9 ms·

Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

80 points by trusche 11y ago

estefan 11y ago
WTF? Two completely unrelated stories in one. I quit the Guardian last month and this is one reason why...
- colejohnson66 11y ago
  I couldn't even bother to finish the article, so I scrolled to the bottom for the conclusion about... G20 and banking? What?
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  You're reading a leader – in print, this would traditionally be printed all on the same page, covering a couple of issues and stating the opinion of the newspaper. It's certainly ubiquitous and familiar in the UK (I don't know about internationally) and it's not at all unusual.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    It's common in lots of countries. Some are just not used to seeing them online.
peterclary 11y ago
I note that nobody was brave enough to sign their name to this article.
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  Maybe no one wrote it. The Graun's stock in trade hit piece editorial is so thoroughly predictable by now they probably have a perl script to churn them out.
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  Their editorials are never signed. They represent the position of the newspaper in general.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  It's a leader, traditionally attributed to the newspaper as a whole.
- frandroid 11y ago
  It's a pretty common thing in the Anglo world for papers to have unsigned editorials, no?
p01926 11y ago
You can almost hear the Guardian's business leader writers rubbing their hands at the prospect. Which is as shameful and shortsighted as it is atypical for the Guardian. I would guess the team behind this article are acutely aware of the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon. Perhaps they're looking for a lifeboat with the Apple-despising Financial Times?
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  I'm missing what statement you're trying to make here – the point of the article is that the tech sector, which has traditionally be very unregulated, is starting to bump up against issues around wider social impact and state regulation. That may or may not be true, but I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to what seems to be a quite valid view to take.
  - dave_sullivan 11y ago
    > the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year. > Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing > That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule. > What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” > This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means. People may be taking offensive to the author not outright denouncing the FBI. He also doesn't sound like a fan of the tech industry (which is certainly ok). But there's a definite tone conveyed in just a few paragraphs.
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      I don't think I am seeing the same tone as you. These quotes don't sound anti-tech, they are discussing difficulties and issues in the sector – that's quite distinct!
citizensixteen 11y ago
This is a battle humans/technologists have been facing since the advent of paper and pencil. Just for fun, the old Apple advertisement. 1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial (HD) Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
jokoon 11y ago
Well I can't expect HN to agree with this article, but let's face it, technologies pose new political questions. I think the argument about the iPhone backdoor software is a slippery slope one. As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. This is what Snowden is about. We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise, so I would be careful when defending Apple here. Now I'm not a lawyer nor a political scientist, but I want to side with the FBI on this one. I'm sure Apple is playing their popularity card here. There are things that are more important and go beyond gadgets built in the silicon valley. It doesn't necessarily have something to do with Snowden. I expect people to disagree with me here, and it's fine.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- wtbob 11y ago
  > As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. I completely agree that the State can compel anyone to do anything he is able to do. That's why it's so vitally important to build systems which don't allow anyone but the owner to authorise changes. Apple shouldn't be able to install an app or update OS code without an iPhone owner okaying the change. Google shouldn't be able to read my WiFi password. Mirosoft shouldn't be able to read my OneDrive files. If it's not possible for someone to do something, then he can't be compelled to do it. In this particular case, the actual owner (the county) should have maintained an ability to access the phone at any time, but they didn't.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    If we define ownership as "having the ultimate control" - the actual owner of every iPhone ever sold is apple.
    - rtpg 11y ago
      Not super true in newer versions of iOS where the update backdoor has been removed by requiring PIN code entry for OS updates.
einar2812 11y ago
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html?via=desktop&source=twitter http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unloc...
mark_l_watson 11y ago
Unlike most comments here, I liked the Arcticle: a good summary of problems the big tech companies are having. Personally I have huge sympathy for Apple in this case. I have less sympathy for Google and Facebook. Apple, admittedly for business reasons, has come out strongly supporting privacy and I think they should be awarded for that.
rayiner 11y ago
It's hard being on the wrong side of prevailing sentiments, and when all this pans out I think people will be a little shocked at how the tech sector's enormous financial advantages will have carried less weight than anyone expected. You can't win politics with money alone. You need a narrative that appeals to peoples' values. Privacy is not a winner in this regard, nor is unrestricted markets (note the leading republican candidate today is pushing an anti-free-trade message). People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc).
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  > People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc). Correct me if I'm wrong it sounds like you are saying encryption is undermining security? It might be you have that backwards?
  - PopsiclePete 11y ago
    Like he said, it's all about the narrative. Let me demonstrate. Pretend you're an average voter who has never heard of "Hacker" News. "Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text messages, San Bernardino would not have happened".
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Pretend I'm the token IT guy in your friend network, "The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own." It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.
      - fweespeech 11y ago
