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

171–180 of 261 posts

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

#171

Post by d0m »

mythz wrote: post #167
d0m wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone. To be clear, do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack? I guess the part I don't understand is how creating a backdoor for THIS phone makes it so that ALL users would get a backdoor..? Couldn't they push the software just to that phone for exceptional reasons? If the…

> What does that even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. Tim's addressing the wider public (i.e. not tech professionals) and explains what he means in context, i.e. its bad software, something they would never write or should ever be forced to write. > I've got a hard time believing that apple can't crack their own phone. You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they…

>> You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass code it was encrypted with?

Sorry, I meant to say "As an engineer, I've got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone". Thanks for clarifying it up.

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

#172

Post by msbarnett »

timr wrote: post #113
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…

"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…

> Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't think it's Apple's job to enforce it.

Well, do you not believe the First Ammendmant protects against compelled speech?

Because the FBI's argument here boils down to "we have the right to require people to cryptographically sign things against their will"

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

#173

Post by msbarnett »

karmacondon wrote: post #91

I have a question for the lawyers on HN. Why doesn't the judge in the case hold Apple in contempt of court until they modify the OS, in the same way they would hold a reporter in contempt until they revealed a source? In both cases, you have a third party who is being compelled to assist an investigation against their will. My only guess is that there is a precedent set for reporters, but not for computer programmers…

It's an ex parte order -- meaning, it was issued to the government without anyone from Apple present to argue against it, so instead Apple gets a chance to respond arguing against it after the fact.

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

#174

Post by swyman »

odbol_ wrote: post #162
biturd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Fa…

I wonder if they could make a case that it violates the HIPAA, since your heartbeat/activity tracker info is on the device? Kind of a weak argument, but HIPAA is a pretty contentious subject.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that HIPAA privacy rules only apply to healthcare providers like hospitals and their employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_a...

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

#175

Post by vedaprodarte »

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…

Thanks, you have reminded me some huge IT companies that can also be related with this case! Amazon and the other IT infrastructure companies. Why are they missing or remain silent? Does it implies anything?

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

#176

Post by rtpg »

studentrob wrote: post #160
timr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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'…

>> "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." > you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law. They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress. This case is so unprecedented that there's a…

>This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law.

This case is actually super with precedent, if you ignore the digital nature of things. Apple has keys to a safe (digital signage key for iOS updates), FBI has warrant to search safe, court orders keys to safe. Fourth amendment doesn't apply because Apple can't incriminate themselves by giving signage keys.

There is the whole "asking Apple to write the OS changes and sign it", instead of just "Asking Apple for the signing keys." I would call this a compromise ruling to avoid having Apple have to give the actual for real skeleton key.

Asking a judge to not force Apple to surrender the digital signage keys requires more subtle arguments about burden. Asking for any ruling on encryption itself is asking a court to legislate from the bench

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

#177

Post by twblalock »

samstave wrote: post #100
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…

If the government wins this case, I will permanently destroy my personal cell phone and will never have one again. I will maintain a cell phone for work only.

That's a bit far. I'll just stop using mine to plot major crimes.

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

#178

Post by huuu »

This is all great but one thing bothers me: they still apply to some government requests to give some data [1].

I know that adding a backdoor is different, but why not also protect for example emails on a server?

http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests...

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

#179

Post by sneak »

biturd wrote: post #142
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 Fa…

AT&T is basically a full voluntary partner in the surveillance state.

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

#180

Post by studentrob »

rtpg wrote: post #176
studentrob wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." > you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law. They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress. This case is so unprecedented that there's a…

>This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. This case is actually super with precedent, if you ignore the digital nature of things. Apple has keys to a safe (digital signage key for iOS updates), FBI has warrant to search safe, court orders keys to safe. Fourth amendment doesn't apply because Apple can't incriminate themselves by giving signage keys. There is…

> if you ignore the digital nature of things

That is a gigantic "if"

Post reply on HN