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

61–70 of 293 posts

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

#61

Post by alttab »

This article does nothing to explain anything that Zuckerberg said that might illuminate his position.

All he said, according to this article, was:

"I don’t think building back doors is the way to go, so we’re pretty sympathetic to Tim and Apple.”

“It’s disappointing to the mission that we’re trying to do.”

We're talking about a company that gives away your information to FBI, CIA, and publicly via an API. Of course they are going about it the wrong way - you just simply give them the data to begin with, as a business model.

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

#62

Post by tn13 »

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?

I think free market has always done a better job of protecting Individual liberties from the government. In fact a lot of Americans take for granted what these profit mongering corporations are doing for them. If this had to happen in China or India the corporations would bend over and grease up because there you wont succeed without government's approval at every step.

I really wonder what Apple would do if Chinese government asks similar backdoor. May be they have already complied.

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

#63

Post by tn13 »

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.

That 50% stat is made up stat. 50% Americans probably cant spell "encryption" properly.

It is very easy to make people bend over and grease up by threatening them that some bad people are planning to kill them.

Defending liberty does not need 50%. You need few extremely vocal people willing to fight the good battle and help the discourse.

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

#64

Post by lazaroclapp »

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…

The difference is that corporations have (mostly) voluntary membership but unelected leadership, whereas nations have (mostly) involuntary membership and elected leadership. So it still stands that it should not be the expected state of affairs that corporations are seen as stewards of the common good, rather than the government. It really ought to be the other way around, and the fact that it isn't is sign of a problem.

I don't remember who said it, but there is a quote along the lines of: "People should look to the private sector for growth, and to the government for justice. Increasingly, they look to the government for growth and to the private sector for justice."

Edit: Found proper quote and source thanks to mbrock's pointing out where I likely heard it last.

The quote is:

"We have come to rely upon capitalism for justice and the government for economic stimulation, precisely the opposite of what reason would suggest." - Donald Kaul

And it comes from here: http://articles.philly.com/1990-10-17/news/25891604_1_budget... (Timothy Taylor did quote Kaul in the podcast mentioned in the comment below)

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

#65

Post by cgio »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #58
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 tha…

Maybe 13th century England was not supposed to be a government of the people, but arguably all governments claim and have always claimed to be for the people.

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

#66

Post by gschrader »

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…

Thank you, I appreciate your response.

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

#67

Post by mbrock »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #64
chimeracoder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The difference is that corporations have (mostly) voluntary membership but unelected leadership, whereas nations have (mostly) involuntary membership and elected leadership. So it still stands that it should not be the expected state of affairs that corporations are seen as stewards of the common good, rather than the government. It really ought to be the other way around, and the fact that it isn't is sign of a prob…

Timothy Taylor talked about that idea as guest on the 1 February episode of EconTalk with Russ Roberts.

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

#68

Post by rhino369 »

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.

You have to dumb down some of the technical aspects but this isn't a particularly complicated topic.

Think about something like climate change or vaccinations. You probably have no actual idea how it all works. But with some explanations you can understand the gist of the technical sides of those issues.

The main disconnect between the tech crowd and the general public isn't technical knowledge but values. A lot of people in the tech community put a lot value on absolute privacy or secrecy. The general public doesn't. Especially in a case where the privacy or secret information is to a 100% certainty related to an actual mass murdering terrorist.

I'd bet if anything, the general public would overestimate the privacy risk the apple crack would cause. They don't know about signed updates, for example.

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

#69

Post by Consultant32452 »

newjersey wrote: post #15
Consultant32452 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be absolutely shocked if the government didn't have numerous ways to get into any information on any commercial phone. What they don't have is a simple device that average joe agent has access to at the local office, and of course his civilian police force compatriot.

Just a suspicion but I imagine the narrative that FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS or any federal agency is frustrated that the NSA won't share its toys with them has some truth to it. Of course, it makes sense. Complying to very single request would leave NSA as mere peons.

It was just a couple years ago that the FBI was lamenting the fact that it was having trouble hiring hackers because they all smoke pot. I only cite that as it asserts that the FBI does in fact employ teams of digital hackers. The NSA surely has better/more, but if the FBI needs into an iPhone I'm sure they could do it on their own.

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

#70

Post by lazaroclapp »

zajd wrote: post #55
karmelapple wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To a degree, yes. But even if you take a more pessimistic stance and assume that lawmakers have an agenda that is entirely divorced from that of their constituents, they still need to manufacture consent[1]. Which means that if you get enough voters to be strongly opposed to something, it does have an effect beyond what a small group of highly informed critics can have. The political system is neither perfect, nor useless, is somewhere in between, and I say so as someone who comes from a country with political process that leans way more towards 'broken' than the U.S. one does.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Post reply on HN