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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 376 posts

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

#351

Post by peteretep »

BWStearns wrote: post #244
peteretep wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

    > It's a bit like worrying about establishing your 
    > religious bona fides if you're a bishop
I have created a whole lot of software for money. None of it gives any insight in to my conscience.

A better example would be trying to establish religious bona fides as a result of being a carpenter who makes church pews.

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

#352

Post by studentrob »

ohyeshedid wrote: post #336
studentrob wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Apple loses this round, our best hope is they push this debate to the SCOTUS [editing what I wrote, I missed something you said] I believe our best hope is to start informing the public about encryption so that when more laws about encryption start appearing, then they are knowledgeable enough to let their representatives know how they feel about it. The idea is to inform enough so that the government is unable…

Shortish response here. You didn't offend me, man, and I don't stand in opposition to your ideals. What bothers me is that you're advocating public education whilst providing inaccurate narrative. You, yourself, have suggested education through analogies; that in and of itself demonstrates that the concept is too complex for proper education. You have to simplify it, which belies and confuses the depth of the topic.…

Thank you for challenging my thoughts on the subject. I'll consider what you write here as we come up with messaging. I agree with characterizing the situation as pro/anti back door rather than pro/anti encryption.

Note that this is still an analogy. For better or for worse, analogies are used often in education. They're not the whole picture but they are a tool or gateway to other knowledge, if you will.

Anyway thanks again and I look forward to more critical feedback from you should we get a site off the ground. I can't say I'll necessarily agree but I will try to read and consider what you write.

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

#353

Post by afarrell »

lhc- wrote: post #332
afarrell wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has $38 Billion in liquid assets [1]. Facebook has $18 Billion [2]. Amazon has $20 Billion [3]. Alphabet (fka Google) has $73 Billion [4]. Microsoft has $102 Billion [5]. In the last quarter of 2015, the largest companies by market capitalization were Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft [6]. All of the companies I've mentioned have filed or joined in an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Apple [7]. If money mattered…

Another take on this issue is that the FBI and NSA have a strong opposing interest. While they may not lobby in the same sense as Apple etc., they do represent law enforcement, which is an enormously powerful lobby in the US. So all those private companies are on one side, sure, but US law enforcement is on the other, and that's quite a fight (and one that law enforcement has been winning for a long time now).

But what is it that makes law enforcement a more powerful lobby? The average cop with several years of experience makes significantly less than an engineer straight out of college.

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

#354

Post by nitrogen »

jacquesm wrote: post #242
nitrogen wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand US courts from reading Groklaw and HN and Wikipedia, the arguments put forward in friend-of-the-court briefs can still be helpful to judges who may want to rule a certain way, but don't know all of the possible arguments they could use.

There's only so much time they and their staff have to do research, so members of an industry and their legal representatives can contribute if the judges are on the fence or just looking for arguments.

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

#355

Post by jnbiche »

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #347
jnbiche wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by designing systems that can't be circumvented like this again. "Too bad, so sad - we can't do that any more. We're very, very sorry for the inconvenience." But that's exactly why this case is so, so critical. FBI is fishing for a precedent that will make designing these types of systems explicitly illegal. Apple is well aware of this strategy, which is why they've chosen to take their stand here, as unpleasant as…

That's actually a separate, but related, issue. Right now, the courts are weighing whether the FBI can force the creation of a modified OS largely because (a) it's possible to do so with how existing iPhones are engineered, and (b) it wouldn't drastically inconvenience Apple to do so in light of their resources. If they get a favorable ruling, they have a precedent they'll try and use to gain access to other phones i…

You're right, I mispoke.

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

#356

Post by jacquesm »

peteretep wrote: post #350
jacquesm wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Conscription and the draft have been abolished in > most places in the developed world But not America, the topic under discussion, so what's your point? > contempt of court may get you jailed but will not - > and can not - be used to force you to create something That is factually incorrect. There are plenty of counter-examples. One I can remember getting plenty of news coverage is: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17598…

The US uses an all-volunteer force. Selective service is a back-up plan that has not been used.

> That is factually incorrect. There are plenty of counter-examples. One I can remember getting plenty of news coverage is: > http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17598441/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/m...

It's in 'weird news' for a reason, it's not there because this is the normal state of things. Yes, there are idiot judges, and yes, the system is broken to the point where you have no recourse. But to use that as examples to prove that the whole system is broken is reaching.

> Only if you ignore conscription, which is alive and well in the US (Selective Service), and the counter-examples where contempt of court is used to compel people to "create" something.

Neither of which prove that you could use either of those mechanisms to make a computer programmer create a piece of software, which was 'the topic under discussion', so what's your point?

That the US is a crazy country? That some judges are crazy? That you ought to place some checks on Judges power? Or that you actually feel that any of the examples above would be enough to prove to any person reading this that a judge will order a person (not Apple, the company) to create some intellectual property or be jailed if they don't?

