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

31–40 of 293 posts

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

#31

Post by dredmorbius »

I don't often find reason to praise Facebook, but this would be one.

When news of the FBI's demands to Apple first appeared, I hoped to hear from Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon, as online service providers. Mozilla and Wikimedia as related infrastructure. Also Samsung, LG, Lenovo, and Dell, as hardware providers, and T-Mobile as a mobile services provider (AT&T and Verizon are assumed to be in the tank with the FBI/NSA/CIA).

This puts the list of supporters at Twitter, Google, and Facebook. Good work.

Waiting on Microsoft and Amazon.

https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/PyMCaHdE...

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

#32

Post by avdempsey »

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!

Sure, as far as the FBI getting this being reasonable I don't think we need to go much further than the user being a butcher of humans. But there's no way for Apple to comply with this order without putting everyone else in danger either through the exploit leaking (and what an incentive to steal that exploit there would be!) or the legal precedent leading to our government (or others!) asking for more.

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

#33

Post by neom »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #24
neom wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fixed, although frankly perjury may apply if I went too far given.. handwave.

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

#34

Post by spinlock »

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!

I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with security, not ownership. Apple complying with the government makes everyone less secure. We aren't as worried about judicial over reach as we are with creating tools that will be used to commit crimes.

Good security will keep out anyone that does not know the secret. That includes "owners." The concept of ownership is irrelevant to the design of a secure system.

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

#35

Post by soneil »

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!

Wanting to recover the data, I don't think anyone actually has a problem with - not even Apple, if I read the letter correctly. It's wanting to force Apple to create a tool we'd rather didn't exist.

If you or I asked Apple to recover data from our phones, they'd just act sympathetic until we went away. Perhaps walk you through some of the backup options.

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

#36

Post by vinay427 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #31

I don't often find reason to praise Facebook, but this would be one. When news of the FBI's demands to Apple first appeared, I hoped to hear from Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon, as online service providers. Mozilla and Wikimedia as related infrastructure. Also Samsung, LG, Lenovo, and Dell, as hardware providers, and T-Mobile as a mobile services provider (AT&T and Verizon are assumed to be in the tank with th…

Why is Mozilla not on your list of supporters?

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/467318811/mozilla-foundation-b...

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

#37

Post by jsmthrowaway »

neom wrote: post #33
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Fixed, although frankly perjury may apply if I went too far given.. handwave .

Indeed. I know exactly what you mean. Relatedly, I hope you were able to avoid situations that required you to talk to NCMEC. (I wasn't, and I carry those memories with me now.)

To others: Don't go into hosting, particularly the abuse side, if you value your sanity and a positive outlook on humanity in general.

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

#38

Post by chimeracoder »

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?

> rely on corporations to protect the people from an overreaching government?

Corporations aren't fundamentally different from the government. Both are just groups of people, at an abstract level.

It's actually not uncommon for local governments to literally exist as incorporated entities. Or for corporations to serve as the de facto government for a region.

It's a relatively recent phenomenon that we view these as completely different concepts, but they're not as distinct as we often think. It's more accurate to think of government as a special case of corporations rather than a completely different concept.

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

#39

Post by staunch »

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?

A corporatocracy.

It's not so surprising when you consider that corporations can span many countries. Apple doesn't need the U.S. nearly as much as the U.S. needs Apple.

Post reply on HN