16 ms·

This FAQ has more than 1000 words, but these are the words that matter: The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall i

by panarky 11y ago

This FAQ has more than 1000 words, but these are the words that matter: The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it. Can a court force a company or an individual to create something that does not exist? China required Google to actively censor search results about sensitive topics, and Google quit China. (They may now be heading back [1].) Bing stayed in China and silently replaced their organic results with government-approved propaganda [2]. The best way to prevent governments from oppressing their citizens is to refuse to create tools that enable oppression. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-go... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/11/bing-censors-chinese-language-search-results http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/11/bing-censo...

hahainternet 11y ago
> The best way to prevent governments from oppressing their citizens is to refuse to create tools that enable oppression. Are search warrants oppressive? Can you distinguish this request from the FBI requesting a safe manufacturer modify the firmware on a single safe? I doubt either of these can be reliably argued.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  That's the whole issue, isn't it? You can't create software that operates only on a single instance of a computer. It'll run on all of them.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    Apple could write code that checks the hardware ID supplied and sign only that version. It's been sufficient to prevent hacking so far and is the major protection relied upon until the latest generation, so I don't think this is an issue at all.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      ...and they give it to the FBI who then changes that ID as they please? Remove signing altogether? Its the fear of a blank check that drives this issue.
      - matthewmacleod 11y ago
        No – iOS is signed, and changing the ID would invalidate the signature.
        creshal 11y ago
        And can Apple guarantee that the ID can't be changed inside the device? If they can't it makes a lot of sense for Apple to refuse creating such a tool.
        hahainternet 11y ago
        That guarantee until the latest generation was the only thing protecting the hardware. It has never been altered or hacked that I am aware of. Doing so would require modifying the physical construction of the chips on the device. Possible? Maybe, but if it was that simple the FBI could simply change the signing key. It's not, and they can't.
        matthewmacleod 11y ago
        Pretty much, as far as I'm aware; the device ID cannot be changed. Bear in mind that this entire discussion is applicable only to older iPhones, in any case.
        zaroth 11y ago
        The ID can be easily changed. A quick Google search will easily confirm this. The question is can you change one devices ID to exactly match another. This might require hacking the BPP or finding a SHA1 hash collision, both of which are absolutely possible but not necessarily trivial.
        11y ago
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    That's not the case – if Apple produce a signed iOS version that allows the passcode retry limit to be bypassed on a single device, then in what meaningful sense does it operate on another device?
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      I guess when the FBI compels them again. Or once they have a foot in the door, compels them to remove the signing requirement, or wants their own ability to sign. This is not mysterious. Can the FBI require a software company to subvert their own security guarantees? Should they? Do bank vaults have back doors for the FBI?
      - matthewmacleod 11y ago
        I guess when the FBI compels them again That's a bit of a specious argument though – of course, if they produce different software in the future, it could be used again! If the FBI want their own ability to sign Apple updates, then that's obviously a different situation. But the point you were making – that it's not possible to write software that will run on only one device – is not true in this case. This is not mysterious. Can the FBI require a software company to subvert their own security guarantees? Should they? Do bank vaults have back doors for the FBI? I don't really know the right answer.
    - msbarnett 11y ago
      > if Apple produce a signed iOS version that allows the passcode retry limit to be bypassed on a single device, then in what meaningful sense does it operate on another device? What prevents the iOS image from being loaded onto another device? Apple isn't magic; the code they write to verify device identity isn't going to be the first perfect, unbuggy, unexploitable code written in human history. if(device_udid == terrorist_id) {...} might seem infallible, to you, but the reality is that the device_udid is just SHA1(Wifi MAC + Bluetooth MAC + ECID + Serial). All of those are writable, some via the Baseband and some via physical access. Generating SHA1 collisions is completely feasible for ~$1,000,000 of computing time, which is chump change to nation states. There is no infallible way for Apple to make an iOS version for one single device. Edit: And stories like http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-criminal-cases-due/story?id=37029693 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-... make it absolutely clear that this is not stoping at a single device.
- panarky 11y ago
  > Are search warrants oppressive? A search warrant doesn't require me to create a new capability that did not exist before. From the FAQ: The digital world is very different from the physical world. In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices... The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    > A search warrant doesn't require me to create a new capability that did not exist before. I don't see how that's relevant. If I invent a new kind of lock you've never seen before, you'll have to come up with a way to break it. I'm asking for why a search warrant would be oppressive, even if it involved creating new firmware for a safe.
    - uxp 11y ago
      > If I invent a new kind of lock you've never seen before, you'll have to come up with a way to break it. Why?
  - otterley 11y ago