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

#357

Post by jacquesm »

optforfon wrote: post #255
peteretep wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

- people have protested extensively when there was a draft - as far as I understand, unlike in Russia or some place you actually aren't forced to work in jail. It's voluntary - they do it because they get paid and get extra benefits - no eminent domain would be pretty insane... you wouldn't have highways or railways etc. without it... since it's been abused in the past - but it has it's place Forcing people to work f…

> just hasn't really been abused till now

It has been abused, plenty of times. But not in the manner the OP suggests.

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

#358

Post by peteretep »

jacquesm wrote: post #356
peteretep wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conscription and the draft have been abolished in > most places in the developed world But not America, the topic under discussion, so what's your point? > contempt of court may get you jailed but will not - > and can not - be used to force you to create something That is factually incorrect. There are plenty of counter-examples. One I can remember getting plenty of news coverage is: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17598…

The US uses an all-volunteer force. Selective service is a back-up plan that has not been used. > That is factually incorrect. There are plenty of counter-examples. One I can remember getting plenty of news coverage is: > http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17598441/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/m... It's in 'weird news' for a reason, it's not there because this is the normal state of things. Yes, there are idiot judges, and yes, th…

I wasn't sure at first, but now I think you're being actively dishonest to try and ...? Who knows.

    > Selective service is a back-up plan that has not been
    > used
Right. Except for WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, which drafted collectively 15m people, when has it ever been used? Either you knew that, and lied, or you didn't know that, and decided to speak authoritively on the point anyway. It would have taken you 10 seconds with Google to know either way.

    > It's in 'weird news' for a reason, it's not there
    > because this is the normal state of things
Right, because the Apple case is run-of-the-mill? The Apple case is "the normal state of things"?

You said it was a new low for the courts. It's not even close. That's my point. You're twisting yourself and your words in circles.

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

#359

Post by peteretep »

optforfon wrote: post #255
peteretep wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

- people have protested extensively when there was a draft - as far as I understand, unlike in Russia or some place you actually aren't forced to work in jail. It's voluntary - they do it because they get paid and get extra benefits - no eminent domain would be pretty insane... you wouldn't have highways or railways etc. without it... since it's been abused in the past - but it has it's place Forcing people to work f…

    > people have protested extensively when there was a
    > draft
I agree. But so what? It's a criminal offense to not register with the Selective Service System to this day, a system that exists primarily to facilitate conscription.

    > as far as I understand [snip]
The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery for convicted criminals, and that's the basis for jail work. Wikipedia has an article about "Penal labor in the United States".

    > no eminent domain would be pretty insane
I agree, but I also think that about "no conscription" and "no contempt of court". I have no strong feelings either way on penal labour. I think the US Court compelling a company to do something is probably a right the court already has, but that's sort of what Apple's case is about, right?

    > Forcing people to work for the court does
    > seems like a weird thing though
And this brings me back to the original point. In the context of conscription, penal labour, corporate personhood, eminent domain, and all the rest of the circus, it doesn't seem especially weird to me. It seems like a rarely used but existing right.

What it's absolutely not is some kind of "new low".

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

#360

Post by jacquesm »

peteretep wrote: post #358
jacquesm wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US uses an all-volunteer force. Selective service is a back-up plan that has not been used. > That is factually incorrect. There are plenty of counter-examples. One I can remember getting plenty of news coverage is: > http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17598441/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/m... It's in 'weird news' for a reason, it's not there because this is the normal state of things. Yes, there are idiot judges, and yes, th…

I wasn't sure at first, but now I think you're being actively dishonest to try and ...? Who knows. > Selective service is a back-up plan that has not been > used Right. Except for WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, which drafted collectively 15m people, when has it ever been used? Either you knew that, and lied, or you didn't know that, and decided to speak authoritively on the point anyway. It would have taken you 10 seco…

> I wasn't sure at first, but now I think you're being actively dishonest to try and ...? Who knows.

That's all in your mind I'm afraid.

> Right. Except for WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, which drafted collectively 15m people, when has it ever been used?

Yes, they were drafted. And since then the draft has been abolished and the US is at present operating an all volunteer force. Nobody got drafted into Iraq or Afghanistan.

That they can re-instate it does not change anything to the fact that right now the US does not have a draft. If you don't like the situation the way it is right now you have the following options:

(1) you can resist if a draft is re-instated, and you'll probably end up in a lot of trouble (I did this and got away with it (not in the US)) but it is possible to resist

(2) you can leave the country

(3) you can give up and get shot at for someone else's reasons

> Right, because the Apple case is run-of-the-mill? The Apple case is "the normal state of things"?

No, the Apple case is very much in the public eye and Apple is a very wealthy company. The courts may see fit to compel Apple to do this but if the employees resign I don't see how the courts are going to conscript them back into working for Apple, and so far nothing you've shown has made me change my mind on that.

> You said it was a new low for the courts. It's not even close. That's my point. You're twisting yourself and your words in circles.

No, I said it would be a new low.

If you feel that these other things are already below that then that's your right but for me there is a huge difference.

Anyway, I'm kind of tired of your personal attacks so I'll let this rest. Bye.

Post reply on HN