Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#61

Post by jacobolus » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

jdc wrote: post #57

ComputerGuru wrote: post #11

Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…

I concur. This is trivial to rewrite in more neutral language. Try this: "Microsoft Says It Backs Apple in Case Over Alleged Insurgent's Phone."

“Alleged insurgent” is a terrible description for “some crazy couple with guns”. They clearly weren’t part of any serious organized rebellion against the state (cf. any dictionary definition of “insurgent”), however much they had been inspired by ISIS or whatever.

How about just “San Bernardino shooter”?

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#62

Post by dcvuob » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

tintor wrote: post #39

Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.

If only Twitter joined them.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#63

Post by widforss » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:44 PM UTC

How far could the FBI use this case as a precedent if it goes through? Could they demand to get stuff signed and put on Canonicals repos? Could they demand to get a MS-signed EFI?

Or could this case just be used as a precedent in cases that clearly only involved one (1) specific device?

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#64

Post by corysama » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #56

tashkent wrote: post #49

Hmm I'm confused, so is FBI asking to unlock just this terrorist's phone or setup a backdoor to all iPhones? If they are asking to unlock only this terrorists phone I don't see why Apple should be fighting a case over this.

The FBI is asking Apple to build a tool to backdoor this particular iPhone. Once the tool is built, it gets much easier for them to ask Apple to use it on other phones. "We'll only ask for it this one time, honest" isn't a believable promise - Apple winds up with a much less defensible position later, since they already have the tools necessary.

"The FBI has asked Apple to crack at least 17 devices since October" http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-requests/

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#65

Post by ddlatham » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

Yahoo should be in the upper list: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/19/yahoo-sid...

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#66

Post by scrollaway » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:49 PM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #60

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll respo…

> "Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?"

And phrased like that, everybody will answer yes.

The dire implications of this case are not that easy to explain to someone who doesn't understand the basics of encryption/security. Welcome to give it another try, though...

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#67

Post by mythz » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

dcvuob wrote: post #62

tintor wrote: post #39

Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.

If only Twitter joined them.

They were the first to show strong support: https://twitter.com/jack/status/700457149227360256

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#68

Post by eva1984 » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

I didn't see anything wrong with 'Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI'

It is what it is. You guys focuses more on how to limit FBI to abuse the terrorist card to violate privacy. But in case of a true terrorist, the answer should not be not that hard.

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#69

Post by mythz » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:52 PM UTC

ddlatham wrote: post #65

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

Yahoo should be in the upper list: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/19/yahoo-sid...

updated, thx!

Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

#70

Post by duaneb » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 10:53 PM UTC

0942v8653 wrote: post #23

ComputerGuru wrote: post #11

Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…

I disagree. "Terrorist's Phone" is simply the most efficient way to identify the case. "User's Privacy" would mean absolutely nothing to someone who hasn't heard of the case as much as we have, especially considering most of Apple's marketing nowadays is through that lens… > The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. If you'll allow me to be pedantic, they…

Why not just "phone"? Terrorism shouldn't have anything to do with the case. I don't believe the fourth amendment makes a special provision for terrorists or other "scary" people. For a good reason—terrorism is a polemic term.