Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was stated at the end of the Bloomberg article that Bill Gates' position on the issue was misreported: Earlier this week, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told Bloomberg Television he was “disappointed” by reports that he supports the U.S. government in this dispute, saying it doesn’t accurately reflect his opinion. “That doesn’t state my view on this,” he said in an interview on “Bloomberg Go.” “The extreme view t…
Note that the article doesn't actually go on to clarify or accurately state what his opinion is.
Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
151–160 of 261 posts
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#152From 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…
This strikes me as a great opportunity to use the "think of the children" argument against the government. Headlines should read like this: "FBI wants ability to steal dick pics from any iPhone, including children's phones! "
Sure, but that goes both ways. It could easily be said that the FBI needs to be able to look through the phones of predators in order to convict.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#153What'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…
Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#154From 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…
Snapchat?
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#155So 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…
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#156I have a question for the lawyers on HN. Why doesn't the judge in the case hold Apple in contempt of court until they modify the OS, in the same way they would hold a reporter in contempt until they revealed a source? In both cases, you have a third party who is being compelled to assist an investigation against their will. My only guess is that there is a precedent set for reporters, but not for computer programmers…
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#157Notice 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…
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#158From 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…
Like it says in the video, it's mostly a business decision. All the companies in the top list are customer/user facing, while Amazon's AWS is not customer facing at all. It's about the customer's impression of the platform they are interacting with on a daily basis (presumably not Linkedin). Standing up with Apple on this issue shows their users they are (also) serious about their privacy.
Turn the tables for a second:
What would the US do if a foreign government had access to their citizens' information?
Would it become an issue of nationalism to use your own country's homegrown smart phone, browser, social network, etc?
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that the article doesn't actually go on to clarify or accurately state what his opinion is.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe...
Sure, but then he's saying he was misrepresented by that?
So do the quoted questions and answers written on that page accurately represent what Gates said, because if they do, then although he might not be 'siding with the government', it seems he sees nothing problematic with the government making this sort of request, either in compelling Apple to produce a version of iOS that will allow for brute-forcing, or in this case setting any sort of precedent for what the government can ask companies to do via the All Writs Act.
Actually, if the quotes in that article are accurate, it seems that Gates doesn't understand the issue at all, specifically:
> Apple has access to the information. They’re just refusing to provide the access and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not
Which is not the case here. Apple doesn't have access to the information and they will need to build a customised and security-compromised version of iOS in order to allow the FBI to attempt to retrieve that information.
Re: Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one. I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security, however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both support Apple now in this fight against government overreach and put pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two ideas are not mutually…
"The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." I don't think that's true, but even if I'm wrong, you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Also, I don't agree that this is government overreach. This case seems about as clear-cut an example of a "good" investigatory behavior as we'…
>> "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one."
> you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one.
Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law. They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress.
This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. It will come down to a matter of interpretation by the justices. If they rule against Apple, the message is, "This is covered by the AWA, and the AWA was intended to compel companies to weaken their products' security". In that case, many of us in the public feel that the justices will have unfairly created a new law.
If they rule for Apple, the message is, "This is an undue burden being forced upon Apple. That is not the intention of the AWA. If you want them to comply, go to Congress and ask for a law"
Obama was a lawyer, he knows this, and in light of the public's disapproval of mass surveillance, he chose the path (the AWA) that is most likely to get him what he wants, which is to grant law enforcement access to all iPhones. The public currently will not re-elect congressmen and women who push through new surveillance laws.
P.S. I like your site vayable.com