    > A search warrant doesn't require me to create a new capability that did not exist before. It might, depending on the analytical outcome of the three-factor test introduced in the _New York Telephone_ case. (This case was decided before compelled pen register assistance was prescribed by Congressional legislation.) The case itself is illustrative and enlightening: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/159/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/159/case.htm... "The power conferred by the [All Writs] Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice..." The factors are: (1) whether the third party is "so far removed as a third party from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not permissibly be compelled by the order of the court" (2) Whether the burden placed on the third party is "unreasonable" (3) Whether the assistance is "essential to the fulfillment of the purpose" of the warrant It's unfortunate that Hacker News isn't commented upon by more attorneys, and that most news articles don't link directly to the legal filings in these cases; much confusion and false assumptions about the law could be clarified.
- arrty88 11y ago
  What is it the fbi is after? What data exists only on the phone and no where else? Phone call, texts, or data logs? Subpoena the cell company or the ISP. Email? Subpoena the hosting provider. Any communications used on that phone traveled over the Internet, and the logs are most likely preserved. They could get all of the logs of outgoing requests from the cell company and then go to each service provider and demand dumps of data from any accounts that Phone logged into right?
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    > They could get all of the logs of outgoing requests from the cell company and then go to each service provider and demand dumps of data from any accounts that Phone logged into right? The primary service provider being Apple, who operates a fully encrypted messaging system where the cleartext only ever exists on the device. It's a child abuser's wet dream.
    - arrty88 11y ago
      OK, but sometimes when I send iMessages, they actually send as SMS if my service is poor or the receivers service is poor, someone is in the subway, on a flight, etc etc. Chances are, this happened at least once over the lifetime of the terrorists ownership of the phone - thus we can at least see who they are communicating with, right? Wouldn't that be a good starting point? And call records - they must have called someone - if only to talk about the weather.
      - hahainternet 11y ago
        > Chances are, this happened at least once over the lifetime of the terrorists ownership of the phone - thus we can at least see who they are communicating with, right? Is that really acceptable to you? Maybe they accidentally screwed up once so it's OK to keep the private affairs of a dead terrorist secret for no good reason? > Wouldn't that be a good starting point? I would have thought the best starting point was unlocking the phone, given the owner is dead and committed horrific crimes.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  What about all the conversations the terrorist had with his fellow terrorists in person? Is it an awful, terrible, no good thing that the FBI can't retrieve those conversations? Should we put in place ubiquitous video and audio surveillance in every square foot of the country just in case the FBI ever wants to review something that happened? It's not "going dark" that is an unprecedented change, it was the brief "going light" period that preceded it. Law enforcement has apparently lost the ability to do on the ground investigation work in favor of whiz bang-ery (and intelligence has lost the ability to do humint). Well, whiz bang-ery is a two way street. Now is the time to revive those old skills and deal with a _return_ to a world where you can't just outsource your job to a wire tap.
zeveb 11y ago
> This FAQ has more than 1000 words, but these are the words that matter: > > The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it. And of course, that's also wrong. The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn't abused it and doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to make it impossible for such a tool to exist, not to refuse to create it. Right now, today, Apple has the ability to create such a tool. Some finite number of human beings at Apple have the ability to create such a tool on their own initiative, e.g. were they disgruntled. It should be impossible for Apple, or disgruntled Apple employees, or any nation state, to create such a tool. Otherwise, it will eventually be created, because if something is possible then is eventually probable.
- panarky 11y ago
  Naturally "can't create" is better than "won't create", but this case is about the precedent and not this particular iPhone. If a court can force a company to create new technology that didn't exist before, what other tools might they be forced to build? 1) Stream keystrokes, audio, video, location to law enforcement prior to encryption 2) Replace actual search results with government-approved results 3) Force Apple to create target lists of suspects based on their location, apps installed, sites visited, keywords typed Bad things happen when the government can force private companies and individuals to create new tools for law enforcement. There is no technology that prevents Apple from subverting Apple's security. If Apple loses, the new precedent could open Pandora's box.
  - dangirsh 11y ago
    "There is no technology that prevents Apple from subverting Apple's security." That's just in this universe. If users truly owned their devices, with full knowledge of the hardware and control of the software + data, we would never have this discussion. In this world, you have to jump through flaming hoops just to prevent Apple from automatically swapping out your OS!
    - cmdkeen 11y ago
zmmmmm 11y ago
> Can a court force a company or an individual to create something that does not exist? This is the most interesting part of the question here. They aren't forcing Apple to give up something they have, or divulge information they already know. They're basically commandeering the services a private company for the purpose of the state. It makes me wonder where it would end - could the judge - judging it useful to help a court case, just pull a citizen off the street and tell them to go and get him / her a coffee? Is there any limit to what they can ask a private citizen to do, once they decide it is in some way useful for solving a crime? Could they even demand someone commit a crime and then prosecute them for the crime?
derefr 11y ago
