6 ms·

This is the key issue in this entire debate: [T]he Government has ... violated the trust of the American people [and] broken the law themselves by alre

by pdkl95 11y ago

This is the key issue in this entire debate: [T]he Government has ... violated the trust of the American people [and] broken the law themselves by already conducting wholesale surveillance of the citizenry ... Thus, the number one issue, the issue that should preempt all other issues, is how the government regains it's credibility and re-establishes trust. Far too many people - even here on HN - are taking about the government's order to Apple in isolation. The common arguments by the government and its supporters are based on the assumption that any action taken would be limited to the current situation. Except this isn't an isolated situation. The government has been fighting against the free use of encryption for decades. Saying the order given to Apple is limited to this single case is practically admitting ignorance (willful or not) about: * The investigation of Phil Zimmermann and the export of PGP as a a "munition" * Bernstein v. United States * The Clipper Chip (Skipjack) and other key escrow systems of the fist crypto war * "Total Information Awareness" (w/ John Poindexter of the Iran–Contra affair) * The beam splitter in room 641A of AT&T's facility at 611 Folsom St. * The illegalities brought to light by Daniel Ellsberg, William Binney, Thomas Drake, Edward Snowden, and other patriots that kept their oath to defend the constitution. * How many public security standards were ruined as part of BULLRUN and related programs. * The recently-discovered use of "Stingray" devices ("IMSI-catchers") by the FBI. * (I'll just stop the here - there are many other examples that should be included) These actions clearly show a pattern of trying to gain backdoor access or other surveillance capabilities. Yet some people suggest - usually without any evidence - that the government should be trusted. What, specifically, has the government been doing in the area of communication security that has justified any amount of trust? Actions are more important than promises. It would be nice if this wasn't such an adversarial relationship. Unfortunately, this cold civil war we are in where the government treating everyone as a potential criminal by default doesn't leave us with a lot of options. Until we see real actions that regain some amount of the public's trust, the rational approach has to be to not trust the government at all. To do otherwise is either ignorance of history or blind faith that the government never lies.

vectorjohn 11y ago
The government absolutely should not be trusted. That's why Apple shouldn't give them a skeleton key to get into any phone, just the legally compelled access for this specific phone. Apple can make that happen trivially. If the government was telling Apple to make an actual backdoor for any phone, this would be different. Nobody (except the most unreasonable) has any problem with the FBI searching property when they have a legal warrant. That's what is happening here. It's the equivalent of asking a manager to open a storage unit. This specific case is not anything like any of the examples you gave.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >The government absolutely should not be trusted. That's why Apple shouldn't give them a skeleton key to get into any phone, just the legally compelled access for this specific phone. You are still trusting that the legally compelled access is all good and valid, ignoring rubber stamping by courts. Allowing access to this phone due to a court order, when combined with a history of abuse by the courts, is as good as any other skeleton key.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    Not at all. If they had a real skeleton key, they wouldn't need to get a warrant. Rubber stamping is a separate issue. If that's what people were worried about, why would it be this case in particular getting everyones hackles raised? Every warrant to search a house or a car should be questioned, but this case isn't special.
    - mglinski 11y ago
      The government does not need a warrant to gain access to your information, easily evidenced by mass surveillance of the world for the past 15 years. If they really want something you have, they will just take it mobster style and tell you to go fuck yourself. They don't have to charge you with a crime, they can charge your property with a crime and force you to deal with a kafkaesque process where your property is guilty until proven innocent by the people who issued the very order to seize it. Information + Encryption is one of the only things regular people have that is resistant to this process. They do need a warrant for any information to not get laughed out a US court though. This is the main reason they are going after the data this way, because they want what they found and know wouldn't survive discovery to eventually be admissible as legally obtained evidence. That and it will set a nice precedent for them to deputize private persons and corporation into being law enforcement when they just can't be asked to not fuck up one simple thing. This is also not-coincidently a case likely to polarize people against Apple with the old faithful terrorists are coming to get you rhetoric. A most slippery slope indeed, nearly guaranteeing that everyone who is supposed to be checking the executive branch for overreach will just go along with them wholesale.
Programmatic 11y ago
Don't forget CALEA[1], which is done in plain sight: Telcos don't have the ability to build infrastructure that could frustrate law enforcement's attempts to listen. They were so used to the state of affairs where they could listen to conversations that it was legally mandated that technology cater to their tastes at the expense of privacy and security. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...
rqebmm 11y ago
No critique of these programs is fair without taking into account the benefits, like all the terrorits they caught: https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/ https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/do-nsas-bu...
rubberstamp 11y ago
And these [explicit] trying to use excuses like it's for our children or if there wasn't encryption this shooting world have never occurred etc to further surveillance makes me furiuos. What makes me even more angry is these [explicit] getting away with lying to congress, courts with absolutely no action against them. Democracy is for the people by the people and of the people. I understand the need for secrecy in some matters of the govt. But the courts not having the ability to oversee them without having to resort to secret court system is govt abusing it's power. They have been using NSLs to keep their BS under the covers. That gotta change. There had to be punishment for those in power lying and misleading public. They have also tried using Paris attacks to justify backdoors and surveillance telling us they would have been able to stop it if there was no encryption. Now those who hears it will support spying without knowing that Paris attackers didn't actually use encryption to his their communication. And NSA still didn't get a clue and warn them. Paris is not even their responsibility anyway. They have French govt to take care of their affairs. Those massive amount of tax dollars and resources can either be used to make a better world or to make an orwellian world. What's it going to be people? It depends on you.
ionised 11y ago
Great post. The government doesn't have our trust because the government does not deserve our trust.

