyping. 1 “We know that iOS is the best mobile platform for business because we’ve experienced the benefit ourselves with over 100,000 iOS devices in use by Deloitte’s workforce, running 75 custom apps,” said Punit Renjen, CEO of Deloitte Global.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FREE-MARKET WELFARE STATE: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World
    Policy Essay THE FREE-MARKET WELFARE STATE: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World Samuel Hammond1 Poverty and Welfare Policy Analyst Niskanen Center May 2018 INTRODUCTION welfare state” directly depresses the vote for reac- tionary political parties.3 Conversely, I argue that he perennial gale of creative destruc- the contemporary rise of anti-market populism in tion…” wrote the economist Joseph America should be taken as an indictment of our in- 4 Schumpeter, “…is the essential fact of adequate social-insurance system, and a refutation “T of the prevailing “small government” view that reg- capitalism.” For new industries to rise and flourish, old industries must fail. Yet creative destruction is ulation and social spending are equally corrosive to a process that is rarely—if ever—politically neu- economic freedom. The universal welfare state, far tral; even one-off economic shocks can have lasting from being at odds with innovation and economic political-economic consequences. From his vantage freedom, may end up being their ultimate guaran- point in 1942, Schumpeter believed that capitalism tor. would become the ultimate victim of its own suc- The fallout from China’s entry to the World Trade cess, inspiring reactionary and populist movements Organization (WTO) in 2001 is a clear case in against its destructive side that would inadvertently point. Cheaper imports benefited millions of Amer- strangle any potential for future creativity.2 icans through lower consumer prices. At the same This paper argues that the countries that have time, Chinese import competition destroyed nearly eluded Schumpeter’s dreary prediction have done two million jobs in manufacturing and associated 5 so by combining free-markets with robust systems services—a classic case of creative destruction.
    [Show full text]
  • 820 First St NE #675 Washington, DC 20002 Climate Policy and Litigation
    820 First St NE #675 Washington, DC 20002 Climate Policy and Litigation Program Report FY 2018-2019 December 2019 The Niskanen Center’s Climate Policy and Litigation Program Report 2018 through 2019 Over the reporting period, Niskanen’s climate team has achieved significant progress toward each of our targeted intermediate outcomes and laid the groundwork to reach our ultimate objectives. We describe those accomplishments and what we have learned in the following report, and discuss where our strategic outlook has been reinforced and where it has been altered. Our focus remains on turning the Niskanen Center’s climate program into one of the most influential, informative, and innovative in Washington, D.C. When the Niskanen Center opened its doors five years ago, and even when the reporting period for our program initiated two years ago, leading Republicans embraced climate skepticism and were occupied with deconstructing the Obama Administration’s climate agenda. There had not been a bipartisan bill supporting carbon pricing since the failure of Waxman-Markey in 2009. Now, we see Republicans acknowledging the reality of human-caused climate change and seeking solutions of varying ambition. At the highest levels, several Republican members of Congress have introduced carbon tax legislation with prices over $30 per ton of CO2 emissions, which—were they law—would be the most ambitious national climate policy globally. The developments portend further progress in the coming years, as bipartisan groups of legislators can embrace both sectoral and comprehensive reforms. The Niskanen Center has been at the heart of these developments. Over the reporting period, Niskanen Center staff have provided policy input and advice for carbon pricing bills that have achieved bipartisan support, been asked for information on climate change and the available responses from formal and informal groups of legislators, and maintained a high volume of public appearances and commentary promoting market-based reforms to achieve a low-carbon economy.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 1 ORGANISATION PROFILE 1.1: History Founders Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak Created Apple Computer on April 1 1976,And
    CHAPTER 1 ORGANISATION PROFILE 1.1: History Founders Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created Apple Computer on April 1 1976,and incorporated the company on January 3, 1977, in Cupertino, California.For more than three decades, Apple Computer was predominantly a manufacturer of personal computers, including the Apple II, Macintosh, and Power Mac lines, but it faced rocky sales and low market share during the 1990s. Jobs, who had been ousted from the company in 1985, returned to Apple in 1996 after his company NeXT was bought by Apple. The following year he became the company's interim CEO, which later became permanent Jobs subsequently instilled a new corporate philosophy of recognizable products and simple design, starting with the original iMac in 1998.With the introduction of the successful iPod music player in 2001 and iTunes Music Store in 2003, Apple established itself as a leader in the consumer electronics and media sales industries, leading it to drop "Computer" from the company's name in 2007. The company is now also known for its iOS range of smart phone, media player, and tablet computer products that began with the iPhone, followed by the iPod Touch and then iPad. 1.2: Geographical region and country Apple inc was established in Cupertino, California,United States of America. Apple Inc largest geographic markets are United States of America, Europe, China, Japan, and Asia Pasific(NASDAQ;APPL). Figure 1: The percentage of Apple Inc Total Net Sales by NASDAQ for the year 2014 1.3: Type of organization 1 Apple Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc., is a multinational corporation that creates consumer electronics, personal computers, servers, and computer software, and is a digital distributor of media content.
