Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#41

Post by wheels » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 4:15 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #35

wheels wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, and we seem to be approaching a middle-ground, I'm not against any and all technical measures of preventing corporate information leakage. But I do believe that there's a boundary, and it seems we agree here, as to how far that should be allowed to go. Unfettered access to all information on company owned devices as presented (sensationalized as it likely is) in the article that kicked off this discussio…

I wonder if I can pull you closer to my side of the middle by suggesting that it's reasonable for Apple to select for the 5th Generation iPhone engineers who are willing to undergo much more intrusive monitoring, especially if they are compensated for that. Incidentally: drug testing is something you and I could bitch together about way into the night.

This is admittedly a tough one for me, because it brings it down to a choice between two things I'm not comfortable with:

- Corporate invasion of personal privacy

- Limiting a person's ability to choose to do things which I (or the government) think they shouldn't

My first swing at it was that I thought, "Ok, when the legal system much choose one side to protect, perhaps it should default to the weaker side; the side which is least likely to be under duress". But that's just sweet sounding bullshit that was a fancy way of saying, "As long as the weaker party actually wants what I would."

The best I can come up with, and this is oh-so-typically-German, is to say, "Ok, Apple still can't invade their privacy. But I'm fine with ratcheting up the legal repercussions of violating the trust of the employer."

In other words, I'd be fine if more things were promoted up from the level of contract violations and moved closer to the penalties for industrial espionage in an effort to provide a stronger legal deterrent for information leakage, and also to bring in a third-party arbiter (the courts) to decide when, as in any legal proceeding, additional search and seizure is warranted by just cause. (See, I knew I could work in the Fourth Amendment somehow.)

As noted, that is a typically German jurisprudential notion, and I did have to think it through some. (The question really for me is: did I end up here because I think this way? Or do I think this way because I ended up here? :-) )

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#42

Post by tptacek » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 4:29 AM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #36

tptacek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it "sane" for companies not to be able to control and monitor their own Internet connections? People clearly do abuse those connections to violate IP, confidentiality, and insider trading agreements.

I think you've over-simplified the situation to the point that it's a straw-man. Different societies have different social contracts. There's what is legal, and what is polite / socially acceptable. In many Western countries, this kind of behaviour at a non-military company would be in shocking bad taste. It kind of depends on whether your society thinks people > companies, or companies > people.

Well, I don't believe companies are more important than people, and I do think companies should be able to monitor their own computers, and yet somehow I continue to exist.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#43

Post by houseabsolute » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 4:36 AM UTC

wheels wrote: post #8

makmanalp wrote: post #6

I don't know how people who work in large companies expect to have privacy on the company premises anyway: most of those companies make you sign a set of rules that basically says you forfeit your rights. Same concept in the military, you don't have a right to privacy because (they say) it would be to difficult to manage privacy and check for spies at the same time.

In more sane countries, they expect to have privacy because there are reasonable worker protection laws. Something of this sort would be illegal in most western countries. As an American that's been in Germany for the last 8 years, it often blows my mind what's actually taken for granted as being acceptable in the US. Searching through employees' mail is illegal here (as would be searching an employee's personal belo…

A possible answer to the question: "Why wasn't Apple founded in Germany?"

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#44

Post by alex_c » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 4:40 AM UTC

houseabsolute wrote: post #43

wheels wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In more sane countries, they expect to have privacy because there are reasonable worker protection laws. Something of this sort would be illegal in most western countries. As an American that's been in Germany for the last 8 years, it often blows my mind what's actually taken for granted as being acceptable in the US. Searching through employees' mail is illegal here (as would be searching an employee's personal belo…

A possible answer to the question: "Why wasn't Apple founded in Germany?"

How so?

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#45

Post by cmelbye » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 4:50 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #2

I'm pretty sure people are in fact allowed to bring cameras onto the Apple campus, and, from what I can tell, there are no metal detectors or bag searches of any sort there. My knowledge is secondhand, but I'm inclined to believe that much of this article is BS.

I remember seeing a photo of an iPhone developer in front of a huge banner with a screenshot of his app inside of an Apple building on their campus, and it was labeled something like "Secret photo of me in front of banner with our app!" or something of that nature, so it's a possibility that they have restrictions on cameras.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#46

Post by brown9-2 » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 5:07 AM UTC

wooster wrote: post #40

This is wholly-fabricated nonsense. I worked at Apple for 5+ years and, besides for knowing what actually happens in these situations, there are a couple of dead giveaways that "Tom" was never an Apple employee (or, at least, not in Cupertino).

Such as?

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#47

Post by houseabsolute » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 5:08 AM UTC

alex_c wrote: post #44

houseabsolute wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A possible answer to the question: "Why wasn't Apple founded in Germany?"

How so?

The rough idea is that countries that hobble companies' ability to compete will have more trouble generating competitive companies. Obviously this can be taken to extremes (allowing companies to buy children as slaves, for example), but if you err too much on the side of protecting the laborer then you can run into other kinds of consequences.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#48

Post by sown » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 5:20 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #34

elai wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you have to relinquish your personal laptop/cellphone is such situations too?

If you bring your personal laptop into a high-security area and refuse to submit to a search, then, without calling the police, and unless grellas shows up to school me because I am not a lawyer, all your employer can do is fire you.

What about my underpants?

I could hide a usb key in there with vital information. Since I'm bringing my own personal underpants can they search it to?

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#49

Post by sown » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 5:23 AM UTC

geekles wrote: post #16

This sounds like due diligence to protect shareholder interests. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - overheard in an interview somewhere.

And if I'm not a criminal, I shouldn't be treated as such.

It's a tad selfish, if you don't mind me saying, of you to automatically assume it's OK to give away my rights in addition to yours.

Re: Apple Gestapo: How Apple Hunts Down Leaks

#50

Post by wooster » Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 5:33 AM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #46

wooster wrote: post #40

This is wholly-fabricated nonsense. I worked at Apple for 5+ years and, besides for knowing what actually happens in these situations, there are a couple of dead giveaways that "Tom" was never an Apple employee (or, at least, not in Cupertino).

Such as?

"They don't ask for cameras because there are no cameras at Apple: Employees are not allowed to get into the campus with them."

I mean, really, come on. That's just laughable.