Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 261 posts

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

#191

Post by scrollaway »

bobwaycott wrote: post #119
scrollaway wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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...

> And phrased like that, everybody will answer yes. The normal, non-technologists I know would most certainly find the idea that their passwords could be changed against their will--or, in the absence of their assent after death--pretty unsettling and inherently wrong. It's relatively trivial to provide analogous (though not entirely homologous) situations--e.g., should the government be able to force your mortgage c…

> We too often fall into the trap of thinking that people must understand technical details of some thing X in order to understand implications of related thing Y.

Is that what you got from my post? Because it's not what I meant at all. I don't believe people have to understand the technical details behind it, but they do have to understand that the FBI forcing an unlock sets a very bad precedent which would massively diminish the security of the iphone/next iphone and this would apply to everybody, not just the tewwowist, AND that they're using a super old obscure shady law to back all that. There is a lot of data to understand and you can't easily grasp that from a single, short sentence.

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

#193

Post by bobwaycott »

scrollaway wrote: post #191
bobwaycott wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And phrased like that, everybody will answer yes. The normal, non-technologists I know would most certainly find the idea that their passwords could be changed against their will--or, in the absence of their assent after death--pretty unsettling and inherently wrong. It's relatively trivial to provide analogous (though not entirely homologous) situations--e.g., should the government be able to force your mortgage c…

> We too often fall into the trap of thinking that people must understand technical details of some thing X in order to understand implications of related thing Y. Is that what you got from my post? Because it's not what I meant at all. I don't believe people have to understand the technical details behind it, but they do have to understand that the FBI forcing an unlock sets a very bad precedent which would massivel…

Ah, my apologies then. This explanation sounds very different from your original suggestion that people need a basic understanding of encryption/security. I think we are quite close in agreement here.

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

#194

Post by LoSboccacc »

jmh42 wrote: post #158
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…

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 secon…

it's is mostly a business and pr decision

"Apple had asked the FBI to issue application for iPhone passcode cracking tool under seal, but government made it public, prompting Tim Cook's public remarks"[1]

so no, apple doesn't really have the security of user in mind, it's just turning this on its head and putting up a show

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...

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

#195

Post by pbhjpbhj »

dapearce wrote: post #149
multinglets wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that ho…

Did you read their motion?[1] It is very much part of their argument. It sets a precedent that not only will other US courts compel them to unlock devices, but other countries will as well. Even if you trust the US government to not use the software maliciously, do you trust other governments? 1) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...

What's stopping other governments from compelling then to unlock phones now, given they've effectively said they can.

What's stopping rogue employees from selling that capability - is Apple Computer's internal security good enough to see off espionage by nation states?

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

#196

Post by Aoyagi »

Let's see, what's worse...

Giving access to data in supposedly limited cases to an authority that's supposed to do it for the protection of the people, or;

sell the data to numerous third parties, who further make money of the data, while there's absolutely no assurance the data isn't bought by the aforementioned authority anyway?

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

#198

Post by GnarfGnarf »

The whole Apple/FBI fracas is about promoting smartphones as the centre of our universe: the confluence of medical, financial, and all other personal information. If Apple can convince us that smartphones are secure, there are lucrative opportunities for smartphone technology to become ubiquitous and pervasive in our lives.

Unfortunately, it will always be necessary for law enforcement to have access to bad guys' stuff. The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different?

The smartphone is not an inalienable right. We are confusing convenience with fundamental rights; technology with entitlement.

If you don't trust your smartphone to be impregnable, then guess what? Don't put your medical & financial info on your smartphone. There was an epoch when we actually did banking & medicine without smartphones.

Apple, unlock the terrorist's iPhone, and resign yourself to a reduction in sales.

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

#199

Post by scrollaway »

bobwaycott wrote: post #193
scrollaway wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We too often fall into the trap of thinking that people must understand technical details of some thing X in order to understand implications of related thing Y. Is that what you got from my post? Because it's not what I meant at all. I don't believe people have to understand the technical details behind it, but they do have to understand that the FBI forcing an unlock sets a very bad precedent which would massivel…

Ah, my apologies then. This explanation sounds very different from your original suggestion that people need a basic understanding of encryption/security. I think we are quite close in agreement here.

I can see how my comment was misleading. My point was that those with a ground knowledge of encryption/security would most likely easily deduce this - but that doesn't mean you need such knowledge to understand what's going on.

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

#200

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

biturd wrote: post #142
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…

What about other large semi tech companies. Starting with Tesla, but GE, paypal, Asus, Linksys, Cisco, Sun, Bay Networks, Coca-Cola, IBM, FedEx, Starbucks, Procter and Gamble and all medical HIPAA institutions, schools and Universities, McDonalds, Disney, Pixar, Amex, Visa, MasterCard, Costco, Caterpillar, Target, Nike, UPS, USPS, Exxon, Pepsi, Samsung, AT&T, t_mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Oracle, General Mills, Wells Fa…

Do you really expect most of those companies to have any idea? Or, for that matter, Oracle to be on the correct side?
Post reply on HN