31–40 of 91 posts
I'm not so sure that Apple wasn't aware and perhaps even looking for a battle with the {FBI,NSA,CIA,...} when they added encryption. You don't start designing a system that makes you incapable of fulfilling a warrant without expecting and indeed preparing for those battles in the future. In a way with things like NSL's and Secret warrants and courts the US had backed companies like Apple and Google into a wall. Post…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm missing what statement you're trying to make here – the point of the article is that the tech sector, which has traditionally be very unregulated, is starting to bump up against issues around wider social impact and state regulation. That may or may not be true, but I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to what seems to be a quite valid view to take.
> the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year. > Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing > That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s ba…
> Apple has been excoriated by presidential candidates, and backed into the tightest of corners by the FBI: the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year. I can't believe The Guardian is sounding so hostile to Apple in this context. Don't they understand the consequences?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc). Correct me if I'm wrong it sounds like you are saying encryption is undermining security? It might be you have that backwards?
Like he said, it's all about the narrative. Let me demonstrate. Pretend you're an average voter who has never heard of "Hacker" News. "Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text me…
"The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own."
It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.
> Apple has been excoriated by presidential candidates, and backed into the tightest of corners by the FBI: the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year. I can't believe The Guardian is sounding so hostile to Apple in this context. Don't they understand the consequences?!
It's not so surprising. A lot of people have been jealously watching on as 'fat cat' 'tech bros' eat into their industries. Now there are signs that the market will correct and that technology companies will not continue to get free passes with which to ignore government. In short, they want to see blood and will settle to see it whichever way they can. Tech on the whole needs to wise up politically. It cannot contin…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-s...
If you look through the other articles it's all been fairly pro-Apple:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple
It's a bit strange that a business writer has been allowed to fairly anonymously attack Apple, in what has been a pro-Snowdon/privacy paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so surprising. A lot of people have been jealously watching on as 'fat cat' 'tech bros' eat into their industries. Now there are signs that the market will correct and that technology companies will not continue to get free passes with which to ignore government. In short, they want to see blood and will settle to see it whichever way they can. Tech on the whole needs to wise up politically. It cannot contin…
It's odd, yesterday they had a fairly prominently displayed piece praising it (at least for the UK): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-s... If you look through the other articles it's all been fairly pro-Apple: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple It's a bit strange that a business writer has been allowed to fairly anonymously attack Apple, in what has been a pro-Snowdon/privacy paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like he said, it's all about the narrative. Let me demonstrate. Pretend you're an average voter who has never heard of "Hacker" News. "Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text me…
Pretend I'm the token IT guy in your friend network, "The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own." It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like he said, it's all about the narrative. Let me demonstrate. Pretend you're an average voter who has never heard of "Hacker" News. "Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text me…
Pretend I'm the token IT guy in your friend network, "The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own." It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.
Just pointing out that the IT guy may not have much sway over the general population.
It's hard being on the wrong side of prevailing sentiments, and when all this pans out I think people will be a little shocked at how the tech sector's enormous financial advantages will have carried less weight than anyone expected. You can't win politics with money alone. You need a narrative that appeals to peoples' values. Privacy is not a winner in this regard, nor is unrestricted markets (note the leading repub…
> People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc). Correct me if I'm wrong it sounds like you are saying encryption is undermining security? It might be you have that backwards?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like he said, it's all about the narrative. Let me demonstrate. Pretend you're an average voter who has never heard of "Hacker" News. "Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text me…
Pretend I'm the token IT guy in your friend network, "The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own." It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.