Live data from Hacker News

Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

nytimes.com

241–250 of 376 posts

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're in the territory of outright slavery. That would be a new low on all fronts.

There seem to be a whole bunch of people waving around odd ideas. The idea that this would be a new low is ridiculous if one takes the time to consider conscription. If you don't like that the government can coerce you (conscription, work in jail, contempt of court, eminent domain, etc) then rally against those laws, rather than the court using established powers

> There seem to be a whole bunch of people waving around odd ideas.

No, it's not an 'odd idea'. The fact that the government can coerce you has lots of limits placed on it. Conscription and the draft have been abolished in most places in the developed world, contempt of court may get you jailed but will not - and can not - be used to force you to create something and eminent domain can only be used to take something away from you.

So yes, this would be a new low, it would mean that ordinary citizens that have broken no laws can be forced to create something that does not currently exist against their express desire (and maybe even against their capability, how do you even begin to check if someone should be able to do something).

It would definitely be a new low.

All the things you pulled into it have nothing to do with the matter at hand, those are other things that you may or may not agree with but they are not the same as being ordered by a judge to perform a job that you have no desire to if you yourself are not guilty of breaking any laws. It would be an abuse of power that to me is unprecedented in any modern society.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#242
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Lavabit wasn't about All Writs, rather it was a simple pen/trace order? Lavabit's problem was that they actually had access to the data, so they were capable of providing records and they didn't provide them. Then pen/trace laws require cloud email providers to provide this data to LE upon authorized request, and case law does not really support payment for hours expended to implement any data collection solu…

It looks like Lavabit filed an amicus/"friend of the court" brief in the Apple case: http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/07/apple-vs-fbi-lavabit-warns-... Despite the differences in the two cases, it makes sense that Lavabit would want to help defend Apple's position.

As nice as it is to have the guy stand up for Apple I don't think that from a practical point of view there is anything that he could say that would make a difference.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> engineers need not fall on their swords I would quibble with this characterization. Security engineers may well improve their employment prospects and professional visibility by publicly demonstrating that they are unwilling to do work that is counter to the mission of securing systems. It seems likely to me that this sort of highly public gesture would be personally profitable, rather than a net sacrifice.

Ultimately the decision is up to those engineers. I'm just sharing my opinion. I've left former employers on moral grounds and later realized I could've resolved those differences within myself and effected change in ways other than quitting. Quitting doesn't save Apple. Does it help your job prospects as a security engineer? I'm not so sure about that either, but then again I'm not a security employer. Hypotheticall…

> Quitting doesn't save Apple

Well, it kind of does. Right now we're approaching Poe's law with the use of AWA to compel the writing of code, but we're still just barely in the realm of keep-a-straight-face-defensible (largely because the bulk of the population is less tech literate than is ideal). If even a few of Apple's key security engineers quit at the same time, then it becomes very easy for Apple to make the case that they literally cannot do what is asked anytime soon (how long for a new team to cold boot with a new codebase whose domain is cryptography and no one around to provide guidance/tribal knowledge?). In any sane universe this would show that the request has crossed the line into overly burdensome. It is very hard to justify massive penalties to incentivize compliance with something that Apple may or may not be able to do anytime soon [0].

So that would basically leave them the option of stopping the insanity or going after the individual engineers and compelling them, which opens up a whole other heap of lunacy which might have to get resolved before Apple would again be on the hook for action.

If the court then decides that it will compel the individual engineers who are now no longer Apple employees to work.... They're forcing labor from unwilling non-criminal citizens (13th?); they're compelling code, which is speech, and compelling association between the engineers and Apple who would presumably need to be compelled to rehire them because you can't make someone work for free (double 1st); as someone has mentioned they could institute a draft (??) but I'm sure there would be legal contest regarding conscripting specific individuals against their will and this would require the cooperation of congress, the military, the NSA, and it still wouldn't get them the thing they actually want which is precedent.

[0] From wikipedia: "the [fined] party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell" which justifies the lack of a trial for civil contempt fines. If you cannot comply, you lack the ability to escape the fines, you are not receiving due process. I think this little corner of the law might actually be the bulwark that makes zero knowledge systems legally safe as well, though if you have an auto-update system you still would need the code-is-speech, cannot-compel-speech protections to round this out.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#244
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just mentioned how this could be interpreted as a draft to my mother who grew up watching the Vietnam draft, and she immediately brought up an interesting question: "Can you be a conscientious objector?" Given that nobody is being put in a position where they might have to use deadly force, the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply. While suspect it would be hard to extend the concept to the orders give…

You need to prove your conscientious objections to a court. Unless you've got an existing history of privacy activism, that's going to be a challenge.

If you have spent your career improving privacy software.... this is going to be easy. It's a bit like worrying about establishing your religious bona fides if you're a bishop.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#245
post #119

Even putting the engineers in the position to have to make a choice to resist means that you damage their career prospects whichever way they choose. To be known as 'that guy' who {supported a corrupt government/supported terrorism} polarizes future job choices. There's no real upside. As someone asked to do this, I'd be asking for all future earnings up front from the FBI, so the economic worth of this is really 8 o…

If you are one of the very few encryption engineers at apple that can do this, you are already one of their highest paid employees, and also one of the most sought after in the entire realm of tech. Quitting over this is likely to drive your value up even higher. The FBI when it compels people to do things, pays nothing to have them do it. That's the power of the law.

