听说苹果和FBI公开撕了，然而爱学习的宝宝我只关心公开信的知识点
不知各位是否还记得三年前的“棱镜门”事件(PRISM) ，那时作为美国国防部前雇员的斯诺登(Edward Snowden)向外界披露美国的惊天监控阴谋，当然也因此违反了美国的间谍法，直到现在仍流亡海外。而如今，苹果公司也因为去年一起发生在San Bernardino的一起枪击案陷入了“公民隐私”和所谓的“政府执法”之间的两难境地。
2月16日，库克发文《致消费者的一封信》，让我们看到，苹果并没有太多的犹豫，库克通过“危险的先例”这一描述，愤怒且直截了当的指控了美国政府的这种越权行为。
去年12 月， 发生一起袭击案，Syed Rizwan Farook 和妻子对当地一家社会服务机构发起袭击，一共造成了 14 人死亡，随后，这两人在枪战中被警方击毙。
事后，警察发现了一部属于 Syed Rizwan Farook 的 iPhone 5c 手机，调查人员试图解锁这部 iPhone，但碍于 iPhone 的信息保护措施，调查人员的努力都成了徒劳。于是洛杉矶地方法院要求苹果公司提供技术协助、解锁这部 iPhone 5c。
而FBI 在向苹果索要相关数据之外，还提出了一个要求，那就是为 iPhone 开发一个“后门”，正是这个要求最终激怒了库克，也最终引出了这封致消费者的信。
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented［空前的］ step which threatens thesecurity of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand［在附近；即将到来的］.
This moment calls for public discussion,and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake[在危险中，处于成败关头].
The Need for Encryption［编码］
Smartphones,led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts,our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where weare going.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers ［黑客］and criminals who want to access it,steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding［保卫］ their data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk［置… 于风险之中］. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For manyyears, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data becausewe believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our ownreach［触不可及］, because we believethe contents of your iPhone are none of our business［与我们无关］.
The San Bernardino Case
We were shocked and outraged［气愤的］by the deadly［致命的］act of terrorism in San Bernardinolast December. We mourn［哀叹、悲叹］the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy［同情］ for terrorists［恐怖组织］.
When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession［占有、拥有］, we have provided it. Applecomplies with valid subpoenas［传票］and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal ［可自由支配的］.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point［直到此时］, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. governmenthas asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor［后门］ to the iPhone.
Specifically,the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing［设法克服、规避］ several important security features, and install［安装］it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software —which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building aversion of iOS that bypasses［绕过、躲开］securityin this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
The Threat to Data Security
Some wouldargue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut［直接了当的、鲜明的、整洁的］solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of［等价于］a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The governmentis asking Apple to hack［黑客攻击］our own users and undermine［破坏］decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens —from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals［网络犯罪］. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically［讽刺地］, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists［密码专家］and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning［善意的、好心的］ and law-abiding［守法的］ citizens who rely on companies likeApple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, usingt ools that are readily available to them.
A Dangerous Precedent
Rather than asking for legislative［立法的、司法的］action through Congress［国会］, the FBI is proposing［提议］ an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act［法案］of 1789 to justify an expansion ofits authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force［蛮力、暴力］,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would havethe power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The governmentcould extend this breach of privacy［违反隐私权］ and demand that Apple build surveillance［监视］software to intercept ［拦截］your messages, access［获得］your health records orfinancial data, track［跟踪］your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without yourknowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly［应付对待…］. We feel we must speakup in the face of［直面］ what we see as an overreach［不自量力的行为、不可能成功的事情］ by the U.S. government.
We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respectfor American democracy［民主］ and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of ［以…的利益］everyone to step back［后退］ and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions［意图］ are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into ourproducts. And ultimately［最终］, we fear that this demand would undermine thevery freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
Tim Cook
库克的公开信可谓一石激起千层浪，谷歌、Facebook、Twitter各个科技公司的当家纷纷表示支持。
谷歌大当家桑德尔连发五条Twitter支持库克，表示政府对于科技公司的信息获取应当符合国家的法律框架。硅谷甄嬛杰克·多西更是直接表示“我们支持Tim库克和苹果并且感谢他们的引导。”
Sundar Pichai连发5条Twitter支持库克
至于当年棱镜门的主角，斯诺登，则继续对FBI和美国政府表示质疑，难道人民的自由和隐私权要靠苹果公司来维护？
中国人民的老朋友斯诺登对FBI的质疑
1974年，随着越战的扩大化，《纽约时报》解密公布了越战私密文件。五角大楼文件事件导致尼克松政府威严扫地，在水门事件结束之前，尼克松就被迫下台，从此美国的文件公开和国家隐私进入公众视线。
2010年，维基解密联合在《纽约时报》、《卫报》等媒体的配合下，在网络上公开了驻阿富汗美军9.2万份文件，网络时代的信息安全问题第一次得到暴露。
今天通哥通过这封信，不仅希望大家来学习地道的英文表达和丰富的语言素材，同时也希望大家作为世界的一个小小的组成部分，怀揣着满满对这个世界的好奇，蠢蠢欲动的去探索此时彼地的另一个真实的故事。
本文作者杜通。睿途教育长线规划负责人
在家等放榜，看八卦，却不知道苦海何时到头，回复[查]，了解小编辛苦准备的top100大学放榜日期。
每个人出国的原因不尽相同，有人为了当上CEO，赢取白富美，有人则仅仅是因为热爱，回复[乐队]，告诉你一个简单酷炫的留学故事。