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

U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 350 posts

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#191

Post by CamperBob2 »

GHFigs wrote: post #150
CamperBob2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes a photo tells you all you need to know about a person: e.g., http://i.imgur.com/4CIFpFe.jpg . Modern American law enforcement: a gang of wannabe tinpot dictators with weapons they have no business with, and that they probably have no idea how to use. Finger off the trigger, Sheriff.

"Instead of criticizing one person based on a picture, I criticize thousands of people based on a picture! That'll show him!"

Yeah, stereotypically speaking, it's the 90% of bad cops that give the 10% a bad name. Funny, though, the "good" 10% don't seem to have a problem with that.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#192

Post by mcintyre1994 »

chaz72 wrote: post #181
diminoten wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think it's such a big gamble? People just don't care about privacy as much as the news would have you believe. Don't believe me? Quick, think of one of the largest and most consistently flagrant private entities who violates the privacy of its users on a regular basis, and is well known for it. Did you say Google? Facebook? Now quickly think of two of the largest companies on the Internet, both in reve…

Until Apple promised it so explicitly, I'd have said you might be right. True, Google and Facebook make zillions off of monitoring people for advertisers. That will make it harder for them to follow suit, there will be far more weasel words and such when they try. I think those of us that are willing to pay the premium for something that promises more have higher expectations. If they are lying, I believe we'll know…

Out of interest do you have an example of Google's weasel wording this issue? They're getting criticised by all the same people and seem to be doing the same thing - is there actually an advantage either way here?

Just to clarify, I'm skeptical on both sides - both companies were in the prism leaks after all. But I haven't seen weasel wording and I'm curious if I missed it.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#193

Post by mikeash »

krapp wrote: post #144
mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Apple even be involved in a warrant served against my phone? When you serve a warrant against a house, do you expect that the builder of the house will be able to give you access to the interior even after they no longer own it?

You're implying that Apple doesn't own the content people store on their devices? I thought the entire point of their walled garden OS was that they did, and were quite willing to add, delete or modify it as they please. Going to the actual owners of the content makes perfect sense.

What? Of course Apple doesn't own the content on my iPhone. Why would you think they did? I paid for the thing. It is now mine.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#194

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rsync wrote: post #158
williamcotton wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With end-to-end encryption where the messages are encrypted and decrypted on the client it would not be possible for anyone with access to phone records or central servers to read what was said. They would need to obtain the private keys that are generated on the client devices themselves.

"With end-to-end encryption where the messages are encrypted and decrypted on the client it would not be possible for anyone with access to phone records or central servers to read what was said. They would need to obtain the private keys that are generated on the client devices themselves." Would that it were. You are using the application processor (the "computer") to do that work, but there are two other computers…

It seems like what we need to do is separate the damn things. Build the phone as two independent machines that only communicate with each other over ethernet. Then the user controls the one that runs Android and the other one never sees plaintext.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#195

Post by tlrobinson »

slg wrote: post #24
zachdunn wrote: post #5

This is a bit like protesting door locks because they make it harder to pop in and look around.

I don't support what the government is trying to do here, but minimizing this issue like this is not doing us any favors. The issue isn't that law enforcement can no longer "look around" your phone. The issue is that they can no longer get a warrant and use what is on your phone as evidence in an investigation or court case without the phone owner's cooperation. Basically your phone goes from being personal property…

"Basically your phone goes from being personal property that can be used against you as evidence to an extension of your mind"

Yes, and...? That sounds about right. An implanted device wired directly to your brain seems like the ultimate conclusion to this age of "wearables" we're just now entering.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#196

Post by mortenjorck »

sitkack wrote: post #184
diminoten wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but that plays into the US's very strange views on sex. It feels like an exception, rather than the general rule.

Yes, but... the law is not rational. It will execute the code you give it.

It is JIT-compiled though, and courts will throw compiler errors from time to time.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#198

Post by diminoten »

sitkack wrote: post #184
diminoten wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but that plays into the US's very strange views on sex. It feels like an exception, rather than the general rule.

Yes, but... the law is not rational. It will execute the code you give it.

A large part of the US judicial system relies on people to take laws and find rational and reasonable interpretations.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#199

Post by diminoten »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #183
diminoten wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be as naive as hell here, but when you go from, "we don't want US citizens selling crypto devices to terrorists" to "Timmy's going to see the inside of a jail cell for 20 years for giving Mark a copy of TailsOS" I just can't see how a judge or jury would let it go that far, and I don't think unintended consequences have ever gotten that bad. It just smacks of fear-mongering. "They'll literally lock up your chil…

> It just smacks of fear-mongering. "They'll literally lock up your children!" Prosecutors had every intention of sending Aaron Swartz to prison. We don't need more stupid laws, we need to remove the existing ones.

Aaron Swartz was never convicted. Being charged with a crime and being convicted of a crime are two entirely different things.

Re: U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data

#200

Post by krapp »

gnarbarian wrote: post #189
GHFigs wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are going straight into "think of the children mode" ... apparently "what about the terrorists?" isn't as effective anymore. "They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say? If the article's authors wanted a "what about the terrorists?" quote they would have gone t…

If anything I'm more prone to believe this is disinformation meant to allay our fears and draw us into a false sense of security when using our smartphones. xnull's comment nailed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8390150

Is there any evidence that smartphone purchasing or use has dropped significantly as a symptom of widespread fear of government spying and overreach?

From what I can tell, the only thing most Americans are concerned about at the moment is whether the iPhone will bend if you keep it in your pocket for too long. Disinformation is a plausible strategy, but most Americans simply do not, and have never, cared (and a significant portion of those who do, think it's perfectly justifiable and would tell you Edward Snowden needs to swing from a rope, once you reminded them of who he is.) Would it even be necessary?

Post reply on HN