5 ms·

This is an interesting tug of war. Considering 50% of Americans are taking the opposite stance, the SV elites are in the minority. (35%) Yet no pro-government

by pcurve 11y ago

This is an interesting tug of war. Considering 50% of Americans are taking the opposite stance, the SV elites are in the minority. (35%) Yet no pro-government business executive has emerged. I guess it's a risky position to take. I have a feeling the government will eventually figure out a way to get its way without our realizing.

Consultant32452 11y ago
I would be absolutely shocked if the government didn't have numerous ways to get into any information on any commercial phone. What they don't have is a simple device that average joe agent has access to at the local office, and of course his civilian police force compatriot.
- newjersey 11y ago
  Just a suspicion but I imagine the narrative that FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS or any federal agency is frustrated that the NSA won't share its toys with them has some truth to it. Of course, it makes sense. Complying to very single request would leave NSA as mere peons.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    It was just a couple years ago that the FBI was lamenting the fact that it was having trouble hiring hackers because they all smoke pot. I only cite that as it asserts that the FBI does in fact employ teams of digital hackers. The NSA surely has better/more, but if the FBI needs into an iPhone I'm sure they could do it on their own.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      I don't know anything about the FBI or the NSA but I doubt the FBI would have remotely the same budget for zero day bugs. (:
uptown 11y ago
I consider the "50% of Americans" stat to be useless. This is a complicated topic for technologists to grasp. To expect the general public to understand the implications of what they're being asked in order to provide an informed answer is a stretch.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  especially when the answer is loaded (the think of the terrorist/children/drugs trick)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pcurve 11y ago
  It is a complicated topic but we can't just ignore general public that takes on position without realizing its implications. For decades, general public had opposed marijuana, even when half of them have used them before.
  - karmelapple 11y ago
    Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level. Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance of keeping good security practices in place in our tech.
    - zajd 11y ago
      Do you really think that constituent demands are what drives law creation?
      - lazaroclapp 11y ago
        To a degree, yes. But even if you take a more pessimistic stance and assume that lawmakers have an agenda that is entirely divorced from that of their constituents, they still need to manufacture consent[1]. Which means that if you get enough voters to be strongly opposed to something, it does have an effect beyond what a small group of highly informed critics can have. The political system is neither perfect, nor useless, is somewhere in between, and I say so as someone who comes from a country with political process that leans way more towards 'broken' than the U.S. one does. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
zepto 11y ago
50% of Americans can only take the opposite stance if they know what stance they are taking. The reporting on the poll doesn't reveal any screening questions to determine whether the respondents understand the issues at stake. If they don't understand the issue, then the 50% is answering a question about something else. If they asked the question "Should Apple make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access information on American phones", I suspect less than 50% would say yes.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  Complying with the FBI's request does not make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access data on American phones. This is a case where having a little bit of knowledge leads to a wildly inaccurate conclusion, similar to Greenwald's original PRISM reporting.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    It sure does if that signed malicious firmware ever got out. And it will eventually since once it's written it will be requested by every police department and federal agency for ever increasing trivial cases. Every government in the world will want access to that piece of code. If Apple really can tie the firmware to a specific piece of hardware with no possibility of it being modified I would be impressed but even still a little cautious.
    - lern_too_spel 11y ago
      The FBI has given Apple the option of brute-forcing the phone for them. In that case, the build never leaves Apple, just like the build that Apple has previously used to extract unencrypted data from iPhones. Making the build not-modifiable is easy. That's what's stopping the FBI from modifying the existing build to remove the wipe rule.
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        Where do you get the idea Apple made a special build to extract unencrypted data?
msabalau 11y ago
Despite nearly a year of campaigning, 6 months of extensive political coverage, non-stop advertising, and series of debates with large audiences when push came to shove a third of New Hampshire primary voters decided in the last few days before election. Perhaps it's a bit premature to treat people's responses to a quickie poll as evidence that people are "taking an opposite stance" as opposed to giving their immediate impression. It seems likely that Apple, Google and Facebook could make a case that would persuade people, especially with the support of the EFF, ACLU, and Amnesty International.
tn13 11y ago
That 50% stat is made up stat. 50% Americans probably cant spell "encryption" properly. It is very easy to make people bend over and grease up by threatening them that some bad people are planning to kill them. Defending liberty does not need 50%. You need few extremely vocal people willing to fight the good battle and help the discourse.

