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

91–100 of 293 posts

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

#91

Post by Avshalom »

tn13 wrote: post #62
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…

When has this free market existed? And how has it not been explicitly provided by the government; what markets we've had at various points in history have always been fought for and defended from others by their parent governments.

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

#92

Post by lazaroclapp »

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.

Not really. Kings and emperors might have had a moral duty towards the people, but that is hardly equivalent to them "serving" the people or governing "for" the people. Then there are colonies like the Belgian Congo and some Spanish possessions in the Americas, which were very explicitly run for the benefit of the respective European crown, not their inhabitants. Theocracies have generally been about pleasing God, not the people, with the underlying assumption that God's plan is definitionally the best for the people and that the priest class has unquestionable knowledge of such plan. There are probably even more examples.

Governments explicitly "on behalf of the people" are more or less an historical rarity, even if all governments have needed to keep people below the successful armed revolt threshold as a practical matter.

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

#94

Post by veeranimous »

I might be conspirator here. but I heard Apple did worked with govt several incidents. This whole thing appears like a setup to trust these corporations who's bread and butter is selling our data for profit.(where does ethics come here?). a company which bought WhatsApp for billions of dollars and providing service for free is not doing a charity. especially it's stock holders won't be happy about it. it appears like a setup to gain trust on these corporations which govt, corporations continue to use. I don't have a problem personally, if it helps to catch a terrorist. but I dont trust profit based corporations talking about ethics. it's just a PR stunt.

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

#95

Post by themartorana »

timr wrote: post #85
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.

They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to. It's not rare for a company to provide info/help to law enforcement when asked/compelled. It was easy to do on iOS 7. The ask in this case is totally different.

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

#96

Post by bunkydoo »

Zuckerberg seems to be a bit of a fair weathered fan for privacy. Facebook has traditionally been very if not entirely compliant with providing government agencies with data. Due to a couple occurances with my personal use of Facebook, I have found that it is quite likely that they even do extracurricular surveillance as well. Just my opinion

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

#97

Post by ignoramous »

wskinner wrote: post #43
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 th…

> But let's not kid ourselves about governments ever being fully (mostly, even) on the side of the people.

Exactly. What kind of democracy is this?

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

#98

Post by giancarlostoro »

If we want to keep fighting issues like these we need all tech companies / CEO's to voice the issues with these problems and all future tech related problems, these lawmakers really shouldn't be allowed to make laws without the backing of all / most / reasonable number of the tech giants, just because "GoDaddy" supports it isn't good enough, if "enemies" are on the same page with a bill then you might be in the right direction.

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

#100

Post by im_down_w_otp »

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…

Apple is also an institution that was built by a seriously flawed megalomaniac. ;-)
Post reply on HN