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

Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#41

Post by codeisawesome »

vidarh wrote: post #33
codeisawesome wrote: post #23

> 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?!

What sounds hostile about it? They are describing the challenges Apple are facing, not judging them.

Frankly, yes on second reading I agree with your assessment. However the whole tone of the article, especially during "scan reading", seems to attempt to tilt the reader's judgement against Apple.

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#42

Post by fixermark »

zaphar wrote: post #21

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…

I suspect there's an emotional angle to this that people may not be aware of, either.

There are quite a few people active in software engineering today at major companies who grew up with the sci-fi ecosystem of dystopia stories that were relatively prevalent in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Add into the mix their observations and experiences watching the dotcom boom and bust, the first major cases of the FBI chasing down hackers and trying to deal with the inadequacies of the law to handle that class of crime by redlining all the punishments the law allowed, and the utter ridiculousness that was the war between file sharing systems / communities and the RIAA / MPAA, and you end up with a culture primed to see themselves as the smart guardians of the common person against abuse by authority. Even though they are the establishment now, they still see themselves as anti-establishment, taking a stand for little people against Big Brother. That's not necessarily a true reflection of the world (in many cases, the large software companies can themselves stand accused of being Big Brother), but it's the myth they grew up with.

And along comes clear and indisputable evidence that their governments have not only the theoretical capacity to mass-harvest data and mass-survey people, they are actually doing it and have actively breached the security infrastructure at the companies these people work for to make it happen. So people in the tech sector are mad. Seething, in fact. We talk of governments metaphorically breaking into people's houses, but it's not a metaphor for the people whose day-job it is to physically secure their houses---the people the governments have actually physically wiretapped, using Cold War-era techniques, without permission.

So if the governments want a war about who owns information, the people who work in the tech sector are excited to give them one.

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#43

Post by studentrob »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #32
dave_sullivan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't think I am seeing the same tone as you. These quotes don't sound anti-tech, they are discussing difficulties and issues in the sector – that's quite distinct!

They are anti-tech. Anything anti-encryption is anti-tech: tech doesn't exist without encryption.

> 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.

It isn't hard. The case is a right to privacy, which also happens to be a huge part of ANY tech company's business. The reason we use so much tech these days is because of the privacy controls. Also, Snowden and others pointed out the FBI probably has all useful the information it could retrieve about this terrorist anyway, so the work phone is relatively useless.

> 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

Translation - "tech companies are creating problems in modern life akin to oil companies' oil spills"

> That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule.

- "Tech companies are in a weak position and will probably lose this battle"

> What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”

"What if" sounds like the author is warning of impending doom on the tech sector. The suggested cases are not far-fetched, but yeah, tech doesn't traffic people, people traffic people.

> This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means.

I don't know how you can read that as anything but anti-tech. I believe tech business understands encryption deeply, and has even striven to understand the government's position and comply whenever possible. It is the government who needs to come to the table and sincerely listen and understand the implications of what it is asking, that a) their solution will hurt IT in the US and future innovation of humanity and b) their solution won't work since criminals will simply find another encryption app or device to use

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#44

Post by p01926 »

vidarh wrote: post #29
p01926 wrote: post #4

You can almost hear the Guardian's business leader writers rubbing their hands at the prospect. Which is as shameful and shortsighted as it is atypical for the Guardian. I would guess the team behind this article are acutely aware of the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon. Perhaps they're looking for a lifeboat with the Apple-despising Financial Times?

> the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon. The Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian Media Group had about 1.1 billion pounds net assets, of which the vast majority are liquid, as of end of March 2015 (after they've over the last few years sold of shares in various regional newspapers and AutoTrader, shoring up their balance sheet massively). The sole purpose of The Sco…

See this FT article [1] (a admittedly biased competitor) from late last month. Their cash shrank from £840M to £740M in the last year, and they're planning to cut "costs" by 20%.

That's a tragedy at such a great newspaper, but it does color their analysis regarding the companies most responsible for their decline.

[1] http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/25/guardian-to-cut-costs-by...

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#45

Post by studentrob »

jezclaremurugan wrote: post #38
studentrob wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many people have a token IT guy in their friend network? and how much do they respect what he/she says when it contradicts their familiar narrative? Why have those IT guys not been able to stop their friends from downloading/installing stupid stuff and so on? Just pointing out that the IT guy may not have much sway over the general population.

I'm sure it varies, but it wasn't hard for me to convince my friends, and that's not because they respect me, it's because it's an easily explainable thing.

If we're talking about character-based influence though, then we should also consider how people perceive Apple and the government. People love Apple products, and law enforcement overreach videos and stories have been circulating a lot lately.

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#46

Post by forgotpwtomain »

rayiner wrote: post #40
studentrob wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think even the token IT guy is wondering how the FBI's request to break specific iPhones in their possession is going to undermine iPhone security for everybody.

> I think even the token IT guy is wondering how the FBI's request to break specific iPhones in their possession is going to undermine iPhone security for everybody.

Could you elaborate on how the precedent of signing a custom IOS release for a specific target IPhone is distinctly different and cannot be interpolated to further and broader requests? For example a request for custom IOS version which the FBI can install on other target phones themselves?

The other point to consider is that if the US government can compel companies to create and sign custom binaries there are other governments (China) that I'm sure would love to play at the same game. From a security standpoint it would be best for everyone if what the FBI is currently asking was entirely impossible in the first place.

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#47

Post by studentrob »

rayiner wrote: post #40
studentrob wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think even the token IT guy is wondering how the FBI's request to break specific iPhones in their possession is going to undermine iPhone security for everybody.

Hmm if his only source of IT news is The Guardian then I'd agree with you, but most of us go a little deeper than surface level. That's how we came to be in IT in the first place.

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#49

Post by nerdcity »

jokoon wrote: post #8

Well I can't expect HN to agree with this article, but let's face it, technologies pose new political questions. I think the argument about the iPhone backdoor software is a slippery slope one. As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. This is what Snowden is about. We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise, so I wo…

>We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise

I can taste your sweet fear from here.

Re: Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

#50

Post by twoodfin »

rayiner wrote: post #40
studentrob wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think even the token IT guy is wondering how the FBI's request to break specific iPhones in their possession is going to undermine iPhone security for everybody.

I'm actually wondering this, too. Is there a technological reason why Apple fulfilling this request makes their (not subject-to-warrant) customers less secure? Why isn't their private code-signing key the linchpin?

I fully buy that there are legal, cultural, and diplomatic reasons that this could make Apple's customers less secure in the long run by setting a precedent, etc.

I guess one argument is that whatever code they write to tie the "weaponized" iOS update to a particular device could have bugs.

Post reply on HN