TLDR for what follows: Mandated backdoors must be a red line, but this is not a request for a backdoor and actually seems pretty reasonable. Trying to argue tha

TLDR for what follows: Mandated backdoors must be a red line, but this is not a request for a backdoor and actually seems pretty reasonable. Trying to argue that the tech industry shouldn't help, even in this case, is not only the wrong position in my book, but a sure way to lose the bigger debate. My views on the general encryption controversy are: 1. Everyone must be free to make their technology as secure as they possibly can. There can be no mandated weakening of security, back-doors, or other requirements to make the information more easily accessible by law enforcement. On newer iPhones, Apple has patched up the flaw that the FBI wants their help with exploiting. They must continue to be allowed to do that. 2. The government must be able to demand, with a court order predicated on probable cause, that companies provide any and all information that they have that could be useful in circumventing their security features. This can be everything from technical specifications and threat-model analyses, to lists of unpatched vulnerabilities and code-signing keys. 3. It seems to me that American companies have a moral obligation that goes beyond the legal obligations in point #2. They should be actively assisting the government in recovering information, especially when concerning issues of national security. In extreme circumstances, like total war, this should definitely be legally mandated. I'm undecided as to what the policy should be generally. On a practical level, it's probably not feasible for the government to, e.g. start hacking around the iOS codebase themselves, so just information might not be enough. I'm not too troubled by this court order, especially given the particular circumstances. The right to make products as secure as you can, even from yourself and the government, is what's really important to defend. Trying to argue that the tech industry shouldn't help, even in this case, is not only the wrong position in my book, but a sure way to lose the bigger debate. Apple's definition of "backdoor" is highly suspect. A backdoor is if I ship my product with an intentional vulnerability, so that I can hack into it later. Apple's not being forced to add a backdoor, it already exists because the security features break down against an adversary that has Apple's private key, at least for the default 4-digit PIN configuration. Now the government is asking them to use their own capabilities to help hack this phone. Of course, Apple didn't create this backdoor for malicious reasons, they just didn't include themselves in the threat-model, greatly simplifying updates and other security features, and allowing the walled-gardenness of iOS. It's also central to the walled-garden. Curiously, this is in direct contradiction to their claim for some time now, that they were designing iPhones such that they themselves can't break into them. Now put yourself in a Congressman's shoes. The FBI has been telling you for years that tech companies are being purposefully antagonistic to their legitimate search and seizure authority. That the tech companies are purposefully designing features with the sole intention of shutting the government out. Now here's a case where there was no mandated backdoor, the government was able to devise an exploit method, and they got a court order from a judge to make Apple use it on a dead terrorist's phone. "Mandatory backdoors would hurt everyone's security", one of the arguments that we've been winning with, now sounds like a bullshit cover for "we are against any government surveillance". Can you smell the legislation coming yet? Disclaimer: These are obviously my own personal views and nothing else. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions, policies, or practices of anyone but myself. (Reposted from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131456 with additional)