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

Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 293 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#21

Post by pcurve »

uptown wrote: post #5
pcurve wrote: post #2

This is an interesting tug of war. Considering 50% of Americans are taking the opposite stance, the SV elites are in the minority. (35%) Yet no pro-government business executive has emerged. I guess it's a risky position to take. I have a feeling the government will eventually figure out a way to get its way without our realizing.

I consider the "50% of Americans" stat to be useless. This is a complicated topic for technologists to grasp. To expect the general public to understand the implications of what they're being asked in order to provide an informed answer is a stretch.

It is a complicated topic but we can't just ignore general public that takes on position without realizing its implications. For decades, general public had opposed marijuana, even when half of them have used them before.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#22

Post by msabalau »

pcurve wrote: post #2

This is an interesting tug of war. Considering 50% of Americans are taking the opposite stance, the SV elites are in the minority. (35%) Yet no pro-government business executive has emerged. I guess it's a risky position to take. I have a feeling the government will eventually figure out a way to get its way without our realizing.

Despite nearly a year of campaigning, 6 months of extensive political coverage, non-stop advertising, and series of debates with large audiences when push came to shove a third of New Hampshire primary voters decided in the last few days before election.

Perhaps it's a bit premature to treat people's responses to a quickie poll as evidence that people are "taking an opposite stance" as opposed to giving their immediate impression.

It seems likely that Apple, Google and Facebook could make a case that would persuade people, especially with the support of the EFF, ACLU, and Amnesty International.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#24

Post by jsmthrowaway »

neom wrote: post #17
gschrader wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a DO (digital ocean) customer, care to elaborate?

Under penalty of prosecution, not really. All I can say is that they genuinely do their best to protect you. For me it's that they have to spent a lot of resource (fiscal and other) to protect you from what is in my opinion: really sketchy shameful shit on the US and many other government's part. If people want to really know why tech companies are at the point of enough is enough, it's because many governments conti…

> Under penalty of perjury, not really.

Since you're quite obviously having to dance around how to communicate the fact that you've received NSLs and invocations of CALEA that made you feel queasy (I feel your pain for similar, vague, hypothetical reasons), perjury isn't the legal concept that you're after there. You want 18 USC 2709, and for those keeping score at home, to my knowledge nobody has been prosecuted for violating (C)(1) which would test that law on appeal. The Internet Archive famously challenged the nondisclosure itself and won, which is a bit different.

I honestly don't know with what they'd charge you. Obstruction, maybe, but there's enough national security buzzwords in the (again, I've heard) letters and law to give me pause on considering civil disobedience there. The law does say in 18 USC 3511 that they can invoke a district court to force compliance, and then contempt can follow. But unclear on the nondisclosure part in the absence of a court order, and that's scary.

(BTW, IANAL, just an ex-hoster with a penchant for policy, and I'd love to hear someone like rayiner's view on this.)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#25

Post by fleshweasel »

pbreit wrote: post #20
Etheryte wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever, care to expand on what you meant?

I was originally wholly on the side of Apple since I place an exceedingly high value on privacy and against government intrusion. But now that I understand that the phone is the county's, it seems more like a case of a phone owner just wanting to recover their own data. Thanks for the downvote, though!

They were eventually able to get into the phone without the backdoor. The shooter's employer was able to change the iCloud password on it because they issued the phone in the first place.

The FBI initially wanted to get in by having Apple build a backdoor that could be used to defeat the security on ANY iPhone-- that's the bad thing, and it's still a bad thing.

And re: "thanks for the downvote"-- stop digging when you're in a hole.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#26

Post by altitudinous »

tbabb wrote: post #23

What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?

Apple believes they are serving the people by protecting their privacy. The FBI believes they are serving the people by hunting down terrorists.

Just two different beliefs in what serving the people means.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#28

Post by brandon272 »

pbreit wrote: post #18

I feel like my positioned has changed a bit now that it is clearer the iPhone is owned by the same party that wants to recover the data?

Who owns the phone is irrelevant in this case. Apple doesn't want to be forced to build operating systems into phones that break Apple's own security model.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#29

Post by joeblau »

tbabb wrote: post #23

What kind of a democracy do we live in where we rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?

Aren't corporations people now anyways[1]? Basically, it's just people protecting themselves :).

[1] - http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-b...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#30

Post by [deleted] »

pbreit wrote: post #20
Etheryte wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever, care to expand on what you meant?

I was originally wholly on the side of Apple since I place an exceedingly high value on privacy and against government intrusion. But now that I understand that the phone is the county's, it seems more like a case of a phone owner just wanting to recover their own data. Thanks for the downvote, though!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN