Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 114 posts

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#11

Post by joycey »

draw_down wrote: post #4

I'm not sure I understand the distinction he's making. G will comply with "valid legal orders"; what is not "valid" about the order Apple got? Why is granting law enforcement different from hacking devices, the point of which is to gain access to data?

I believe the difference is that Apple/Google are okay with turning over user data on a case-by-case basis provided there's a proper subpoena from a judge, but not okay with building a tool for the FBI that will allow them to look at any user's data. The former is equivalent to allowing the government to open your mail and wander around your house provided that they've obtained a search warrant. The latter is equivalent to building a tool that would allow the government to open anyone's mail and wander around anyone's house without a search warrant.

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#13

Post by Oletros »

melted wrote: post #7

Translation into English: our algorithms like your data very much, and we can't do anything with it if we can't read it. Shove your privacy needs where sun doesn't shine. We'll continue to give your data to the NSA without any judicial review.

Translation: I'm trying hard but I don't have the level to even start a flamebait

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#14

Post by prutschman »

joycey wrote: post #11
draw_down wrote: post #4

I'm not sure I understand the distinction he's making. G will comply with "valid legal orders"; what is not "valid" about the order Apple got? Why is granting law enforcement different from hacking devices, the point of which is to gain access to data?

I believe the difference is that Apple/Google are okay with turning over user data on a case-by-case basis provided there's a proper subpoena from a judge, but not okay with building a tool for the FBI that will allow them to look at any user's data. The former is equivalent to allowing the government to open your mail and wander around your house provided that they've obtained a search warrant. The latter is equival…

The FBI claims they're willing to accept a device-locked hack, that it's fine if it is only RAM-resident, and that Apple may keep the device on their own premises so long as FBI can attempt multiple pin entries electronically without risking a wipe.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/this-is-how-the-fbi-wants-apple...

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#15

Post by icebraining »

joycey wrote: post #11
draw_down wrote: post #4

I'm not sure I understand the distinction he's making. G will comply with "valid legal orders"; what is not "valid" about the order Apple got? Why is granting law enforcement different from hacking devices, the point of which is to gain access to data?

I believe the difference is that Apple/Google are okay with turning over user data on a case-by-case basis provided there's a proper subpoena from a judge, but not okay with building a tool for the FBI that will allow them to look at any user's data. The former is equivalent to allowing the government to open your mail and wander around your house provided that they've obtained a search warrant. The latter is equival…

I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device.

I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access.

Which is interesting, since he's essentially admitting that their push to send everything to "the cloud" makes their users less safe from governmental snooping (justified or not). Of course, we already knew that, but it's curious to see Google's own CEO say it.

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#16

Post by rhizome »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #9
cryptoz wrote: post #2

There is full 'tweetstorm' that follows (this is 1/5), but I don't know how to link to that. Is it possible to link to a series of tweets? 2: https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104342720761856 3: https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104383762026496 4: https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104433183502336 5: https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104478360342528 Or we can read an article by The…

Storyify does a good job of making these readable: https://storify.com/fuzzywah/sundar-pichai-responds-to-apple...

...once you get over the learning curve.

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#17

Post by Oletros »

icebraining wrote: post #15
joycey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the difference is that Apple/Google are okay with turning over user data on a case-by-case basis provided there's a proper subpoena from a judge, but not okay with building a tool for the FBI that will allow them to look at any user's data. The former is equivalent to allowing the government to open your mail and wander around your house provided that they've obtained a search warrant. The latter is equival…

I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device. I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access. Which is interesting, since he's essentially admitting that their push to send everything to "the cloud" makes their users less safe from governmental…

> I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access.

No, Pichai is making a distinction between giving the information after a correct process and developing a backdoor to slurp the data. It has nothing to do with cloud/device differences

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#18

Post by tbrock »

Twitter doesn't seem like an appropriate medium for a response to this issue from a CEO of a major tech company.

Hello! This isn't a picture of the burger you had for lunch or a pithy remark fest, it's the most important thing affecting your users today.

Take some time and write a god damn letter with your company's stance.

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#19

Post by rhizome »

icebraining wrote: post #15
joycey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the difference is that Apple/Google are okay with turning over user data on a case-by-case basis provided there's a proper subpoena from a judge, but not okay with building a tool for the FBI that will allow them to look at any user's data. The former is equivalent to allowing the government to open your mail and wander around your house provided that they've obtained a search warrant. The latter is equival…

I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device. I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access. Which is interesting, since he's essentially admitting that their push to send everything to "the cloud" makes their users less safe from governmental…

I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device

Aside from the non-sequitur, what Apple has been asked for is a custom build of iOS.

Re: Sundar Pichai Responds to Apple and the FBI Hacking Request

#20

Post by tadfisher »

rhizome wrote: post #19
icebraining wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device. I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access. Which is interesting, since he's essentially admitting that their push to send everything to "the cloud" makes their users less safe from governmental…

I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device Aside from the non-sequitur, what Apple has been asked for is a custom build of iOS.

That's stretching the jargon a bit. I know that's what Cook said, but it could be a one-off process without the "custom build" leaving Apple's hands. Basically, comment out the time-delay and wipe code, build, sign, and push to the device.

Really the most important part there is the "sign" step, and the fact that the FBI isn't straight-up asking for the signing keys is telling; they didn't want this request to escalate the way it has.

Post reply on HN