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

141–150 of 261 posts

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

#141

Post by timr »

studentrob wrote: post #126
timr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"From recent polls most people think this debate is about..." ...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with your opinion on the matter. For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is "yes, sometimes" , with an additional "there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'" , added for good measure. Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't…

The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one. I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security, however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both support Apple now in this fight against government overreach and put pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two ideas are not mutually…

"The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one."

I don't think that's true, but even if I'm wrong, you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one.

Also, I don't agree that this is government overreach. This case seems about as clear-cut an example of a "good" investigatory behavior as we're likely to see. If you can't get behind the idea of compromising privacy when there's a valid warrant, in the case of a known mass murderer with probable ties to international terrorist groups, well...you've set an exceptionally high bar. I'm a reasonable person, I see your position, and I disagree with you on the merits of your argument.

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

#142

Post by biturd »

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

What about other large semi tech companies. Starting with Tesla, but GE, paypal, Asus, Linksys, Cisco, Sun, Bay Networks, Coca-Cola, IBM, FedEx, Starbucks, Procter and Gamble and all medical HIPAA institutions, schools and Universities, McDonalds, Disney, Pixar, Amex, Visa, MasterCard, Costco, Caterpillar, Target, Nike, UPS, USPS, Exxon, Pepsi, Samsung, AT&T, t_mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Oracle, General Mills, Wells Fargo, Investment banking companies, etc.

They all have a stake in tech, and they all would not like to have their tech backed up by a system, that anyone can get into if one person leaks it out. DMV, the police, all those poorly secured systems that are now basically a new RFC that is for publicly routable address space that everyone treats like private address space, but just insert your special gummy bear finger print copy, and bam, you are in.

Get all those companies behind this, and people will think the FBI are crooks and theives.

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

#143

Post by dapearce »

multinglets wrote: post #136

So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it. The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance. If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufa…

1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

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

#144

Post by roywiggins »

teambob wrote: post #75

I thought it was an alleged terrorist's phone? Or has innocent until proven guilty gone out the window?

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. The man in question died in a shootout with police; he will never be proven guilty, because you can't put a dead man on trial. You can't libel or defame a dead man, from the point of view of the law.

There has to be a point where media can call someone a terrorist short of conviction in a court of law. You can argue that that point hasn't been reached in this case, but there has to be a point, since otherwise we'd have to call Bin Laden an "alleged terrorist."

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

#145

Post by studentrob »

Theodores wrote: post #26

The tech industry seems to be a bit like Hollywood in how it supports the military industrial complex - the pendulum swings between 'pro-totalitarianism' (where everyone signs up the the Patriot Act of the day without hesitation) and something more 'pro-democratic' (when a Snowden type situation comes along and freedom stuff gains traction). In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A., it allows for this dyn…

> In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A.

Money talks, but votes are king. When we collectively vote a politician out of office, his or her money dries up. In a way, votes are made more powerful by money.

Check out This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1]

Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2]

...

Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2]

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t... [2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

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

#146

Post by callmeed »

chishaku wrote: post #138

What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior executives if they refuse to cooperate? Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0] The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was the 2013 settlement…

Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?

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

#147

Post by multinglets »

dapearce wrote: post #143
multinglets wrote: post #136

So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it. The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it comes to decrying government surveillance. If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe manufa…

1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software thems…

> 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that house so I can walk through it, that would not mean houses now have back doors. That would be a very disingenuous way of putting it.

"But what if the software is copied" is the only argument that holds any weight, and I don't find it very convincing. If the "copyability" of sensitive software/data is such a huge concern, then we should probably start asking how we intend to survive as a species.

> 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

Perhaps, but that's not what Tim Cook is saying.

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

#148

Post by avn2109 »

mythz wrote: post #22

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Indus…

This strikes me as a great opportunity to use the "think of the children" argument against the government. Headlines should read like this:

"FBI wants ability to steal dick pics from any iPhone, including children's phones!"

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

#149

Post by dapearce »

multinglets wrote: post #147
dapearce wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that Apple is being compelled to develop this software thems…

> 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands. If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a construction crew to come install a new door in that ho…

Did you read their motion?[1] It is very much part of their argument. It sets a precedent that not only will other US courts compel them to unlock devices, but other countries will as well. Even if you trust the US government to not use the software maliciously, do you trust other governments?

1) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...

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

#150

Post by [deleted] »

timr wrote: post #141
studentrob wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one. I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security, however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both support Apple now in this fight against government overreach and put pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two ideas are not mutually…

"The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." I don't think that's true, but even if I'm wrong, you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Also, I don't agree that this is government overreach. This case seems about as clear-cut an example of a "good" investigatory behavior as we'…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN