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

41–50 of 293 posts

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

#41

Post by partiallypro »

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…

Microsoft did put out a statement that was industry wide, not just Apple. I don't know why people want Microsoft to specifically name Apple when Apple is one of dozens the government wants backdoors from.

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

#42

Post by Kluny »

gschrader wrote: post #10
neom wrote: post #4

Given what I saw when I was at DO, everyone should back apple in their refusal to unlock the iPhone.

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

While we're talking about Digital Ocean, how has your experience been? My company currently uses Dreamhost, but we've had quite a few problems with them lately and we're thinking about switching.

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

#43

Post by wskinner »

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?

Just like governments, corporations are groups of individual people nominally organized around a common goal. If the government overreaches to a degree that will have a significant negative effect on corporations' bottom lines, as would Apple being forced to backdoor its software, we should absolutely expect corporations to step in on the side of their customers.

Of course corporations will be pragmatic about when they step in to "protect the people" as you put it. But let's not kid ourselves about governments ever being fully (mostly, even) on the side of the people.

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

#44

Post by neom »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #37
neom wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yippers, hosting anything for the general public as a pretty brutal business to be in. I didn't enjoy any aspect of my job that required dealing with the judicial arm of any government. I'm incredibly happy to see apple going to town on this issue. I wish people knew what a fucking mess it is.

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

#45

Post by dredmorbius »

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?

That's an extenuating but, so far as I'm aware, both moot and nonessential criterion.

Virtually all the relevant phone data and metadata are available from other sources, including call, message, and email data, and backups until six weeks prior to the attacks.

Apple could have provided a data extraction on request, as it has done previously. This wasn't what the FBI had demanded.

Due to the FBI's own actions and direction, the data on the phone has quite probably already been destroyed.

Legally, my read is that the request has few or no merits.

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

#46

Post by dredmorbius »

partiallypro wrote: post #41
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…

Microsoft did put out a statement that was industry wide, not just Apple. I don't know why people want Microsoft to specifically name Apple when Apple is one of dozens the government wants backdoors from.

Thanks, do you have a link?

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

#47

Post by dredmorbius »

vinay427 wrote: post #36
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...

I wasn't aware they'd put out a statement. I was rather hoping they had. Thank you.

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

#48

Post by rough-sea »

chimeracoder wrote: post #38
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 c…

Well... yes, they are groups of people, but governments are rather different. Governments include everyone and act on their behalf. They are also responsible for creating and enforcing law. The distinction is valid.

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

#49

Post by Spivak »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #16
zepto wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% of Americans can only take the opposite stance if they know what stance they are taking. The reporting on the poll doesn't reveal any screening questions to determine whether the respondents understand the issues at stake. If they don't understand the issue, then the 50% is answering a question about something else. If they asked the question "Should Apple make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to acce…

Complying with the FBI's request does not make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access data on American phones. This is a case where having a little bit of knowledge leads to a wildly inaccurate conclusion, similar to Greenwald's original PRISM reporting.

It sure does if that signed malicious firmware ever got out. And it will eventually since once it's written it will be requested by every police department and federal agency for ever increasing trivial cases. Every government in the world will want access to that piece of code.

If Apple really can tie the firmware to a specific piece of hardware with no possibility of it being modified I would be impressed but even still a little cautious.

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

#50

Post by karmelapple »

pcurve wrote: post #21
uptown wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands.

We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level.

Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance of keeping good security practices in place in our tech.

Post reply on HN