> Can a court force a company or an individual to create something that does not exist? You know, all this discussion has reminded me of the fact that what we know as "corporations" today descend from the historical concept of "charter companies"—literally, corporations the government brings into being to serve the public good through private enterprise (in modern terms, to increase GDP), with an expected finite lifetime. The "charter" of such companies was both a little law that individually granted the company a set of group rights, but also a statement of purpose and boundaries: both an enumeration of what the company should pursue (e.g. profit through importation of trapped furs), and what it shouldn't (e.g. profit through actually trapping those furs oneself; profit through trade of sugar-cane; a monopoly; colonial expansion; lobbying...) It seems to me that the crux of the issue, here, is that we think that somehow the American corporation is no longer a thing that is brought into being by the state to serve the public good, but rather something private individuals have the right to bring into being for their own purposes, with the state having no say except insofar as to make certain corporate practices illegal. In other words, we now do think of corporations as people—or more specifically, like the children of people. As with children, everyone seems to think they have the right, with no government interference, to create a corporation; everyone seems to think they have the right to guide and "raise" their own corporation however they wish; everyone seems to think it's perfectly okay if their corporation does things that benefit it at the expense of the state, as long as none of those things are explicitly declared illegal; etc. In the historical model, none of this was true; corporations were the "children" of the state itself, raised to pursue its goals—with the CEO and directors taking a stewardship role, guessing what the state would prefer and executing on that. If they were ever wrong, they'd be punished—historically, by simply having the corporation disbanded at the whim of the king. (Also, probably, the board of directors would be punished as individuals; chartered companies had no concept of limited liability.) Chartered companies still sort of exist: • Many countries have "crown corporations"—like chartered companies, these are brought into existence and given a mission by the government—but they effectively have the government sitting directly on their board with voting rights, and often their cashflow happens through the state treasury. (And other modern corporations, although not explicitly set up this way, can be thought of as effectively crown corporations—China's airlines, for example, are explicitly owned by the Chinese government as majority shareholders, although in theory those shares could be sold.) • More interestingly, in some countries (e.g. Britain, India, Canada) there are municipal corporations: cities, townships, etc. are brought into being using exactly the same sort of "charter" as historical charter companies, and run with exactly the same goal: to further the interests of the state that created them, with the municipal "government" (actually a CEO and board of directors—"mayor" is just a cute title that is meaningless to the law) acting in a stewardship capacity. --- To get to the point: if the California State Legislature wanted to (at the behest of the FBI), they could just change Apple Inc.'s charter to make "doing everything possible to aid FBI investigations into data held on, or passed through, Apple-produced devices" an overriding concern above corporate profit. Charters are a thing given by the state to the individual, just like, say, copyrights are. Like copyrights, they are brought into being to further the public good. The benefit to the private individuals holding a corporate charter (like the benefit of having a copyright) is a cost the state has decided is worth paying, to get the resultant benefit to the public good. But the state gets the final say: it can revoke or modify whatever it likes if it doesn't think the public good is being served.
EdSharkey 11y ago
I love this line of thinking! What lines will we allow the government to cross? Can it force you to buy goods and services? Sure, health care! Can it prosecute pre-crimes? Yep, drunk driving! Capture and log all human communications without a warrant for unspecified future uses? Yes, Prism. Get into the religion business? Why not? Marry people! Then there's using taxing authority as a weapon against political opponents (Tea Party thing.) And, taking land and property from citizens for profit (Kelo decision.) Control/erode the value of currency. Endless, shameless pork for political friends, bundlers, and donors. And on and on and on. I won't be surprised when the US government compels Apple to sign a hacked copy of iOS. When Apple Computer is your last line of defense against tyranny, guess what, you're already screwed!
- ameister14 11y ago
  Drunk driving isn't a pre-crime. It's just a crime.
  - EdSharkey 11y ago
    Ok, thought experiment. You get liquored up beyond the set legal limit, you get in your car, put the key in the ignition, and start the engine. Is that a crime, or is it a pre-crime? Next experiment. Same as above, but you put it into gear and keep your foot on the brakes. Is that a crime, or a pre-crime? Last experiment. Same as above, but you take your foot off the break and drive home without incident, observing traffic signs and not harming anyone or their property. Is that a crime, or a pre-crime? If you answered "it's all crimes because you can't drive drunk because there's laws" then you've accepted prosecuting made-up pre-crimes. In my opinion, you have to actually do some damage to be a criminal. _Then_ you throw the book at 'em, no mercy.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Last experiment. Same as above, but you take your foot off the break and drive home without incident, observing traffic signs and not harming anyone or their property. Is that a crime, or a pre-crime? Its a crime, generally, as soon as you are driving on a public road at above the legal limit. (And, incidentally, its "brake". "Break" is a word, but not the word you are looking for.) > If you answered "it's all crimes because you can't drive drunk because there's laws" then you've accepted prosecuting made-up pre-crimes. All crimes are "made-up", but its not a pre-crime (which is a prediction of a future violation of a criminal law), but an actual defined prohibited act. > In my opinion, you have to actually do some damage to be a criminal. You are entitled to your opinion of what should and should not be a crime, but it probably doesn't help discussing those to redefine the word "crime" to mean "thing that EdSharkey thinks should be a crime" and "pre-crime" to mean "actual violation of criminal law that EdSharkey doesn't think should be a crime".

