Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.
Trump/RMS 2016!
Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
131–140 of 261 posts
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
updated, thx!
Mozilla should as well: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/02/24/continuing-the-conv...
I think the video on that page would be incredibly more effective and helpful if it didn't use "encryption" so many times, and tried to explain to people what encryption is. As it stands, it just repetitively uses the term to tell people when, where, or how they use it without realizing. I think the former point is more critical, and the latter less so.
As it stands, meeting encryption feels more like spotting Waldo than actually meeting encryption.
(PS: Hi, James!)
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#133Google has been awfully silent about the whole thing, how secure are Android phones (Nexus phones in particular) against a similar attack? I'm wondering if they are so easy to crack that this hasn't been a problem for Google. Either that, or their phones are just as secure as iPhones, and they caved to FBI demands immediately.
Definitely tepid, only visible response from Sundar's tweets: https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/700104298600886272
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#134From 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…
No, it's not just that. It is also: - Should companies reveal what type of information they have on their consumers. - Should and can companies protect their data on their consumers as their own property.
Unfortunately those have already been decided and are unlikely to be reversed by this case. This case is currently about the AWA. A previous decision using the AWA, USA vs. New York Telephone, notes it can compel companies to act, given some constraints,
"We agree that the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed"
"The order provided that the Company be fully reimbursed at prevailing rates, and compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations." [1]
We already know law enforcement can get a warrant for access to information, and that people cannot reasonably expect privacy of information given to a 3rd party, including information on computers. Those decisions, unfortunately, have already been made and that's not what's at stake here.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#135From 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…
"From recent polls most people think this debate is about..." ...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with your opinion on the matter. For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is "yes, sometimes" , with an additional "there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'" , added for good measure. Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't…
A good point. This is about where public and private ends on the internet, and that debate is still very fluid.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#136So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it.
The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance.
If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufacturer to create a physical device that makes it easier to open existing safes, that would not seem reasonable to me, but it also would be ludicrous to claim that represents a "back door." If that's a back door, then the back door already existed.
So in Apple's case, the government says "we need the data out of this device" and that's apparently a solvable problem. Can someone please remind me why it's so cut and dry for Apple to just say "no" and that's supposed to be OK?
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#137From 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…
"From recent polls most people think this debate is about..." ...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with your opinion on the matter. For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is "yes, sometimes" , with an additional "there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'" , added for good measure. Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't…
I don't see anyone anywhere suggesting it is Apple's job to enforce security. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by that phrasing.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#138What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior executives if they refuse to cooperate?
Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0]
The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was the 2013 settlement between JP Morgan and the Justice Department for $13 billion.[1] That's about 25% of Apple's net income last year, hardly a death sentence.
EDIT: I am not a lawyer so I'd appreciate any insight on this question.
[0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-crim...
[1]: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-bigg...
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#139So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it. The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance. If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufa…
> If we were talking about a safe somewhere
This has been discussed. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11178475
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#140Plot twist: US companies and the US gov play a game whose only goal is to reestablish lost trust since Snowden to make more $$$ again and sell more hardware with US backdoors again.