    [Show full text]
  • From Struggles to Stardom
    AAPL 175.01 Steve Jobs 12/21/17 $200.0 100.0 80.0 17 60.0 Apple co-founders 14 Steve Wozniak 40.0 and Steve Jobs 16 From Struggles 10 20.0 9 To Stardom Jobs returns Following its volatile 11 10.0 8.0 early years, Apple has 12 enjoyed a prolonged 6.0 period of earnings 15 and stock market 5 4.0 gains. 2 7 2.0 1.0 1 0.8 4 13 1 6 0.6 8 0.4 0.2 3 Chart shown in logarithmic scale Tim Cook 0.1 1980 ’82 ’84 ’86’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98 ’00 ’02 ’04 ’06’08 ’10 ’12 ’14 ’16 2018 Source: FactSet Dec. 12, 1980 (1) 1984 (3) 1993 (5) 1998 (8) 2003 2007 (12) 2011 2015 (16) Apple, best known The Macintosh computer Newton, a personal digital Apple debuts the iMac, an The iTunes store launches. Jobs announces the iPhone. Apple becomes the most valuable Apple Music, a subscription for the Apple II home launches, two days after assistant, launches, and flops. all-in-one desktop computer 2004-’05 (10) Apple releases the Apple TV publicly traded company, passing streaming service, launches. and iPod Touch, and changes its computer, goes public. Apple’s iconic 1984 1995 (6) with a colorful, translucent Apple unveils the iPod Mini, Exxon Mobil. Apple introduces 2017 (17 ) name from Apple Computer. Shares rise more than Super Bowl commercial. Microsoft introduces Windows body designed by Jony Ive. Shuffle, and Nano. the iPhone 4S with Siri. Tim Cook Introduction of the iPhone X.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Literacy in the Real World: Conversations & Case Studies
    DATA LITERACY IN THE REAL WORLD: Conversations & Case Studies EDITED BY Kristin Fontichiaro Amy Lennex Tyler Hoff Kelly Hovinga Jo Angela Oehrli Each piece in this document is Copyright © 2017 by the author named in the piece. Some rights reserved. Each piece is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, California, 94042, USA. This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services RE-00-15-0113-15, the University of Michigan School of Information, and the University of Michigan Library. Published in the United States of America by Michigan Publishing Manufactured in the United States of America DOI: 10.3998/mpub.9970368 ISBN 978-1-60785-452-4 (paper) ISBN 978-1-60785-453-1 (e-book) An imprint of Michigan Publishing, Maize Books serves the publishing needs of the University of Michigan community by making high-quality scholarship widely available in print and online. It represents a new model for authors seeking to share their work within and beyond the academy, off ering streamlined selection, production, and distribution processes. Maize Books is intended as a complement to more formal modes of publication in a wide range of disciplinary areas. http://www.maizebooks.org Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................i PART I WEBINARS ...............................................................................................................................................7 A.“But it’s a number, so it has to be true!”: An introduction to data literacy, Part I .............
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Security for Activists
    Training the Motivated: Digital Security for Activists Glencora Borradaile Kelsy Kretschmer Abstract School of Electrical Engineering School of Public Policy The state of global surveillance and the political and Computer Science Sociology Program environment has many activists caring more about their Oregon State University Oregon State University online security culture. We report on the initiation of a Corvallis, OR 97331, USA Corvallis, OR 97331, USA Digital Security for Activists program and a pilot study of an [email protected] [email protected] introductory seminar. Pre- and post-surveys of the seminar will form an initial assessment of what kind of intervention might increase the security practices of activists and to inform the design of program offerings. We report on the pre-surveys from three offerings of the seminar. Introduction In collaboration with the Civil Liberties Defense Center (CLDC), the first author had been offering informal digital security trainings for activists and their lawyers. After the fall elections in the U.S., requests for these trainings increased dramatically and shortly thereafter we launched a Digital Security for Activists (DSA) program. The DSA program’s intent is to align with the CLDC mission (“to defend and uphold civil liberties through education, outreach, litigation, legal support, and assistance”) and enable citizen activists to assert their constitutional rights while organizing online. Copyright is held by the author/owner. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee. Poster In order to provide trainings that are useful and effective, we presented at the 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The Department of Justice Versus Apple Inc. -- the Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy and National Security
    Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology Volume 27 Issue 2 Spring 2019 Article 3 2019 The Department of Justice Versus Apple Inc. -- The Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy and National Security Julia P. Eckart Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jlt Part of the Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Other Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Julia P. Eckart, The Department of Justice Versus Apple Inc. -- The Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy and National Security, 27 Cath. U. J. L. & Tech 1 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jlt/vol27/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE VERSUS APPLE INC.—THE GREAT ENCRYPTION DEBATE BETWEEN PRIVACY AND NATIONAL SECURITY Julia P. Eckart* I. THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE DOJ–APPLE DISPUTE ........................3 A. Timeline of the Parties’ Court-Filed Documents ......................................6 B. Issues Presented in the DOJ–Apple Litigation ..........................................8 II. APPLE’S iOS9.0 SECURITY GUIDE ..........................................................9 A. Some of Apple’s Encryption and Non-Encryption Security Features ........9 B. Other Hardware and Software System Security Features .......................11 III. DOES THIS CASE PERTAIN TO A SINGLE IPHONE OR ALL IPHONES? .......................................................................................................12 A. DOJ’s Position—It is About One, Single iPhone ....................................12 B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2021 The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Williamson Grassle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the American Politics Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Grassle, Williamson, "The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change" (2021). CMC Senior Theses. 