by panarky 11y ago

hahainternet 11y ago

> The best way to prevent governments from oppressing their citizens is to refuse to create tools that enable oppression. Are search warrants oppressive? Can you distinguish this request from the FBI requesting a safe manufacturer modify the firmware on a single safe? I doubt either of these can be reliably argued.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
That's the whole issue, isn't it? You can't create software that operates only on a single instance of a computer. It'll run on all of them.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  Apple could write code that checks the hardware ID supplied and sign only that version. It's been sufficient to prevent hacking so far and is the major protection relied upon until the latest generation, so I don't think this is an issue at all.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    ...and they give it to the FBI who then changes that ID as they please? Remove signing altogether? Its the fear of a blank check that drives this issue.
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      No – iOS is signed, and changing the ID would invalidate the signature.
      - creshal 11y ago
        And can Apple guarantee that the ID can't be changed inside the device? If they can't it makes a lot of sense for Apple to refuse creating such a tool.
        hahainternet 11y ago
        That guarantee until the latest generation was the only thing protecting the hardware. It has never been altered or hacked that I am aware of. Doing so would require modifying the physical construction of the chips on the device. Possible? Maybe, but if it was that simple the FBI could simply change the signing key. It's not, and they can't.
        matthewmacleod 11y ago
        Pretty much, as far as I'm aware; the device ID cannot be changed. Bear in mind that this entire discussion is applicable only to older iPhones, in any case.
        zaroth 11y ago
        The ID can be easily changed. A quick Google search will easily confirm this. The question is can you change one devices ID to exactly match another. This might require hacking the BPP or finding a SHA1 hash collision, both of which are absolutely possible but not necessarily trivial.
      - 11y ago
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  That's not the case – if Apple produce a signed iOS version that allows the passcode retry limit to be bypassed on a single device, then in what meaningful sense does it operate on another device?
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    I guess when the FBI compels them again. Or once they have a foot in the door, compels them to remove the signing requirement, or wants their own ability to sign. This is not mysterious. Can the FBI require a software company to subvert their own security guarantees? Should they? Do bank vaults have back doors for the FBI?
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      I guess when the FBI compels them again That's a bit of a specious argument though – of course, if they produce different software in the future, it could be used again! If the FBI want their own ability to sign Apple updates, then that's obviously a different situation. But the point you were making – that it's not possible to write software that will run on only one device – is not true in this case. This is not mysterious. Can the FBI require a software company to subvert their own security guarantees? Should they? Do bank vaults have back doors for the FBI? I don't really know the right answer.
  - msbarnett 11y ago
    > if Apple produce a signed iOS version that allows the passcode retry limit to be bypassed on a single device, then in what meaningful sense does it operate on another device? What prevents the iOS image from being loaded onto another device? Apple isn't magic; the code they write to verify device identity isn't going to be the first perfect, unbuggy, unexploitable code written in human history. if(device_udid == terrorist_id) {...} might seem infallible, to you, but the reality is that the device_udid is just SHA1(Wifi MAC + Bluetooth MAC + ECID + Serial). All of those are writable, some via the Baseband and some via physical access. Generating SHA1 collisions is completely feasible for ~$1,000,000 of computing time, which is chump change to nation states. There is no infallible way for Apple to make an iOS version for one single device. Edit: And stories like http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-criminal-cases-due/story?id=37029693 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-... make it absolutely clear that this is not stoping at a single device.
