3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    I wasn't angry. I find the need to smear me like that an excellent example of the anti-intellectualism that is rife on this site. Fine, I've deleted my contribution. I don't waste time attempting to explain science to christians, I shouldn't waste time trying to teach you lot logic. For the same reason.
fixermark 11y ago
I suspect there's an emotional angle to this that people may not be aware of, either. There are quite a few people active in software engineering today at major companies who grew up with the sci-fi ecosystem of dystopia stories that were relatively prevalent in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Add into the mix their observations and experiences watching the dotcom boom and bust, the first major cases of the FBI chasing down hackers and trying to deal with the inadequacies of the law to handle that class of crime by redlining all the punishments the law allowed, and the utter ridiculousness that was the war between file sharing systems / communities and the RIAA / MPAA, and you end up with a culture primed to see themselves as the smart guardians of the common person against abuse by authority. Even though they are the establishment now, they still see themselves as anti-establishment, taking a stand for little people against Big Brother. That's not necessarily a true reflection of the world (in many cases, the large software companies can themselves stand accused of being Big Brother), but it's the myth they grew up with. And along comes clear and indisputable evidence that their governments have not only the theoretical capacity to mass-harvest data and mass-survey people, they are actually doing it and have actively breached the security infrastructure at the companies these people work for to make it happen. So people in the tech sector are mad. Seething, in fact. We talk of governments metaphorically breaking into people's houses, but it's not a metaphor for the people whose day-job it is to physically secure their houses---the people the governments have actually physically wiretapped, using Cold War-era techniques, without permission. So if the governments want a war about who owns information, the people who work in the tech sector are excited to give them one.
- jordanb 11y ago
  Why does it matter if party A or party B is "the establishment?" Personally I think nobody should be able to mass-surveil the entire population. And I don't trust the tech giants at all (especially on matters of privacy) but in the words of Henry Kissinger: "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."
  - fixermark 11y ago
    It speaks to the disconnect that governments should have predicted but didn't: from one point of view, governments and big tech multinationals should be in the same boat (keeping the "users" safe and secure in their daily activities, able to go about their day without worrying about externalities that they've trusted big organizations to protect them from). But tech company employees don't generally see themselves as part of the same establishment ecosystem as the governments who want them to work together.
TheCraiggers 11y ago
> 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. I would agree with you except for this bit right here. Apple has already acknowledged that they can break this. They just don't want to. If they government pushes hard enough, they won't have a choice. My cynical side this is probably all Apple was hoping for. Look like the good guys, but don't do anything that would increase their liability. Even if they designed something they couldn't break now, they control the update mechanism. Adding the ability to do so in the next update is, from my understanding of Apple products, possible. I do agree that it has forced this whole thing out into the open, but they could have done so much more here to make it actually impossible to break if they truly wanted to make a stand. Of course, they'd be giving up their hold on your device if they did that.

by zaphar 11y ago

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.
- MCRed 11y ago
  I wasn't angry. I find the need to smear me like that an excellent example of the anti-intellectualism that is rife on this site. Fine, I've deleted my contribution. I don't waste time attempting to explain science to christians, I shouldn't waste time trying to teach you lot logic. For the same reason.

fixermark 11y ago

I suspect there's an emotional angle to this that people may not be aware of, either. There are quite a few people active in software engineering today at major companies who grew up with the sci-fi ecosystem of dystopia stories that were relatively prevalent in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Add into the mix their observations and experiences watching the dotcom boom and bust, the first major cases of the FBI chasing down hackers and trying to deal with the inadequacies of the law to handle that class of crime by redlining all the punishments the law allowed, and the utter ridiculousness that was the war between file sharing systems / communities and the RIAA / MPAA, and you end up with a culture primed to see themselves as the smart guardians of the common person against abuse by authority. Even though they are the establishment now, they still see themselves as anti-establishment, taking a stand for little people against Big Brother. That's not necessarily a true reflection of the world (in many cases, the large software companies can themselves stand accused of being Big Brother), but it's the myth they grew up with. And along comes clear and indisputable evidence that their governments have not only the theoretical capacity to mass-harvest data and mass-survey people, they are actually doing it and have actively breached the security infrastructure at the companies these people work for to make it happen. So people in the tech sector are mad. Seething, in fact. We talk of governments metaphorically breaking into people's houses, but it's not a metaphor for the people whose day-job it is to physically secure their houses---the people the governments have actually physically wiretapped, using Cold War-era techniques, without permission. So if the governments want a war about who owns information, the people who work in the tech sector are excited to give them one.

jordanb 11y ago
Why does it matter if party A or party B is "the establishment?" Personally I think nobody should be able to mass-surveil the entire population. And I don't trust the tech giants at all (especially on matters of privacy) but in the words of Henry Kissinger: "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."
- fixermark 11y ago
  It speaks to the disconnect that governments should have predicted but didn't: from one point of view, governments and big tech multinationals should be in the same boat (keeping the "users" safe and secure in their daily activities, able to go about their day without worrying about externalities that they've trusted big organizations to protect them from). But tech company employees don't generally see themselves as part of the same establishment ecosystem as the governments who want them to work together.

TheCraiggers 11y ago

> 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. I would agree with you except for this bit right here. Apple has already acknowledged that they can break this. They just don't want to. If they government pushes hard enough, they won't have a choice. My cynical side this is probably all Apple was hoping for. Look like the good guys, but don't do anything that would increase their liability. Even if they designed something they couldn't break now, they control the update mechanism. Adding the ability to do so in the next update is, from my understanding of Apple products, possible. I do agree that it has forced this whole thing out into the open, but they could have done so much more here to make it actually impossible to break if they truly wanted to make a stand. Of course, they'd be giving up their hold on your device if they did that.