zaphar 11y ago
I'm not so sure that Apple wasn't aware and perhaps even looking for a battle with the {FBI,NSA,CIA,...} when they added encryption. You don't start designing a system that makes you incapable of fulfilling a warrant without expecting and indeed preparing for those battles in the future. In a way with things like NSL's and Secret warrants and courts the US had backed companies like Apple and Google into a wall. Post Snowden everyone knows that the Government can get information about you from them without your knowledge and you will have no recourse. It's a PR battle those companies can't win. So they did an end run. Go ahead and get your secret warrants and send those NSL's it's physically impossible for us to get you the information you want. It forced this whole thing out into open. I can't help but think this sort of legal battle is both expected and in some cases desired by the likes of Apple and Google. They finally get to fight these battles out in the open and any loss of privacy can be blamed on the government rather than the company. It's a kind of PR win whether they win the court case or not. Of course there is still the problem of not looking pro-terrorist in the process which is another risk to factor in. But at least it's a public debate rather than a private one now.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - tdaltonc 11y ago
    The government caused the Dotcom bubble?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    You're way off base on a bunch of your points, but here's one I'll address: > The "All Writs Act" doesn't apply here because... The All Writs Act appears to be somewhat frequently used to compel assistance with things like bypassing phone lock screens. It's not at all clear to this amateur law nerd -and appears to be not entirely clear in the professional law wonk community- that the attempt to use the AWA to compel Apple to break their own crypto scheme is inappropriate. I get that you're mad about things. Bad argument motivated by anger rarely changes anything.
codeisawesome 11y ago
> Apple has been excoriated by presidential candidates, and backed into the tightest of corners by the FBI: the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year. I can't believe The Guardian is sounding so hostile to Apple in this context. Don't they understand the consequences?!
- lhnz 11y ago
  It's not so surprising. A lot of people have been jealously watching on as 'fat cat' 'tech bros' eat into their industries. Now there are signs that the market will correct and that technology companies will not continue to get free passes with which to ignore government. In short, they want to see blood and will settle to see it whichever way they can. Tech on the whole needs to wise up politically. It cannot continue to accept the negative characterisations of its members, nor can it continue to do whatever it wants without any political ramifications. Even if we believe we're doing the right thing, we'll need to redeem ourselves in the public eye and critically evaluate solutions to social problems we've been implicated in (whether or not we are the sole cause of them.)
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    It's odd, yesterday they had a fairly prominently displayed piece praising it (at least for the UK): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-smartphone-personal-data http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-s... If you look through the other articles it's all been fairly pro-Apple: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple It's a bit strange that a business writer has been allowed to fairly anonymously attack Apple, in what has been a pro-Snowdon/privacy paper.
    - lhnz 11y ago
      I don't mean to discount the anti-censorship narrative. I'm merely pointing to another narrative that also exists and is gaining mindshare - demographic issues in tech, inequality caused by tech, tech ignoring government, people in tech being arrogant, etc.
studentrob 11y ago
The article is arguing that tech companies used to operate with impunity and are now facing tougher times. Which company operated without consequences? Microsoft had to decouple IE years ago, and other monopolies have been forced to break apart or sell off pieces. Software patents have caused plenty of headaches and force us to walk on egg shells, hire expensive defense attorneys, or lobby congress for more reasonable laws that promote innovation. This article is all over the place. Leader or not, it's too unfocused to make sense. It's clear whoever compiled and published it does not really understand tech.
nerdcity 11y ago
Encryption is a reality check for the government. It's not going away, even if they outlaw it.
- xufi 11y ago
  They have a hard time understanding it apparently
- xufi 11y ago
  They have a hard time understanding it apparently
Cuuugi 11y ago
As i understand the situation, the FBI only wanted Apple to create a operating system that lives in the devices ram that removes the wipe after 10 tries. This would not comprimise Apple's encryption since the operating system would still contain Apple's private key (and the FBI added one time use provisions, also that this could happen in an Apple Facility). Hence the question is, Does Apple have to make a different OS (so that the FBI could brute force) to see what is contained on the particular device? I think they will be forced to, and i don't know that i have a problem with it.
plorg 11y ago
I am of a few minds about this. Firstly, I do not want to create a political environment where the government can tell people how their phones can be made (w.r.t. security, particularly). Thus, I want there to be clear limits on what federal agencies are able to do. But secondly, I am skeptical about the way giant corporations wield their power against the government. Apple surely has its own priorities and goals, which are often at odds with mine and, separately, those of the government that represents me. While I have a small bit of influence on how my government operates I have even less influence on how such corporations operate, even though their decisions greatly affect my life. When their position re:privacy reflects mine, I am glad for it, but what happens when the issue is taxation or trade policy? My government might not be pursuing great solutions on these issues, but I don't really trust giant self-interested corporations to have a better solution. Thirdly, though, I am personally concerned about how this debate cements Apple's power to lock down their devices even, in many ways against their users. The particulars of their security design seem to preclude users from writing their own operating systems for the phone or creating/using software that isn't directly sanctioned by the company. The same applies, to a great extent, to other hardware and software vendors (in particular, Google/Microsoft/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/etc.). I suspect this battle will end up giving us more locked-down devices in the name of security.