panarky 11y ago
> Are search warrants oppressive? A search warrant doesn't require me to create a new capability that did not exist before. From the FAQ: The digital world is very different from the physical world. In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices... The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  > A search warrant doesn't require me to create a new capability that did not exist before. I don't see how that's relevant. If I invent a new kind of lock you've never seen before, you'll have to come up with a way to break it. I'm asking for why a search warrant would be oppressive, even if it involved creating new firmware for a safe.
  - uxp 11y ago
    > If I invent a new kind of lock you've never seen before, you'll have to come up with a way to break it. Why?
- otterley 11y ago
  > A search warrant doesn't require me to create a new capability that did not exist before. It might, depending on the analytical outcome of the three-factor test introduced in the _New York Telephone_ case. (This case was decided before compelled pen register assistance was prescribed by Congressional legislation.) The case itself is illustrative and enlightening: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/159/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/159/case.htm... "The power conferred by the [All Writs] Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice..." The factors are: (1) whether the third party is "so far removed as a third party from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not permissibly be compelled by the order of the court" (2) Whether the burden placed on the third party is "unreasonable" (3) Whether the assistance is "essential to the fulfillment of the purpose" of the warrant It's unfortunate that Hacker News isn't commented upon by more attorneys, and that most news articles don't link directly to the legal filings in these cases; much confusion and false assumptions about the law could be clarified.
arrty88 11y ago
What is it the fbi is after? What data exists only on the phone and no where else? Phone call, texts, or data logs? Subpoena the cell company or the ISP. Email? Subpoena the hosting provider. Any communications used on that phone traveled over the Internet, and the logs are most likely preserved. They could get all of the logs of outgoing requests from the cell company and then go to each service provider and demand dumps of data from any accounts that Phone logged into right?
- hahainternet 11y ago
  > They could get all of the logs of outgoing requests from the cell company and then go to each service provider and demand dumps of data from any accounts that Phone logged into right? The primary service provider being Apple, who operates a fully encrypted messaging system where the cleartext only ever exists on the device. It's a child abuser's wet dream.
  - arrty88 11y ago
    OK, but sometimes when I send iMessages, they actually send as SMS if my service is poor or the receivers service is poor, someone is in the subway, on a flight, etc etc. Chances are, this happened at least once over the lifetime of the terrorists ownership of the phone - thus we can at least see who they are communicating with, right? Wouldn't that be a good starting point? And call records - they must have called someone - if only to talk about the weather.
    - hahainternet 11y ago
      > Chances are, this happened at least once over the lifetime of the terrorists ownership of the phone - thus we can at least see who they are communicating with, right? Is that really acceptable to you? Maybe they accidentally screwed up once so it's OK to keep the private affairs of a dead terrorist secret for no good reason? > Wouldn't that be a good starting point? I would have thought the best starting point was unlocking the phone, given the owner is dead and committed horrific crimes.
bradleyjg 11y ago
What about all the conversations the terrorist had with his fellow terrorists in person? Is it an awful, terrible, no good thing that the FBI can't retrieve those conversations? Should we put in place ubiquitous video and audio surveillance in every square foot of the country just in case the FBI ever wants to review something that happened? It's not "going dark" that is an unprecedented change, it was the brief "going light" period that preceded it. Law enforcement has apparently lost the ability to do on the ground investigation work in favor of whiz bang-ery (and intelligence has lost the ability to do humint). Well, whiz bang-ery is a two way street. Now is the time to revive those old skills and deal with a _return_ to a world where you can't just outsource your job to a wire tap.

