71–80 of 293 posts
This article is overlooking that it's not only governments that people would have to worry about if intentional backdoors are implemented.
>“I don’t think building back doors is the way to go, so we’re pretty sympathetic to Tim and Apple,” said Mr. Zuckerberg Shortened the article for ya.
And not only that, but "backdoor" isn't accurate. It's not what has been requested. "Backdoor" sounds more provocative though, and helps build numbers for the Apple side of the debate.
If Apple can crack the phone open, let's see it happen. And then after that, they should improve iOS security so not even Apple can crack it.
I'm not impressed that Apple can if they wanted to, build in a system to weaken my phone's security. They should patch that opportunity in the next release.
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.
The FBI et al did.
So given this seems to be the case, isn't Zuck a huge hypocrite and this is just a PR stunt?
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.
I am weary of this idea that no man is wrong except the man who says he is right. The FBI is an institution that was built by a seriously flawed megalomaniac.
I think in terms of building a just and reasonable federal law enforcement agency, you'd 1) need to pass a federal amendment and 2) not build it upon an overreaching and power hungry organization built by J. Edgar Hoover.
We can do better.
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…
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.
It's more accurate to think of governments as a special case of corporations.
Governments don't always "include everyone", and as we've seen, they definitely don't necessarily act on their constituents' behalf.
In certain contexts, corporations have also been responsible for creating and enforcing law, even though that's not the context we are used to today in the US.
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…
You're ignoring the desires of the people simply because they didn't have the political leverage to gain them.
Given what I saw when I was at DO, everyone should back apple in their refusal to unlock the iPhone.
We then want Apple to improve their security so that no such request by governments would be possible in future. Tighten the security so that not even a special custom version of iOS would make a difference to the self destruct measures in place. Then we wouldn't need to waste any time arguing about it.
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.
Given what I saw when I was at DO, everyone should back apple in their refusal to unlock the iPhone.
No. Everyone should not back Apple. Let's crack that phone open. We then want Apple to improve their security so that no such request by governments would be possible in future. Tighten the security so that not even a special custom version of iOS would make a difference to the self destruct measures in place. Then we wouldn't need to waste any time arguing about it.
Just to be clear, I'm against mandated backdoors in products. I should be allowed to make my product as secure as I want to, even against myself. Yes, that might hinder government search and seizure, but that's the government's problem, not mine. I agree with Apple and most other tech companies on this.
But Apple isn't being asked to create a backdoor. The door already exists, and was voluntarily created by Apple. Apple has all of the tools and knowledge in its possession to walk through it. Whether that's the PIN itself (it's not), or the code-signing key and source code needed to disable attack mitigations (without which a 4-digit PIN is worthless), doesn't make a difference. As you observe, they could design the phone such that this attack is not possible. They did not, even though they've been claiming otherwise for years now.
All of the arguments in favor of Apple boil down to a general opposition to government search and seizure, worries about damage to Apple's reputation, a claim that code-signing occupies a privileged legal position (akin to attorney-client privilege), or a slippery-slope argument that the government will ask for mandated backdoors on all iPhones next. None of these has a chance in court. I'm more and more convinced that Apple is well aware of how legally wrong it is, and is just doing this to save face over erroneously advertising that their phones were secure even against Apple itself (and therefore any government coercion of Apple).
If someone is going to challenge me on this, please answer this two-part question: If Apple had the phone's PIN stored in their database, do you think the government should be able to compel them to hand it over? And why is that any different?