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

241–250 of 261 posts

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

#241

Post by EdHominem »

GnarfGnarf wrote: post #198

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' stu…

> but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you.

But this isn't the police's right, it's our right(s) that we're voluntarily ceding to the government such that it can practically provide us our basic security.

> Why should your smartphone be different?

Because it is different. I can't backup a car, or encrypt one, etc. Traditional possessions didn't record your GPS location and didn't contain all your private and banking info and couldn't be turned into remote listening devices and so forth.

So far we're seeing traditional law enforcement having a pretty good record against even high-tech criminals. They caught DPR with legwork and correlating multiple tails to figure out who was who. Even though he took extreme measures most of the time a few mistakes took him down.

So, with the thought in mind that nobody fights harder than for their budget, we should have discussions with our security forces and reevaluate our needs; see just how much of the physical world's laws usefully translate and what needs to be revamped. Evaluate what we can reasonably hope to achieve at what cost.

The laws don't own us, we own them. The discussion needs to be "What should the laws say?".

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

#242

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#244

Post by progressive_dad »

criddell wrote: post #239
harryh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

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

Its easy to see why DOD originally classified it as a munition. Video games have become a powerful tool for storytelling, education, performance art, and immersive experiences for a long time but they started out as artillery simulators and a means to practice war games. That mentality pervades and we still see Jump, Shoot, and Run as the primary dynamic by which we function in these amazing experiences. You're fighting against human instinct and hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Against Dunbar's number, the core mechanic of trust and social engagement for millenia. I hope you're right, but I don't think it will be the sea-change you're expecting. Look at the adoption of bitcoin and remember that law enforcement is a retro-grade function of society. Underfunded and always behind the zeitgeist.

We don't ask the secret service to build the president's merchandising website, and we shouldn't expect the FBI to be able to articulate or comprehend the, "triviality" of undermining strong encryption.

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

#245

Post by criddell »

progressive_dad wrote: post #244
criddell wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

> For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption. Its easy to see why DOD originally classified it as a munition. Video games have become a powerful tool for storytelling, education, performance art, and immersive experiences for a long time but they started out as artillery simulators and a means to practice war games. That mentality pervades and we still see Jump, Shoot, and…

I think it was classified as a munition for practical reasons - they wanted export controls.

I think it's great that you name specific parts of the government because not all parts of the government think strong encryption is a problem.

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

#246

Post by tracker1 »

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…

I'm not saying it isn't overreach, I agree that it is... the 4th and 5th amendments indicate this, as well as other reasonable interpretations of the law.

I was only responding to the gp, in that it would be billable, but the real "cost" may be incalculable... not to mention the damage to near term and long term security, and future incursions into privacy built upon yielding here.

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

#247

Post by progressive_dad »

criddell wrote: post #245
progressive_dad wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption. Its easy to see why DOD originally classified it as a munition. Video games have become a powerful tool for storytelling, education, performance art, and immersive experiences for a long time but they started out as artillery simulators and a means to practice war games. That mentality pervades and we still see Jump, Shoot, and…

I think it was classified as a munition for practical reasons - they wanted export controls. I think it's great that you name specific parts of the government because not all parts of the government think strong encryption is a problem.

All I'm concerned about is a bottle. Take a little walk to the edge of town across the track. Where the viaduct looms as it shifts and cracks. Where the border lies. Across the stack. On a gathering storm comes a handsome man with a red right hand.

4PM in Chicago. I'm out of here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhoX1Xu6ZI

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

#248

Post by harryh »

criddell wrote: post #239
harryh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

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

That's an absurd point of view because the phone in question doesn't have strong encryption(1). If it did, there would be no way for Apple to trivially bypass it.

(1) Well it kind of does but by encouraging the use of an incredibly weak password it defeats the purpose of having any encryption at all really. If the San Bernardino shooters had used a real password we wouldn't be having this discussion.

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

#249

Post by criddell »

harryh wrote: post #248
criddell wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

> For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption. That's an absurd point of view because the phone in question doesn't have strong encryption(1). If it did, there would be no way for Apple to trivially bypass it. (1) Well it kind of does but by encouraging the use of an incredibly weak password it defeats the purpose of having any encryption at all really. If the San Bernardino…

We have no idea what kind of password is set on that phone. If the shooter used a good password (he probably didn't), then no matter what Apple does, the FBI is still going to be locked out.

The chance of there being anything valuable on that phone is pretty slim. Especially when you consider how much the government is willing to spend on it. I was just watching CNN and Apple has apparently detailed what it would take before they would consider writing the compromised version of the OS. The reporter claims it would cost about $50 million and the government has apparently said "no problem, we can pay that". Ugh.

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

#250

Post by harryh »

criddell wrote: post #249
harryh wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption. That's an absurd point of view because the phone in question doesn't have strong encryption(1). If it did, there would be no way for Apple to trivially bypass it. (1) Well it kind of does but by encouraging the use of an incredibly weak password it defeats the purpose of having any encryption at all really. If the San Bernardino…

We have no idea what kind of password is set on that phone. If the shooter used a good password (he probably didn't), then no matter what Apple does, the FBI is still going to be locked out. The chance of there being anything valuable on that phone is pretty slim. Especially when you consider how much the government is willing to spend on it. I was just watching CNN and Apple has apparently detailed what it would tak…

I won't cost 50 million dollars to comment out a few lines of code and recompile the OS. That reporter has no idea what they're talking about.
Post reply on HN