80 points by trusche 11y ago

estefan 11y ago

WTF? Two completely unrelated stories in one. I quit the Guardian last month and this is one reason why...

colejohnson66 11y ago
I couldn't even bother to finish the article, so I scrolled to the bottom for the conclusion about... G20 and banking? What?
matthewmacleod 11y ago
You're reading a leader – in print, this would traditionally be printed all on the same page, covering a couple of issues and stating the opinion of the newspaper. It's certainly ubiquitous and familiar in the UK (I don't know about internationally) and it's not at all unusual.
- vidarh 11y ago
  It's common in lots of countries. Some are just not used to seeing them online.

peterclary 11y ago

I note that nobody was brave enough to sign their name to this article.

stevetrewick 11y ago
Maybe no one wrote it. The Graun's stock in trade hit piece editorial is so thoroughly predictable by now they probably have a perl script to churn them out.
mike_hearn 11y ago
Their editorials are never signed. They represent the position of the newspaper in general.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
It's a leader, traditionally attributed to the newspaper as a whole.
frandroid 11y ago
It's a pretty common thing in the Anglo world for papers to have unsigned editorials, no?

p01926 11y ago

You can almost hear the Guardian's business leader writers rubbing their hands at the prospect. Which is as shameful and shortsighted as it is atypical for the Guardian. I would guess the team behind this article are acutely aware of the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon. Perhaps they're looking for a lifeboat with the Apple-despising Financial Times?

matthewmacleod 11y ago
I'm missing what statement you're trying to make here – the point of the article is that the tech sector, which has traditionally be very unregulated, is starting to bump up against issues around wider social impact and state regulation. That may or may not be true, but I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to what seems to be a quite valid view to take.
- dave_sullivan 11y ago
  > the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year. > Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing > That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule. > What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” > This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means. People may be taking offensive to the author not outright denouncing the FBI. He also doesn't sound like a fan of the tech industry (which is certainly ok). But there's a definite tone conveyed in just a few paragraphs.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    I don't think I am seeing the same tone as you. These quotes don't sound anti-tech, they are discussing difficulties and issues in the sector – that's quite distinct!