by pcurve 11y ago

Consultant32452 11y ago

I would be absolutely shocked if the government didn't have numerous ways to get into any information on any commercial phone. What they don't have is a simple device that average joe agent has access to at the local office, and of course his civilian police force compatriot.

newjersey 11y ago
Just a suspicion but I imagine the narrative that FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS or any federal agency is frustrated that the NSA won't share its toys with them has some truth to it. Of course, it makes sense. Complying to very single request would leave NSA as mere peons.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  It was just a couple years ago that the FBI was lamenting the fact that it was having trouble hiring hackers because they all smoke pot. I only cite that as it asserts that the FBI does in fact employ teams of digital hackers. The NSA surely has better/more, but if the FBI needs into an iPhone I'm sure they could do it on their own.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    I don't know anything about the FBI or the NSA but I doubt the FBI would have remotely the same budget for zero day bugs. (:

uptown 11y ago

I consider the "50% of Americans" stat to be useless. This is a complicated topic for technologists to grasp. To expect the general public to understand the implications of what they're being asked in order to provide an informed answer is a stretch.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
especially when the answer is loaded (the think of the terrorist/children/drugs trick)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pcurve 11y ago
It is a complicated topic but we can't just ignore general public that takes on position without realizing its implications. For decades, general public had opposed marijuana, even when half of them have used them before.
- karmelapple 11y ago
  Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level. Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance of keeping good security practices in place in our tech.
  - zajd 11y ago
    Do you really think that constituent demands are what drives law creation?
    - lazaroclapp 11y ago
      To a degree, yes. But even if you take a more pessimistic stance and assume that lawmakers have an agenda that is entirely divorced from that of their constituents, they still need to manufacture consent[1]. Which means that if you get enough voters to be strongly opposed to something, it does have an effect beyond what a small group of highly informed critics can have. The political system is neither perfect, nor useless, is somewhere in between, and I say so as someone who comes from a country with political process that leans way more towards 'broken' than the U.S. one does. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

zepto 11y ago

50% of Americans can only take the opposite stance if they know what stance they are taking. The reporting on the poll doesn't reveal any screening questions to determine whether the respondents understand the issues at stake. If they don't understand the issue, then the 50% is answering a question about something else. If they asked the question "Should Apple make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access information on American phones", I suspect less than 50% would say yes.

lern_too_spel 11y ago
Complying with the FBI's request does not make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access data on American phones. This is a case where having a little bit of knowledge leads to a wildly inaccurate conclusion, similar to Greenwald's original PRISM reporting.
- Spivak 11y ago
  It sure does if that signed malicious firmware ever got out. And it will eventually since once it's written it will be requested by every police department and federal agency for ever increasing trivial cases. Every government in the world will want access to that piece of code. If Apple really can tie the firmware to a specific piece of hardware with no possibility of it being modified I would be impressed but even still a little cautious.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    The FBI has given Apple the option of brute-forcing the phone for them. In that case, the build never leaves Apple, just like the build that Apple has previously used to extract unencrypted data from iPhones. Making the build not-modifiable is easy. That's what's stopping the FBI from modifying the existing build to remove the wipe rule.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      Where do you get the idea Apple made a special build to extract unencrypted data?

msabalau 11y ago

Despite nearly a year of campaigning, 6 months of extensive political coverage, non-stop advertising, and series of debates with large audiences when push came to shove a third of New Hampshire primary voters decided in the last few days before election. Perhaps it's a bit premature to treat people's responses to a quickie poll as evidence that people are "taking an opposite stance" as opposed to giving their immediate impression. It seems likely that Apple, Google and Facebook could make a case that would persuade people, especially with the support of the EFF, ACLU, and Amnesty International.

tn13 11y ago

That 50% stat is made up stat. 50% Americans probably cant spell "encryption" properly. It is very easy to make people bend over and grease up by threatening them that some bad people are planning to kill them. Defending liberty does not need 50%. You need few extremely vocal people willing to fight the good battle and help the discourse.