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

81–90 of 293 posts

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

#81

Post by throwawayukcyb »

notthegov wrote: post #75
altitudinous wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This sounds like you are saying truth is relative. Isn't there one best way to serve the people? Which is by protecting tenets of classical liberalism and natural rights; and ideally promoting and defending these ideas elsewhere to prevent such things as terrorists. 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 megaloma…

> Isn't there one best way to serve the people?

No. Not unless you are omniscient and all-powerful. And even then, still no, because different people are different and want different things.

No one is claiming that the FBI is without fault or even that its actual goal is serving the people. But there are plenty of people out there who have a sincerely held -- and in a few cases even informed -- belief that the FBI is on the right side of this debate.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by deciplex »

cgio wrote: post #65
lazaroclapp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. We don't really have many even nominal principalities these days, so it's hard to imagine a state where both the people and the government are expected to serve the sovereign as a matter of course. But republicanism is more the outlier, historically, even if it enjoys a lot of contemporary success (whether in practice or in theory, is a matter of some debate, but nonetheless...).

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

#84

Post by pdkl95 »

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.

This is exactly why tech/internet companies should have been spending the last year educating people about why encryption is important and just how much of their lives relies on crypto.

The FBI has been running their own propaganda campaign, but when James Comey talks about the supposed "need" for backdoors, the common response by the people that understand crypto is to talk about how stupid Comey's suggestion was, sometimes with suggestions that he must not understand how crypto works. Meanwhile, the intended audience doesn't hear how backdoors aren't possible, and now have to unlearn the lesson that is "bad".

edit:

A suggestion on how to educate people about encryption: remember why[1] Philip Zimmermann wrote pgp - to provide an envelope for network communication.

[1] https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html

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

#85

Post by timr »

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?

Before you get too breathless over this, know that Apple has been unlocking phones for the government, in nearly this exact situation, for a long time now:

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467602161/the-seeds-of-apples-...

This is an entirely new stance from Apple. Historically, they've been on the other side.

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

#86

Post by lazaroclapp »

BEEdwards wrote: post #77
lazaroclapp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sure the people did wish for it, but not being able to afford armor or horses their voices where not heard. You're ignoring the desires of the people simply because they didn't have the political leverage to gain them.

No. I am not. I am just saying that they weren't the defining factor in the decision back then, and they don't seem to be the deciding factor in the decision now (but that might come down to bias in which segment of "the people" I hear from the most).

I am saying that powerful interest groups can, occasionally, half-by-accident, represent the best interests of the powerless. We probably shouldn't rely on them to do so, and it is not the ideal state of affairs, but it can happen.

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

#88

Post by Avshalom »

chimeracoder wrote: post #76
rough-sea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Governments include everyone and act on their behalf. They are also responsible for creating and enforcing law. 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, ev…

It's more accurate to think of corporations as a special case of governments, what with corporations being a recent legal structure created by governments.

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

#89

Post by pcurve »

altitudinous wrote: post #26
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?

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.

That's what apple wants us to believe, but they also have powerful financial interest in the matter. No one has called them out on it yet because it would be rather unpopular to do so.

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

#90

Post by partiallypro »

dredmorbius wrote: post #46
partiallypro wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

http://www.newsweek.com/google-microsoft-and-facebook-back-a...
Post reply on HN