citizensixteen 11y ago

This is a battle humans/technologists have been facing since the advent of paper and pencil. Just for fun, the old Apple advertisement. 1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial (HD) Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

jokoon 11y ago

Well I can't expect HN to agree with this article, but let's face it, technologies pose new political questions. I think the argument about the iPhone backdoor software is a slippery slope one. As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. This is what Snowden is about. We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise, so I would be careful when defending Apple here. Now I'm not a lawyer nor a political scientist, but I want to side with the FBI on this one. I'm sure Apple is playing their popularity card here. There are things that are more important and go beyond gadgets built in the silicon valley. It doesn't necessarily have something to do with Snowden. I expect people to disagree with me here, and it's fine.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wtbob 11y ago
> As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. I completely agree that the State can compel anyone to do anything he is able to do. That's why it's so vitally important to build systems which don't allow anyone but the owner to authorise changes. Apple shouldn't be able to install an app or update OS code without an iPhone owner okaying the change. Google shouldn't be able to read my WiFi password. Mirosoft shouldn't be able to read my OneDrive files. If it's not possible for someone to do something, then he can't be compelled to do it. In this particular case, the actual owner (the county) should have maintained an ability to access the phone at any time, but they didn't.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  If we define ownership as "having the ultimate control" - the actual owner of every iPhone ever sold is apple.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Not super true in newer versions of iOS where the update backdoor has been removed by requiring PIN code entry for OS updates.

einar2812 11y ago

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html?via=desktop&source=twitter http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unloc...

mark_l_watson 11y ago

Unlike most comments here, I liked the Arcticle: a good summary of problems the big tech companies are having. Personally I have huge sympathy for Apple in this case. I have less sympathy for Google and Facebook. Apple, admittedly for business reasons, has come out strongly supporting privacy and I think they should be awarded for that.

rayiner 11y ago

It's hard being on the wrong side of prevailing sentiments, and when all this pans out I think people will be a little shocked at how the tech sector's enormous financial advantages will have carried less weight than anyone expected. You can't win politics with money alone. You need a narrative that appeals to peoples' values. Privacy is not a winner in this regard, nor is unrestricted markets (note the leading republican candidate today is pushing an anti-free-trade message). People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc).

forgotpwtomain 11y ago
> People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc). Correct me if I'm wrong it sounds like you are saying encryption is undermining security? It might be you have that backwards?
- PopsiclePete 11y ago
  Like he said, it's all about the narrative. Let me demonstrate. Pretend you're an average voter who has never heard of "Hacker" News. "Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text messages, San Bernardino would not have happened".
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Pretend I'm the token IT guy in your friend network, "The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own." It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.
    - fweespeech 11y ago

zaphar 11y ago

I'm not so sure that Apple wasn't aware and perhaps even looking for a battle with the {FBI,NSA,CIA,...} when they added encryption. You don't start designing a system that makes you incapable of fulfilling a warrant without expecting and indeed preparing for those battles in the future. In a way with things like NSL's and Secret warrants and courts the US had backed companies like Apple and Google into a wall. Post Snowden everyone knows that the Government can get information about you from them without your knowledge and you will have no recourse. It's a PR battle those companies can't win. So they did an end run. Go ahead and get your secret warrants and send those NSL's it's physically impossible for us to get you the information you want. It forced this whole thing out into open. I can't help but think this sort of legal battle is both expected and in some cases desired by the likes of Apple and Google. They finally get to fight these battles out in the open and any loss of privacy can be blamed on the government rather than the company. It's a kind of PR win whether they win the court case or not. Of course there is still the problem of not looking pro-terrorist in the process which is another risk to factor in. But at least it's a public debate rather than a private one now.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- tdaltonc 11y ago
  The government caused the Dotcom bubble?
- simoncion 11y ago
  You're way off base on a bunch of your points, but here's one I'll address: > The "All Writs Act" doesn't apply here because... The All Writs Act appears to be somewhat frequently used to compel assistance with things like bypassing phone lock screens. It's not at all clear to this amateur law nerd -and appears to be not entirely clear in the professional law wonk community- that the attempt to use the AWA to compel Apple to break their own crypto scheme is inappropriate. I get that you're mad about things. Bad argument motivated by anger rarely changes anything.

