21 ms·

It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily extract

It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily extracted by criminals easily cracked Apple device situation is point Z. The FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is - it is so close to point A, there is no issue! If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so close to point B, there is no issue! If the FBI wins point C, then they will argue for point D. - it is so close to point C, there is no issue! Repeat over and over. At about point M or sooner an exploit or the extraction processes to the gradually less secure device would probably become available to governments through means legal or otherwise and we would probably hit point Z straight away. Apple are trying to stop the inevitable by not starting, the FBI are arguing for point B.

stephenboyd 11y ago
It's not just the FBI. If Apple builds an OS update to make that specific iPhone easier to unlock, they'll be setting an international precedent for all countries that they do business in. So the Russians, Chinese, Saudis, etc will see it as an option when they want access to a phone that they see as in their national interest to unlock. This could even lead to a phone with US state secrets being cracked for a rival country.
- aljones 11y ago
  And they wouldn't just ask Apple.
  - stephenboyd 11y ago
    And they wouldn't be limited to devices in their jurisdiction belonging to the dead or incarcerated. Governments can ask Apple or Microsoft to push updates that copy data to controlled cloud storage accounts. The unwitting target will just unlock their device in their home country like they usually do before the trojan security update starts working.
    - rodgerd 11y ago
      Yep. Imagine your flight through Asia making an unplanned outage in Thailand and finding yourself in prison as a result of the lese majeste laws[1]. Except instead of it being because of a public Facebook post you made[2] while in another country, it's because of a private text you sent. [1] This is not an imaginary scenario. [2] This has actually happened.
      - sieveoferos 11y ago
        I believe you, but cite please
        prodigal_erik 11y ago
        These stories are not difficult to find. https://www.google.com/search?q=Thailand+lese+majeste+Facebook https://www.google.com/search?q=Thailand+lese+majeste+Facebo...
- XorNot 11y ago
  Foreign countries do not need legal precedent to ask Apple to do things.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    The domestic government doesn't need legal precedent to ask Apple to do things either; it usually just helps in the case of political cover and the inevitable pushback from the public or other branches of government. With regards to international politics, if the USA can demand that Apple unlocks devices for any reason, then the US government will have a hard time defending a decision to aid Apple in resisting a foreign power when it requests the same broad privilege.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zamalek 11y ago
Somewhere in the middle, say point W, the image leaks and you wind up with the POTUS phone being tapped by Russia. Or by terrorists. Or a wanna-be POTUS assassin. It's worse than Pandora's box - once we open this box we will never be able to demonstrably prove that attempts to close it have succeeded, just like Ken Thompsons "cc hack"[1]. If and once Apple makes this image every Apple user on the planet, including the government, would be perpetually weary of it. Basically, lim(consequences) = no guarantees that USA secrets are actually secret. If they can't keep the lid on one employee (Snowden) how on earth could they trust themselves with something this dangerous? 'Z' is inevitable. The wording/example that Apple used really appeals to the common person, but you need to frame it for the government if you are talking to the government. [1]: https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
XorNot 11y ago
This is step by step slippery slope fallacy. You are not addressing the issue at hand. You are instead arguing that if we somehow don't take your side here, then there will never be another point at which we can argue the pros and cons of possible subsequent escalations or refusals. Which is why it's a fallacy.
- altitudinous 11y ago
  I hadn't heard of this fallacy before, I agree that what I wrote may be interpreted as a good example of it. I shouldn't have used the word inevitable. I don't think that if the FBI wins the current battle then all is lost. But I do think that the FBI intends to fight all the battles until they win the long game. That said, I don't hold any side in the argument.
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  This is a valid pointing out of a common fallacy, and I do not think merits the downvotes. The OP is using fallacious reasoning, even if it is accurate reasoning :-)
- Angostura 11y ago
  Alternatively, it may be an example of an actual slippery slope - and therefore not a fallacy.
vectorjohn 11y ago
That does seem to be the argument. It's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason to assume this sets any sort of precedent. And it should be pointed out that point A never existed. Apple's device is not fully secure, or they wouldn't be capable of complying with the FBI.

stephenboyd 11y ago

It's not just the FBI. If Apple builds an OS update to make that specific iPhone easier to unlock, they'll be setting an international precedent for all countries that they do business in. So the Russians, Chinese, Saudis, etc will see it as an option when they want access to a phone that they see as in their national interest to unlock. This could even lead to a phone with US state secrets being cracked for a rival country.

aljones 11y ago
And they wouldn't just ask Apple.
- stephenboyd 11y ago
  And they wouldn't be limited to devices in their jurisdiction belonging to the dead or incarcerated. Governments can ask Apple or Microsoft to push updates that copy data to controlled cloud storage accounts. The unwitting target will just unlock their device in their home country like they usually do before the trojan security update starts working.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    Yep. Imagine your flight through Asia making an unplanned outage in Thailand and finding yourself in prison as a result of the lese majeste laws[1]. Except instead of it being because of a public Facebook post you made[2] while in another country, it's because of a private text you sent. [1] This is not an imaginary scenario. [2] This has actually happened.
    - sieveoferos 11y ago
      I believe you, but cite please
      - prodigal_erik 11y ago
        These stories are not difficult to find. https://www.google.com/search?q=Thailand+lese+majeste+Facebook https://www.google.com/search?q=Thailand+lese+majeste+Facebo...
XorNot 11y ago
Foreign countries do not need legal precedent to ask Apple to do things.
- true_religion 11y ago
  The domestic government doesn't need legal precedent to ask Apple to do things either; it usually just helps in the case of political cover and the inevitable pushback from the public or other branches of government. With regards to international politics, if the USA can demand that Apple unlocks devices for any reason, then the US government will have a hard time defending a decision to aid Apple in resisting a foreign power when it requests the same broad privilege.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

zamalek 11y ago

Somewhere in the middle, say point W, the image leaks and you wind up with the POTUS phone being tapped by Russia. Or by terrorists. Or a wanna-be POTUS assassin. It's worse than Pandora's box - once we open this box we will never be able to demonstrably prove that attempts to close it have succeeded, just like Ken Thompsons "cc hack"[1]. If and once Apple makes this image every Apple user on the planet, including the government, would be perpetually weary of it. Basically, lim(consequences) = no guarantees that USA secrets are actually secret. If they can't keep the lid on one employee (Snowden) how on earth could they trust themselves with something this dangerous? 'Z' is inevitable. The wording/example that Apple used really appeals to the common person, but you need to frame it for the government if you are talking to the government. [1]: https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

XorNot 11y ago

This is step by step slippery slope fallacy. You are not addressing the issue at hand. You are instead arguing that if we somehow don't take your side here, then there will never be another point at which we can argue the pros and cons of possible subsequent escalations or refusals. Which is why it's a fallacy.

altitudinous 11y ago
I hadn't heard of this fallacy before, I agree that what I wrote may be interpreted as a good example of it. I shouldn't have used the word inevitable. I don't think that if the FBI wins the current battle then all is lost. But I do think that the FBI intends to fight all the battles until they win the long game. That said, I don't hold any side in the argument.
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
This is a valid pointing out of a common fallacy, and I do not think merits the downvotes. The OP is using fallacious reasoning, even if it is accurate reasoning :-)
Angostura 11y ago
Alternatively, it may be an example of an actual slippery slope - and therefore not a fallacy.

vectorjohn 11y ago

That does seem to be the argument. It's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason to assume this sets any sort of precedent. And it should be pointed out that point A never existed. Apple's device is not fully secure, or they wouldn't be capable of complying with the FBI.