3 ms·
I'm not sure I see what you're arguing. Implementing a more secure system is never convenient, but that obviously has nothing to do with whether it's justified.
by allemagne 11y ago
I'm not sure I see what you're arguing. Implementing a more secure system is never convenient, but that obviously has nothing to do with whether it's justified.
As for my quoted statement, how can you really disagree? Having a system where "only the good guys" (i.e. Apple, right?) can break the security of any device is precisely what law enforcement has been asking for for years, and what HN users and the tech-savvy in general have been railing against. Now that Apple has completely admitted that this system exists, users are downvoted here for pointing it out?
- mindslight 11y agoI'm merely disagreeing on Apple's motives. Yes, the voyeurs want backdoors, and yes Apple has built a backdoor. But I don't think Apple has created this backdoor for law enforcement. I think it's simply due to them, like any other company, having a hard time giving up control and creating open platforms. Don't sweat the downvotes. There seem to be a lot of Apple customers that don't have a technical clue about what guarantees other systems actually provide or what capabilities are theoretically possible. I surmise they view computing systems solely in terms of productized offerings from companies, and thus Apple is the leader of the pack for privacy and this case is key to preserving that privacy.