12 ms·

I'm not sure I understand the distinction he's making. G will comply with "valid legal orders"; what is not "valid" about the order Apple got? Why is granting l

I'm not sure I understand the distinction he's making. G will comply with "valid legal orders"; what is not "valid" about the order Apple got? Why is granting law enforcement different from hacking devices, the point of which is to gain access to data?

sandworm101 11y ago
The order has been issued properly, so it is valid, but Apple et al will claim that it violates their constitutional rights. So the order can be issued but not enforced. That;s the "illegal" aspect.
joycey 11y ago
I believe the difference is that Apple/Google are okay with turning over user data on a case-by-case basis provided there's a proper subpoena from a judge, but not okay with building a tool for the FBI that will allow them to look at any user's data. The former is equivalent to allowing the government to open your mail and wander around your house provided that they've obtained a search warrant. The latter is equivalent to building a tool that would allow the government to open anyone's mail and wander around anyone's house without a search warrant.
- prutschman 11y ago
  The FBI claims they're willing to accept a device-locked hack, that it's fine if it is only RAM-resident, and that Apple may keep the device on their own premises so long as FBI can attempt multiple pin entries electronically without risking a wipe. http://www.zdnet.com/article/this-is-how-the-fbi-wants-apple-to-backdoor-the-iphone/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/this-is-how-the-fbi-wants-apple...
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device. I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access. Which is interesting, since he's essentially admitting that their push to send everything to "the cloud" makes their users less safe from governmental snooping (justified or not). Of course, we already knew that, but it's curious to see Google's own CEO say it.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    > I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access. No, Pichai is making a distinction between giving the information after a correct process and developing a backdoor to slurp the data. It has nothing to do with cloud/device differences
    - icebraining 11y ago
      That's a distinction without a difference, since in practice they only need a backdoor to get data from the user's devices and not from their servers.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device Aside from the non-sequitur, what Apple has been asked for is a custom build of iOS.
    - tadfisher 11y ago
      That's stretching the jargon a bit. I know that's what Cook said, but it could be a one-off process without the "custom build" leaving Apple's hands. Basically, comment out the time-delay and wipe code, build, sign, and push to the device. Really the most important part there is the "sign" step, and the fact that the FBI isn't straight-up asking for the signing keys is telling; they didn't want this request to escalate the way it has.
      - zaroth 11y ago
        They don't want the signing key because that sets the wrong precedent. The precedent they want is that All Writs can be used to force Apple into creating a backdoor. The next step is an online attack backdoor which slurps data over LTE from a suspect's device while it is unlocked.
    - icebraining 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

The order has been issued properly, so it is valid, but Apple et al will claim that it violates their constitutional rights. So the order can be issued but not enforced. That;s the "illegal" aspect.

joycey 11y ago

I believe the difference is that Apple/Google are okay with turning over user data on a case-by-case basis provided there's a proper subpoena from a judge, but not okay with building a tool for the FBI that will allow them to look at any user's data. The former is equivalent to allowing the government to open your mail and wander around your house provided that they've obtained a search warrant. The latter is equivalent to building a tool that would allow the government to open anyone's mail and wander around anyone's house without a search warrant.

prutschman 11y ago
The FBI claims they're willing to accept a device-locked hack, that it's fine if it is only RAM-resident, and that Apple may keep the device on their own premises so long as FBI can attempt multiple pin entries electronically without risking a wipe. http://www.zdnet.com/article/this-is-how-the-fbi-wants-apple-to-backdoor-the-iphone/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/this-is-how-the-fbi-wants-apple...
icebraining 11y ago
I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device. I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access. Which is interesting, since he's essentially admitting that their push to send everything to "the cloud" makes their users less safe from governmental snooping (justified or not). Of course, we already knew that, but it's curious to see Google's own CEO say it.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > I think Pichai is making a distinction between handing over data they already own (eg. a Gmail account) and data stored on user-controlled devices, which must be hacked to access. No, Pichai is making a distinction between giving the information after a correct process and developing a backdoor to slurp the data. It has nothing to do with cloud/device differences
  - icebraining 11y ago
    That's a distinction without a difference, since in practice they only need a backdoor to get data from the user's devices and not from their servers.
- rhizome 11y ago
  I don't think Apple has been asked to build a tool, just to help unlock a single device Aside from the non-sequitur, what Apple has been asked for is a custom build of iOS.
  - tadfisher 11y ago
    That's stretching the jargon a bit. I know that's what Cook said, but it could be a one-off process without the "custom build" leaving Apple's hands. Basically, comment out the time-delay and wipe code, build, sign, and push to the device. Really the most important part there is the "sign" step, and the fact that the FBI isn't straight-up asking for the signing keys is telling; they didn't want this request to escalate the way it has.
    - zaroth 11y ago
      They don't want the signing key because that sets the wrong precedent. The precedent they want is that All Writs can be used to force Apple into creating a backdoor. The next step is an online attack backdoor which slurps data over LTE from a suspect's device while it is unlocked.
  - icebraining 11y ago