zeveb 11y ago

> This FAQ has more than 1000 words, but these are the words that matter: > > The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn’t abused and doesn’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it. And of course, that's also wrong. The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn't abused it and doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to make it impossible for such a tool to exist, not to refuse to create it. Right now, today, Apple has the ability to create such a tool. Some finite number of human beings at Apple have the ability to create such a tool on their own initiative, e.g. were they disgruntled. It should be impossible for Apple, or disgruntled Apple employees, or any nation state, to create such a tool. Otherwise, it will eventually be created, because if something is possible then is eventually probable.

panarky 11y ago
Naturally "can't create" is better than "won't create", but this case is about the precedent and not this particular iPhone. If a court can force a company to create new technology that didn't exist before, what other tools might they be forced to build? 1) Stream keystrokes, audio, video, location to law enforcement prior to encryption 2) Replace actual search results with government-approved results 3) Force Apple to create target lists of suspects based on their location, apps installed, sites visited, keywords typed Bad things happen when the government can force private companies and individuals to create new tools for law enforcement. There is no technology that prevents Apple from subverting Apple's security. If Apple loses, the new precedent could open Pandora's box.
- dangirsh 11y ago
  "There is no technology that prevents Apple from subverting Apple's security." That's just in this universe. If users truly owned their devices, with full knowledge of the hardware and control of the software + data, we would never have this discussion. In this world, you have to jump through flaming hoops just to prevent Apple from automatically swapping out your OS!
  - cmdkeen 11y ago

zmmmmm 11y ago

> Can a court force a company or an individual to create something that does not exist? This is the most interesting part of the question here. They aren't forcing Apple to give up something they have, or divulge information they already know. They're basically commandeering the services a private company for the purpose of the state. It makes me wonder where it would end - could the judge - judging it useful to help a court case, just pull a citizen off the street and tell them to go and get him / her a coffee? Is there any limit to what they can ask a private citizen to do, once they decide it is in some way useful for solving a crime? Could they even demand someone commit a crime and then prosecute them for the crime?

