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

231–240 of 261 posts

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

#231

Post by progressive_dad »

tracker1 wrote: post #226
progressive_dad wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many issues here which have thus far been conducted in a legal or nebulous grey area of the law or flown under the notice of the general public for far too long: Can the government compel the creation of original tools and IP outside the typical operations of a business? If so should they be required to compensate the business? Does the business then own the IP or the government? What happens when compellin…

My understanding is the government is generally supposed to pay for the cost of external requests to private entities, should they choose to bill for it.... Unfortunately, the cost of compliance for Apple is lost future revenue, not just the technical costs of the gimped iOS version.

The specifics are important. If I said, "If a police officer gives you a lawful order do you have to comply?" you would immediately say, "yes". Now what if I said, "If a police officer demands that an entire neighborhood be subject to lengthy interrogation and be held for 24 hours in custody in order to solve a murder that took place there." You'd probably say that's ridiculous.

That's essentially what I view to be the case here. In theory the procedure may be perfectly "lawful" but in practice is clearly overreach. We need case law around this. I believe this is as clear a case of overreach as Apple could wish for. Finally, I believe it should be legal precedent set in public for once.

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

#232

Post by Renevith »

chakalakasp wrote: post #207
parenthephobia wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open doesn't mean it's an unlocked door. Open means that the owner of the device can replace the firmware. There's nothing not-open about requiring that the owner authenticate first. It's only not open if the vendor, rather than the owner, is the only one who the device will permit to replace its firmware.

Okay, so how do you verify that only the owner can do that, on the OS level, if the firmware is not first totally locked down? The security of iOS devices comes from the fact that Apple has engineered the devices to behave a certain way when using Apple firmware and that that firmware can't be modified or replaced without the signing key of Apple. And Apple is making it clear that they are on the side of the consumer…

You use the exact same design as iOS, but with unique keys in the hands of each device owner (in other words, a PIN or password) rather than one key in the hands of the vendor.

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

#233

Post by harryh »

progressive_dad wrote: post #231
tracker1 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is the government is generally supposed to pay for the cost of external requests to private entities, should they choose to bill for it.... Unfortunately, the cost of compliance for Apple is lost future revenue, not just the technical costs of the gimped iOS version.

The specifics are important. If I said, "If a police officer gives you a lawful order do you have to comply?" you would immediately say, "yes". Now what if I said, "If a police officer demands that an entire neighborhood be subject to lengthy interrogation and be held for 24 hours in custody in order to solve a murder that took place there." You'd probably say that's ridiculous. That's essentially what I view to be t…

Requesting a trivial modification to a piece of software is overreach?

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

#234

Post by [deleted] »

harryh wrote: post #233
progressive_dad wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specifics are important. If I said, "If a police officer gives you a lawful order do you have to comply?" you would immediately say, "yes". Now what if I said, "If a police officer demands that an entire neighborhood be subject to lengthy interrogation and be held for 24 hours in custody in order to solve a murder that took place there." You'd probably say that's ridiculous. That's essentially what I view to be t…

Requesting a trivial modification to a piece of software is overreach?

[deleted]

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

#235

Post by progressive_dad »

harryh wrote: post #233
progressive_dad wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specifics are important. If I said, "If a police officer gives you a lawful order do you have to comply?" you would immediately say, "yes". Now what if I said, "If a police officer demands that an entire neighborhood be subject to lengthy interrogation and be held for 24 hours in custody in order to solve a murder that took place there." You'd probably say that's ridiculous. That's essentially what I view to be t…

Requesting a trivial modification to a piece of software is overreach?

It becomes non-trivial due to the marketing of their devices as secure systems. Just as with the burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figures, the "triviality" of the modification in this case is held to a higher standard due to the purpose of the product.

* I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are no ways to "trivially" access their personal information. Even for Apple to do so would be a breach of that trust. See: "Uber God Mode"

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

#236

Post by dragonwriter »

odbol_ wrote: post #162
biturd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wonder if they could make a case that it violates the HIPAA, since your heartbeat/activity tracker info is on the device? Kind of a weak argument, but HIPAA is a pretty contentious subject.

> I wonder if they could make a case that it violates the HIPAA, since your heartbeat/activity tracker info is on the device?

HIPAA privacy protections only apply to data held by HIPAA "covered entities", which are mostly insurers, health care providers, and their business associates, and they restrict disclosures by those covered entities.

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

#237

Post by harryh »

progressive_dad wrote: post #235
harryh wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requesting a trivial modification to a piece of software is overreach?

It becomes non-trivial due to the marketing of their devices as secure systems. Just as with the burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figures, the "triviality" of the modification in this case is held to a higher standard due to the purpose of the product. * I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are…

People buy iPhones because they think that the FBI can't ever compel Apple to extract data from them?

And even if that's true (which I really don't think it is) it's not a good enough reason.

Say I started a bank and marketed my bank as an especially secure one. "Even the FBI will never be able to see your bank records. I won't let them!" I bet some customers might be interested in that. Just because I had marketed my bank that way doesn't mean my bank would gain some special legal protection against warrants.

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

#238

Post by harryh »

progressive_dad wrote: post #235
harryh wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requesting a trivial modification to a piece of software is overreach?

It becomes non-trivial due to the marketing of their devices as secure systems. Just as with the burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figures, the "triviality" of the modification in this case is held to a higher standard due to the purpose of the product. * I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are…

Apple can't access your personal information unless they are in physical possession of the phone. And, whether they have built the GovOS piece of software already or not, is essentially irrelevant to how easy it is.

If the only reason they can't get at your data is because they haven't compiled some code yet that's ALMOST NO PROTECTION AT ALL! Anyone making a buying decision based on Apple's failure to compile a simple piece of code is nuts!

Like, if you gave me a private document while I had my eyes closed and I said "Trust me, I can't see your data, I have my eyes closed. And I'm not going to open them." that would be crazy right? Building GovOS is the equivalent of opening my eyes.

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

#239

Post by criddell »

harryh wrote: post #237
progressive_dad wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes non-trivial due to the marketing of their devices as secure systems. Just as with the burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figures, the "triviality" of the modification in this case is held to a higher standard due to the purpose of the product. * I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are…

People buy iPhones because they think that the FBI can't ever compel Apple to extract data from them? And even if that's true (which I really don't think it is) it's not a good enough reason. Say I started a bank and marketed my bank as an especially secure one. "Even the FBI will never be able to see your bank records. I won't let them!" I bet some customers might be interested in that. Just because I had marketed m…

The big difference between the two is that the banks have the information and are already subject to lots of record keeping regulations and so it is not an undue burden for them to comply with a subpoena demanding information. Apple does not currently have what the FBI is asking for and to comply would mean creating that software.

If the government wants to pass a law requiring phone makers like Apple to include a back door, then that's what they should do.

For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption.

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

#240

Post by progressive_dad »

harryh wrote: post #238
progressive_dad wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes non-trivial due to the marketing of their devices as secure systems. Just as with the burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figures, the "triviality" of the modification in this case is held to a higher standard due to the purpose of the product. * I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are…

Apple can't access your personal information unless they are in physical possession of the phone. And, whether they have built the GovOS piece of software already or not, is essentially irrelevant to how easy it is. If the only reason they can't get at your data is because they haven't compiled some code yet that's ALMOST NO PROTECTION AT ALL! Anyone making a buying decision based on Apple's failure to compile a simp…

I think you underestimate the value of trust in business and government. Its a common failing in the hacker ethos. Just because you CAN mess with the programming of an elevator the president uses every day doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Post reply on HN