3 ms·

The article is heavily biased. It is not balanced in any way. They start with a desired conclusion, and then work backwards to construct the answer to the quest

by lucio 11y ago

The article is heavily biased. It is not balanced in any way. They start with a desired conclusion, and then work backwards to construct the answer to the questions.

empressplay 11y ago
I totally agree with you. I understand the whole argument of "if we start unlocking / decrypting our own (Apple's) phones for the government that would be bad" and Apple / their defenders should stick with that, not peddle falsehoods because they feel that's not convincing enough. Trotting out bullshit secondary arguments to try to come up with excuses beyond that are not only unnecessary but are potentially damaging to the root case of protecting personal data from government interception, especially when inevitably others will come out of the woodwork to contradict those statements. We don't need to come out on the wrong side of this and have the general public distrust tech companies any more than they already do.
clort 11y ago
I also agree with this, though that is to be expected. This whole case is massively problematic because the guy was guilty beyond doubt and in a nasty way. The law should not be punitive though, we want justice not revenge. We should not compromise our own standards to pursue potential guilty parties. Summary EFF supports Apple's stand against creating special software to crack their own devices. As the FBI's motion concedes, the All Writs Act requires that the technical assistance requested not be "unduly burdensome," but as outlined above creating this software would indeed be burdensome, risky, and go against modern security engineering practices. So the FBI says the law suggests it not be "unduly burdensome". The EFF response is that they agree it is burdensome but they did not mention unduly so that won't pass. Then they suggest it is risky and goes against modern security engineering practices both of which are irrelevant to the FBI and the law.

by lucio 11y ago

The article is heavily biased. It is not balanced in any way. They start with a desired conclusion, and then work backwards to construct the answer to the questions.

empressplay 11y ago

I totally agree with you. I understand the whole argument of "if we start unlocking / decrypting our own (Apple's) phones for the government that would be bad" and Apple / their defenders should stick with that, not peddle falsehoods because they feel that's not convincing enough. Trotting out bullshit secondary arguments to try to come up with excuses beyond that are not only unnecessary but are potentially damaging to the root case of protecting personal data from government interception, especially when inevitably others will come out of the woodwork to contradict those statements. We don't need to come out on the wrong side of this and have the general public distrust tech companies any more than they already do.

clort 11y ago

I also agree with this, though that is to be expected. This whole case is massively problematic because the guy was guilty beyond doubt and in a nasty way. The law should not be punitive though, we want justice not revenge. We should not compromise our own standards to pursue potential guilty parties. Summary EFF supports Apple's stand against creating special software to crack their own devices. As the FBI's motion concedes, the All Writs Act requires that the technical assistance requested not be "unduly burdensome," but as outlined above creating this software would indeed be burdensome, risky, and go against modern security engineering practices. So the FBI says the law suggests it not be "unduly burdensome". The EFF response is that they agree it is burdensome but they did not mention unduly so that won't pass. Then they suggest it is risky and goes against modern security engineering practices both of which are irrelevant to the FBI and the law.