derefr 11y ago

> Can a court force a company or an individual to create something that does not exist? You know, all this discussion has reminded me of the fact that what we know as "corporations" today descend from the historical concept of "charter companies"—literally, corporations the government brings into being to serve the public good through private enterprise (in modern terms, to increase GDP), with an expected finite lifetime. The "charter" of such companies was both a little law that individually granted the company a set of group rights, but also a statement of purpose and boundaries: both an enumeration of what the company should pursue (e.g. profit through importation of trapped furs), and what it shouldn't (e.g. profit through actually trapping those furs oneself; profit through trade of sugar-cane; a monopoly; colonial expansion; lobbying...) It seems to me that the crux of the issue, here, is that we think that somehow the American corporation is no longer a thing that is brought into being by the state to serve the public good, but rather something private individuals have the right to bring into being for their own purposes, with the state having no say except insofar as to make certain corporate practices illegal. In other words, we now do think of corporations as people—or more specifically, like the children of people. As with children, everyone seems to think they have the right, with no government interference, to create a corporation; everyone seems to think they have the right to guide and "raise" their own corporation however they wish; everyone seems to think it's perfectly okay if their corporation does things that benefit it at the expense of the state, as long as none of those things are explicitly declared illegal; etc. In the historical model, none of this was true; corporations were the "children" of the state itself, raised to pursue its goals—with the CEO and directors taking a stewardship role, guessing what the state would prefer and executing on that. If they were ever wrong, they'd be punished—historically, by simply having the corporation disbanded at the whim of the king. (Also, probably, the board of directors would be punished as individuals; chartered companies had no concept of limited liability.) Chartered companies still sort of exist: • Many countries have "crown corporations"—like chartered companies, these are brought into existence and given a mission by the government—but they effectively have the government sitting directly on their board with voting rights, and often their cashflow happens through the state treasury. (And other modern corporations, although not explicitly set up this way, can be thought of as effectively crown corporations—China's airlines, for example, are explicitly owned by the Chinese government as majority shareholders, although in theory those shares could be sold.) • More interestingly, in some countries (e.g. Britain, India, Canada) there are municipal corporations: cities, townships, etc. are brought into being using exactly the same sort of "charter" as historical charter companies, and run with exactly the same goal: to further the interests of the state that created them, with the municipal "government" (actually a CEO and board of directors—"mayor" is just a cute title that is meaningless to the law) acting in a stewardship capacity. --- To get to the point: if the California State Legislature wanted to (at the behest of the FBI), they could just change Apple Inc.'s charter to make "doing everything possible to aid FBI investigations into data held on, or passed through, Apple-produced devices" an overriding concern above corporate profit. Charters are a thing given by the state to the individual, just like, say, copyrights are. Like copyrights, they are brought into being to further the public good. The benefit to the private individuals holding a corporate charter (like the benefit of having a copyright) is a cost the state has decided is worth paying, to get the resultant benefit to the public good. But the state gets the final say: it can revoke or modify whatever it likes if it doesn't think the public good is being served.

EdSharkey 11y ago

I love this line of thinking! What lines will we allow the government to cross? Can it force you to buy goods and services? Sure, health care! Can it prosecute pre-crimes? Yep, drunk driving! Capture and log all human communications without a warrant for unspecified future uses? Yes, Prism. Get into the religion business? Why not? Marry people! Then there's using taxing authority as a weapon against political opponents (Tea Party thing.) And, taking land and property from citizens for profit (Kelo decision.) Control/erode the value of currency. Endless, shameless pork for political friends, bundlers, and donors. And on and on and on. I won't be surprised when the US government compels Apple to sign a hacked copy of iOS. When Apple Computer is your last line of defense against tyranny, guess what, you're already screwed!

ameister14 11y ago
Drunk driving isn't a pre-crime. It's just a crime.
- EdSharkey 11y ago
  Ok, thought experiment. You get liquored up beyond the set legal limit, you get in your car, put the key in the ignition, and start the engine. Is that a crime, or is it a pre-crime? Next experiment. Same as above, but you put it into gear and keep your foot on the brakes. Is that a crime, or a pre-crime? Last experiment. Same as above, but you take your foot off the break and drive home without incident, observing traffic signs and not harming anyone or their property. Is that a crime, or a pre-crime? If you answered "it's all crimes because you can't drive drunk because there's laws" then you've accepted prosecuting made-up pre-crimes. In my opinion, you have to actually do some damage to be a criminal. _Then_ you throw the book at 'em, no mercy.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Last experiment. Same as above, but you take your foot off the break and drive home without incident, observing traffic signs and not harming anyone or their property. Is that a crime, or a pre-crime? Its a crime, generally, as soon as you are driving on a public road at above the legal limit. (And, incidentally, its "brake". "Break" is a word, but not the word you are looking for.) > If you answered "it's all crimes because you can't drive drunk because there's laws" then you've accepted prosecuting made-up pre-crimes. All crimes are "made-up", but its not a pre-crime (which is a prediction of a future violation of a criminal law), but an actual defined prohibited act. > In my opinion, you have to actually do some damage to be a criminal. You are entitled to your opinion of what should and should not be a crime, but it probably doesn't help discussing those to redefine the word "crime" to mean "thing that EdSharkey thinks should be a crime" and "pre-crime" to mean "actual violation of criminal law that EdSharkey doesn't think should be a crime".