2663. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2663 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College The Politicization and Polarization of Climate Change Submitted to Professor John J. Pitney, Jr. By Williamson Grassle For Senior Thesis Spring 2021 May 3rd 1 Table of Contents TITLE……………………………………………………………………………………..1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….3 ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………4 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...5 CHAPTER 1 – LATE 20TH, EARLY 21ST CENTURY………………………………....12 CHAPTER 2 – RECENT………………………………………………………………...24 CHAPTER 3 – FUTURE………………………………………………………………...39 WORK CITED…………………………………………………………………………...52 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor John J. Pitney for his guidance and support on this thesis. Throughout my time at Claremont McKenna, you have helped foster my passion for politics and define my interest in environmental policy. Without your guidance and expertise, I would not have been able to complete this project. 3 Abstract In the mid to late 20th-century, climate change and other environmental issues were addressed on a bipartisan basis, with Republican politicians like President Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush supporting and advancing measures to combat climate change. However, since the 1990s, climate change has become increasingly polarized, with significant polarization in the last decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters Brett Weinstein Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Brett Weinstein, Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 217 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/15 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters Brett Weinstein INTRODUCTION In early June of 2013, governmental surveillance suddenly and dramatically entered the public consciousness, prompting a torrent of debate and backlash. The Guardian published a top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all telephone call records to the National Security Agency (NSA); the Washington Post disclosed a secret but widespread Internet surveillance program, and months of similar revelations followed, all stemming from leaks by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.1 As a result, the public and the press began to question the tools that the government uses for surveillance, including National Security Letters (NSLs), and the relationship between the government and the technology and telecommunications companies that seemingly possess all personal and private information generated in the modern, digital world.2 J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Large Corporations Contributed to Our Political Polarization Here’S How They Can Fix It
    Policy Essay Large Corporations Contributed to Our Political Polarization Here’s How They Can Fix It Mark S. Mizruchi University of Michigan October 2020 Key Takeaways ► The U.S. has faced many difficulties in the past century, and our political system generally has risen to the challenge of addressing the problems. Today, however, the U.S. seems unable to overcome its extremism and gridlock. ► One difference that has contributed to extremism on the right: a decline in leadership by American corporate elite. ► The past decades have seen a notable shift, as American corporations have gone from embracing moderate, bipartisan solutions to aligning themselves with the far right. ► Today’s problems may seem more solvable if the corporate elite reject short-term solutions and return to the model of leadership shown in the past. The Niskanen Center is a 501(c)3 issue advocacy organization that works to change public policy through direct engagement in the policymaking process. NISKANEN CENTER | 820 FIRST ST. NE, SUITE 675 | WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 www.niskanencenter.org | For inquiries, please contact [email protected] Large Corporations Contributed to Our Political Polarization October 2020 Contents Introduction 3 The Postwar Period 5 The Postwar Moderate Consensus 6 Sources of the Moderate Postwar Consensus 9 The Decline of the Postwar Consensus 11 The Decline of the Corporate Elite 12 Where We Are, and Why 15 What Is to Be Done? 17 Conclusion 19 About the Author 21 NISKANEN CENTER 2 Large Corporations Contributed to Our Political Polarization October 2020 Introduction The American political system is broken. The fact that we have problems in our society is not new.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrets at Apple's Core [Entire Talk]
    Stanford eCorner Secrets at Apple's Core [Entire Talk] Adam Lashinsky, Author May 23, 2012 Video URL: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/videos/2973/Secrets-at-Apples-Core-Entire-Talk Adam Lashinsky, Fortune senior editor-at-large, shares an insider look at Apple, one of the world's most iconic and secretive companies. Based on his research into the technology giant's internal processes and approaches to leadership and building products, Lashinsky offers insights and surprises from his book, Inside Apple: How America's Most Admired--and Secretive-- Company Really Works. Transcript Almost exactly a year-ago this week I published an article in Fortune magazine with the same title as you see in front of you, Inside Apple. We decided at Fortune that in Apple we had a company that the entire world thought they knew a lot about because the world knew about Apple's products. And they knew about Apple's advertising and its image and its brand and its logo and so on. When in fact the world knew and really still does know very little about how Apple does what it does, what goes on inside Apple? There is a reason for that and it's a major part of my thesis and what I've learned in researching this company intensely over the last year and that is that Apple doesn't want us to know what goes on inside Apple. Apple is professionally focused on telling us, telling you about its products. Not about it. As a business journalist, my job is not to be concerned with what Apple is interested in us knowing, but what my readers at Fortune magazine ought to know and want to know.
    [Show full text]