codeisawesome 11y ago

> Apple has been excoriated by presidential candidates, and backed into the tightest of corners by the FBI: the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year. I can't believe The Guardian is sounding so hostile to Apple in this context. Don't they understand the consequences?!

lhnz 11y ago
It's not so surprising. A lot of people have been jealously watching on as 'fat cat' 'tech bros' eat into their industries. Now there are signs that the market will correct and that technology companies will not continue to get free passes with which to ignore government. In short, they want to see blood and will settle to see it whichever way they can. Tech on the whole needs to wise up politically. It cannot continue to accept the negative characterisations of its members, nor can it continue to do whatever it wants without any political ramifications. Even if we believe we're doing the right thing, we'll need to redeem ourselves in the public eye and critically evaluate solutions to social problems we've been implicated in (whether or not we are the sole cause of them.)
- mattmanser 11y ago
  It's odd, yesterday they had a fairly prominently displayed piece praising it (at least for the UK): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-smartphone-personal-data http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-s... If you look through the other articles it's all been fairly pro-Apple: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple It's a bit strange that a business writer has been allowed to fairly anonymously attack Apple, in what has been a pro-Snowdon/privacy paper.
  - lhnz 11y ago
    I don't mean to discount the anti-censorship narrative. I'm merely pointing to another narrative that also exists and is gaining mindshare - demographic issues in tech, inequality caused by tech, tech ignoring government, people in tech being arrogant, etc.

studentrob 11y ago

The article is arguing that tech companies used to operate with impunity and are now facing tougher times. Which company operated without consequences? Microsoft had to decouple IE years ago, and other monopolies have been forced to break apart or sell off pieces. Software patents have caused plenty of headaches and force us to walk on egg shells, hire expensive defense attorneys, or lobby congress for more reasonable laws that promote innovation. This article is all over the place. Leader or not, it's too unfocused to make sense. It's clear whoever compiled and published it does not really understand tech.

nerdcity 11y ago

Encryption is a reality check for the government. It's not going away, even if they outlaw it.

xufi 11y ago
They have a hard time understanding it apparently
xufi 11y ago
They have a hard time understanding it apparently

Cuuugi 11y ago

As i understand the situation, the FBI only wanted Apple to create a operating system that lives in the devices ram that removes the wipe after 10 tries. This would not comprimise Apple's encryption since the operating system would still contain Apple's private key (and the FBI added one time use provisions, also that this could happen in an Apple Facility). Hence the question is, Does Apple have to make a different OS (so that the FBI could brute force) to see what is contained on the particular device? I think they will be forced to, and i don't know that i have a problem with it.

plorg 11y ago

I am of a few minds about this. Firstly, I do not want to create a political environment where the government can tell people how their phones can be made (w.r.t. security, particularly). Thus, I want there to be clear limits on what federal agencies are able to do. But secondly, I am skeptical about the way giant corporations wield their power against the government. Apple surely has its own priorities and goals, which are often at odds with mine and, separately, those of the government that represents me. While I have a small bit of influence on how my government operates I have even less influence on how such corporations operate, even though their decisions greatly affect my life. When their position re:privacy reflects mine, I am glad for it, but what happens when the issue is taxation or trade policy? My government might not be pursuing great solutions on these issues, but I don't really trust giant self-interested corporations to have a better solution. Thirdly, though, I am personally concerned about how this debate cements Apple's power to lock down their devices even, in many ways against their users. The particulars of their security design seem to preclude users from writing their own operating systems for the phone or creating/using software that isn't directly sanctioned by the company. The same applies, to a great extent, to other hardware and software vendors (in particular, Google/Microsoft/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/etc.). I suspect this battle will end up giving us more locked-down devices in the name of security.