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

51–60 of 293 posts

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

#51

Post by thrownear »

spinlock wrote: post #34
pbreit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

>I think your being downvoted because the techies on hn are concerned with security, not ownership.

I made this post last day [1]. It received 3 votes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149716

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

#52

Post by USANEEDSHELP »

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?

The US of A is not a democracy it's supposed to be a republic. When companies act as the mouthpiece for the people, they are not doing so because they are protecting the people. They are doing it to protect their own interests (corporatism) and any company that is speaking out in this situation, is merely playing lip service to the people (consumers/products). There's nothing they can do. They are at the mercy of the government, laws and any types of intimidation that may be applied by the any agency of the state. Only the people of the US of A can rise up and make a true difference. We must stop believing that we are here to serve the state (government). We must stand up and demand that the state serve the people.

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

#53

Post by wooter »

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.

> Complying with the FBI's request does not make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access data on American phones.

You're disagreeing with every cyber security researcher I know, as well as the EFF, with no sources at all. At least google the subject.

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

#54

Post by dpweb »

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?

We're seeing a real power struggle between these powerful tech corps and governments.

What was really revealing was Tim Cook's answer on 60 minutes when pinned down about Apple's international tax strategies - why don't you being this money back to the US thereby making it taxable. His answer essentially: because I don't want to.

Privacy, tax avoidance, H1Bs - more showdowns to come.

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

#55

Post by zajd »

karmelapple wrote: post #50
pcurve wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you really think that constituent demands are what drives law creation?

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

#56

Post by jsmthrowaway »

karmelapple wrote: post #50
pcurve wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands.

Where can I sign up for that Congress? Is that opt-in? Because that sounds great.

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

#57

Post by traskjd »

dpweb wrote: post #54
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?

We're seeing a real power struggle between these powerful tech corps and governments. What was really revealing was Tim Cook's answer on 60 minutes when pinned down about Apple's international tax strategies - why don't you being this money back to the US thereby making it taxable. His answer essentially: because I don't want to. Privacy, tax avoidance, H1Bs - more showdowns to come.

>> because I don't want to.

Well, he also doesn't HAVE to. If you don't HAVE to do something, especially if it's beneficial to not do that thing, why would you?

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

#58

Post by lazaroclapp »

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?

Do keep in mind that we got the Magna Carta because the nobles and the church wanted limits on the power of the king, not because of the wishes of the people. So sometimes powerful interest groups do act in service of the common good and a stronger rule of law.

That said, 13th century England was not supposed to be a government of the people and for the people, so being in a similar situation now is arguably less than ideal.

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

#59

Post by sigzero »

dpweb wrote: post #54
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?

We're seeing a real power struggle between these powerful tech corps and governments. What was really revealing was Tim Cook's answer on 60 minutes when pinned down about Apple's international tax strategies - why don't you being this money back to the US thereby making it taxable. His answer essentially: because I don't want to. Privacy, tax avoidance, H1Bs - more showdowns to come.

Nothing revealing about that. It's an obvious stance for Apple to take. Change the tax laws.

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

#60

Post by selfinterest »

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?

If only corporations truly had the interests of the citizens at heart.

-- Speaking at the Mobile World Congress, an annual tech and telecommunications conference here, Mr. Zuckerberg said that Facebook would play its part in the fight against global terrorism, but that weakening the digital security of technology companies was a bad idea.

-- “I don’t think building back doors is the way to go, so we’re pretty sympathetic to Tim and Apple,” said Mr. Zuckerberg, in reference to Apple’s chief executive, Timothy D. Cook.

That's about at weak as "protection" gets. He's giving a speech at a tech conference so he needs to mention the elephant in the room. He hedges, knowing that consumer trust is the cornerstone of Facebook's ability to collect and monetize data. That he needs to throw cautious support to Apple to have the people on his side, but that he also needs to show that Facebook is against terrorism. Because we all cower like a fucking scared bunch of children whenever we hear the word "terrorist" and we want to feel like we're so important that the security of our stupid instagram pictures, grocery lists, and sexts is that fucking important.

True, it's not his place to speak his mind. He needs to speak for the thousands of employees at Facebook. He needs to speak for their stock price, their financial well being, their ability to send their children to college, to show up to work happy that they are the scions and mechanics of a good, benevolent engine of prosperity, peace, and progress.

Therefore, it's pointless to listen to what any of these people - Zuckerberg, Cook, Pichai - say. They speak for their companies, big, gray amalgamations with no feelings, no brothers, no father or mother, just a lot of interchangeable children and no goddamn soul.

They speak for the business decisions that will keep their investors, boards, and employees happy. They could have extremely radical or enlightened views about encryption and terrorism, but they shut up and they do their job - make the stock price go up. Play up our protection of the consumer, but make sure we're still open to spying for the FBI and the CIA. Talk both sides of the issue, leave everyone feeling happy, let the storm roll over, keep making money.

It's just business, nothing personal.

Post reply on HN