by pdkl95 11y ago

vectorjohn 11y ago

The government absolutely should not be trusted. That's why Apple shouldn't give them a skeleton key to get into any phone, just the legally compelled access for this specific phone. Apple can make that happen trivially. If the government was telling Apple to make an actual backdoor for any phone, this would be different. Nobody (except the most unreasonable) has any problem with the FBI searching property when they have a legal warrant. That's what is happening here. It's the equivalent of asking a manager to open a storage unit. This specific case is not anything like any of the examples you gave.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>The government absolutely should not be trusted. That's why Apple shouldn't give them a skeleton key to get into any phone, just the legally compelled access for this specific phone. You are still trusting that the legally compelled access is all good and valid, ignoring rubber stamping by courts. Allowing access to this phone due to a court order, when combined with a history of abuse by the courts, is as good as any other skeleton key.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Not at all. If they had a real skeleton key, they wouldn't need to get a warrant. Rubber stamping is a separate issue. If that's what people were worried about, why would it be this case in particular getting everyones hackles raised? Every warrant to search a house or a car should be questioned, but this case isn't special.
  - mglinski 11y ago
    The government does not need a warrant to gain access to your information, easily evidenced by mass surveillance of the world for the past 15 years. If they really want something you have, they will just take it mobster style and tell you to go fuck yourself. They don't have to charge you with a crime, they can charge your property with a crime and force you to deal with a kafkaesque process where your property is guilty until proven innocent by the people who issued the very order to seize it. Information + Encryption is one of the only things regular people have that is resistant to this process. They do need a warrant for any information to not get laughed out a US court though. This is the main reason they are going after the data this way, because they want what they found and know wouldn't survive discovery to eventually be admissible as legally obtained evidence. That and it will set a nice precedent for them to deputize private persons and corporation into being law enforcement when they just can't be asked to not fuck up one simple thing. This is also not-coincidently a case likely to polarize people against Apple with the old faithful terrorists are coming to get you rhetoric. A most slippery slope indeed, nearly guaranteeing that everyone who is supposed to be checking the executive branch for overreach will just go along with them wholesale.

Programmatic 11y ago

Don't forget CALEA[1], which is done in plain sight: Telcos don't have the ability to build infrastructure that could frustrate law enforcement's attempts to listen. They were so used to the state of affairs where they could listen to conversations that it was legally mandated that technology cater to their tastes at the expense of privacy and security. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...

rqebmm 11y ago

No critique of these programs is fair without taking into account the benefits, like all the terrorits they caught: https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/ https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/do-nsas-bu...

rubberstamp 11y ago

And these [explicit] trying to use excuses like it's for our children or if there wasn't encryption this shooting world have never occurred etc to further surveillance makes me furiuos. What makes me even more angry is these [explicit] getting away with lying to congress, courts with absolutely no action against them. Democracy is for the people by the people and of the people. I understand the need for secrecy in some matters of the govt. But the courts not having the ability to oversee them without having to resort to secret court system is govt abusing it's power. They have been using NSLs to keep their BS under the covers. That gotta change. There had to be punishment for those in power lying and misleading public. They have also tried using Paris attacks to justify backdoors and surveillance telling us they would have been able to stop it if there was no encryption. Now those who hears it will support spying without knowing that Paris attackers didn't actually use encryption to his their communication. And NSA still didn't get a clue and warn them. Paris is not even their responsibility anyway. They have French govt to take care of their affairs. Those massive amount of tax dollars and resources can either be used to make a better world or to make an orwellian world. What's it going to be people? It depends on you.

ionised 11y ago

Great post. The government doesn't have our trust because the government does not deserve our trust.