The FBI when it compels people to do things, pays nothing to have them do it.

I'm pretty sure the FBI/Government has stated they will compensate Apple/any external consultants for their time at their usual rate.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#246
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply Unless they are atheist/agnostic and claim that this is a core belief for them. Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs. It would be interesting to force the courts to make a judgement on the differences between the moral tenants atheists/agnostics follow and that of established religions.

>> Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs If you only consider the subset of security related/conscious programmers they're fairly outspoken and on these particular issues they're probably more orthodox than comparable religious constituencies are on organized violence for which there have been pacifist exemptions. I'm not familiar with the law regarding conscientious objection…

> a secular philosophical objection would have to be as equally valid as a religiously motivated one?

That's correct, which is why I mentioned "pacifist or religious arguments". Various types of pacifist arguments have been recognized in the past, of both religious and secular origins.

From the Selective Service[1]:

    WHO QUALIFIES?

    Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature,
    but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons
    for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency,
    or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must
    reflect his current claims.
While religious tests are generally banned, the government can scrutinize the veracity of a claim. I would be very difficult convince a judge that you legitimately believe something if you don't have at least some kind of verifiable history or you regularly engage in behavior that is contradictory with that belief.

It's worth pointing out that being a conscientious objector doesn't necessarily excuse you from having to work for the government; as mentioned in [1], there are "alternate services" available for people that object to the usual draft.

I have no idea how any of this would apply to objecting to creating mass security vulnerabilities. It almost certainly requires a test case and judicial ruling.

[1] https://www.sss.gov/consobj

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#247
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Yes, a judge could hold them in contempt and jail them for some time. That's the only legal option. It's possible they could seize some assets as part of the contempt charge, but there are already plenty of legal groups that would jump at the opportunity to represent them pro bono. The other suggestions you offer are, to be blunt, those of a conspiracy nut.

> Yes, a judge could hold them in contempt and jail them for some time. Not some time, there's no limit. It can be extended arbitrarily. All the others points I made in the legal section are indeed legal and have been used in the past though they are indeed unusual.

It is legal to accuse someone of an astronomical tax debt and take their assets, I do not believe it would be considered legal for the IRS to make that accusation without papers showing the work they used to arrive at the accusation, and it would not be considered a valid chain of reasoning 'because the FBI asked us to'.

This, and other techniques you describe, have been used by the FBI in the past but as far as I know only against the relatively powerless. It seems silly to think the FBI would do it in this case.

If the FBI started doing that to employees or ex-employees I suspect Apple would leave the U.S.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#248
post #170

It may be time for that hippocratic oath for engineers idea to become a reality. I'd take it and live by it.

The ACM has a code of ethics that I like a lot: http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics/ Nothing is stopping you from just affirming yourself to live by them without paying the dues, if you want.

>This principle concerning the quality of life of all people affirms an obligation to protect fundamental human rights and to respect the diversity of all cultures

Sorry did not make it one sentence in before encountering SJW speak.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#249

If Apple continues to resist, the FBI will simply take the source code and signing keys and hand them over to some contractor to do the work. Is that better? Apple's source code and signing keys in the FBI's hands?

It would be better to push the FBI into that position, yes. Make them steal that property at gun point, literally. Force them to show up at Apple HQ, with SWAT teams, threatening to murder innocent, unarmed engineers in the streets. Make sure every news source available is there to witness and broadcast it live.

Why force it? To drop all pretext of what this really is, and reveal the US Government's actions as being that of the fascist monster it has become. After all, we've got the US military directly, intentionally spying on everything Americans do electronically. We're probably two or three steps or 'events' away from our first Caesar attempting to take permanent executive power. It's going to get a lot worse yet, just look how far they've come in a mere 15 years in their power grab. It's better to just stop pretending, here and now, regarding what's really happening.

It would be the Tiananmen Square for privacy in America.

Re: Apple Encryption Engineers, If Ordered to Unlock iPhone, Might Resist

#250
post #227
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is spot on, and this is why bulk surveillance is so dangerous. It would not surprise me to know that the FBI has already started following/spying, and tasked the NSA to electronically monitor key Apple representatives and their lawyers. If they can find anything shady, they can then use that of individuals to try and use that as leverage. The key point here is that if the USG find a way to force Apple and Apple…

> If they can find anything shady This is always better but they don't even need to find it. That's just a bonus. They can just fabricate it. Assange is still in effective house arrest because someone apparently was a victim of "sex by surprise".

Oh please. He did something wrong under Swedish law. That's pretty obvious. Of course he is still there in his little room because of dirty politics. I am sure he would have taken a fine or whatever in Sweden if he were not afraid of being extradited to the US.
Post reply on HN