161–170 of 376 posts
Funny to see Jean-Louis's name out of the blue again. He was the creator of BeOS back in the days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications. I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd onl…
> I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd only have to live with pat-downs on every plane flight for so long? That the government would eventually realize that terrorists couldn't hijack planes once passengers knew that the proper response was to storm the cockpit rather than waiting for the usual ransom demand to be acquiesced to? That the terrorists would find other ways to cau…
And the shoe and underwear bombers were some kind of geniuses. "Hey, his putting a failed bomb in his shoe made all the Americans take off their shoes in aiports. I wonder what would happen if I put one in my underwear?"
The guy who convinced TSA to confiscate my 12oz bottle of shampoo because I hadn't poured it into 4 3oz bottles, then put them in a Ziplock bag, also deserves a prize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can make refusal to decrypt a federal felony.
As it already is in some cases in the United Kingdom. Granted, their freedom of speech protections aren't as great as ours, but if Congress really wanted to, what's to stop them from making a Consitutional ammendment that declares encryption keys as not being protected under the Fifth Ammendment?
Congress can't do it alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly are they supposed to permanently remove all semblance of privacy? Short of infiltrating popular open source projects in plain view and proving the (potentially) unprovable, I don't see how this is possible.
Like this: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/tp-lin... If they can't quite do that, then they bring back the whole "export-grade cryptography" thing, except they call it "terrorist-grade cryptography" this time around. Then they start monitoring every crypto-capable open-source project's responsible disclosure system. When they see a vulnerability good enough to subvert that open-source project, t…
Look at the fight against child pornography. Tech companies dedicate a lot of resources to fighting child pornography and working with the FBI to help prosecute offenders and NCMEC to help identify the children being exploited. Even with the active and enthusiastic support of the tech community, it's an uphill battle. How much more difficult would that fight be without that support?
Point being, if governments can't make child pornography--something everyone is against--go away, how likely is it that they'll be able to make a dent against encryption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way we feel out the boundaries of a restriction is not infrequently to imagine an extreme but not impossible scenario and ask if the restriction would apply. People who fail to do this (especially when creating new restrictions everyone in Congress>) often end up very unpleasantly surprised down the line. So, the reply to the last question in your mother/child conversation is likely: "No. You would not be require…
If you'll look back upthread you'll see that my first comment very much mirrors your "presently no known obstructions" rebuttal.
> "No. You would not be required to do so. However, there are presently no known obstructions between you and the door to your room. Go to your room now, lest I find you in contempt of Mother."
Your comment omitted the explanation -thus ignoring the hypothetical- and went directly to analysis of the situation as it currently is.
Context is everything, and the person to whom you were speaking was not likely a child and wasn't asking a series of hypothetical questions in order to put off some unpleasant task. Therefore, the lack of explanation in your comment makes it substantially different from mine and -because it lacks the useful components- not really productive. :)
Taking this further down the rabbit hole: Suppose that only about 5 people can do what the FBI wants done. Suppose all 5 refuse, to the point of quitting Apple. Does the FBI now compel them to return to Apple and write the software or go to jail? And what if one of those engineers says that he doesn't actually know how to do it; Apple only thought he could, but he actually can't. Now we get into territory of proving…
They could be fined hundreds of thousands daily for refusing to act. We recently found out this happened to Yahoo in 2008 [1] via the FISA court. Apple shareholders wouldn't like that. I'm pretty sure Tim Cook and his lawyer mean it when they say they will comply with the law. Apple engineers need not worry so much about quitting their jobs over this. If I were there I would stick with Tim Cook. Consider, If Apple lo…
No such thing will happen. The public will forget this ever happened, and politicians will do nothing to prevent the government from doing this again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, we can all blame someone else. I like this, "not my job to uphold the constitution", "its the courts fault for letting it get here", "its the politicians fault for going a long with this", "its the peoples fault for voting for them". The fact is, if nobody stands up for this, do you really think anyone is going to stand up and try to take away the back door to the iphone and get away with it? Do you really belie…
I hear you. The point is we can stand up for it here and now. This case isn't over. There are a lot of good things about the US. I believe our commitment to freedom of speech is stronger than elsewhere. This case is strongly testing that belief. And, according to the ACLU, it will be at least two years before this court reaches the supreme court [1]. There is a lot of time to educate the public on the facts about the…
".@tim_cook Our nation is at war & this Iphone was used to kill Americans. Protect our homeland, not terrorists. Please cooperate with @FBI."
https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog/status/700348813807063040 http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
> “It’s an independent culture and a rebellious one,” said Jean-Louis Gassée, a venture capitalist who was once an engineering manager at Apple. “If the government tries to compel testimony or action from these engineers, good luck with that.” Funny to see Jean-Louis's name out of the blue again. He was the creator of BeOS back in the days.
It may be time for that hippocratic oath for engineers idea to become a reality. I'd take it and live by it.
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.
.png){kind=link}