5 ms·

This makes a lot of sense since the government could issue an order through FISA and afaik apple would be required to comply with it. The fact that they can re

by awongh 11y ago

This makes a lot of sense since the government could issue an order through FISA and afaik apple would be required to comply with it. The fact that they can resist the order and in a such a public way feels a little bit theatrical, given what we know about how these things work. I wonder how much of what's happening between apple and the fbi / rest of the government is the tip of the iceberg.

studentrob 11y ago
> The fact that they can resist the order and in a such a public way feels a little bit theatrical, given what we know about how these things work. I wondered that too. I read that Apple wanted to keep the debate quiet, and that it was the FBI who wanted to have a public debate. Anyway, here we are having the "public debate about security vs. privacy on computers" FBI sympathizers complain that some people are talking in extremes, and that the issue needs a balanced, nuanced approach like Bill Gates has offered. Tech experts tell them that encryption can't be outlawed and the FBI is deaf to it Regardless of whether we're talking about zero knowledge devices or not, now is the time to have the debate, because compelling Apple to act here is one step away from telling them they can't legally create a completely secure device. If we do this, so will China and other oppressive regimes, and it will hurt the global cause of free speech irrevocably.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  > Anyway, here we are having the "public debate about security vs. privacy on computers" What I think we're having is a debate about access vs. security. The government wants access to be more important than information security. Apple, and I guess people educated on the topic who aren't the government, want information security to be more important than access. If one actor has a magic key to a system, n actors have that key because logic and the faliability of human systems. The government has proven too often that information security is not its chief concern, and we should expect they'll not perfectly protect the capability they're asking for as well. Do we care to keep information safe, or "safe"? I think that's what the legislature is going to have to decide.
mtgx 11y ago
FISA should apply only to foreigners' data. That's why it has "Foreign" in its name.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > foreigners' data That's commonly assumed, but it's not quite accurate. It's not about "data originating from foreigner". Instead, the criteria[1] is "foreign data" or "data that traveled over a foreign connection". It's not the person that must be foreign, but the data or specific wire on which it travels. Several sources have explained how the NSA captures domestic data when it travels internationally, such email (gmail) that is stored or processed at a foreign data center. This probably allows almost any data to be captured with some clever packet re-routing. [1] this may be from one of the infamous "new interpretations" of FISA/etc
MaysonL 11y ago
Note that it is the DOJ/FBI that wanted it public: Apple asked for it to be sealed, as the previous requests were.

by awongh 11y ago

studentrob 11y ago

> The fact that they can resist the order and in a such a public way feels a little bit theatrical, given what we know about how these things work. I wondered that too. I read that Apple wanted to keep the debate quiet, and that it was the FBI who wanted to have a public debate. Anyway, here we are having the "public debate about security vs. privacy on computers" FBI sympathizers complain that some people are talking in extremes, and that the issue needs a balanced, nuanced approach like Bill Gates has offered. Tech experts tell them that encryption can't be outlawed and the FBI is deaf to it Regardless of whether we're talking about zero knowledge devices or not, now is the time to have the debate, because compelling Apple to act here is one step away from telling them they can't legally create a completely secure device. If we do this, so will China and other oppressive regimes, and it will hurt the global cause of free speech irrevocably.

mattlutze 11y ago
> Anyway, here we are having the "public debate about security vs. privacy on computers" What I think we're having is a debate about access vs. security. The government wants access to be more important than information security. Apple, and I guess people educated on the topic who aren't the government, want information security to be more important than access. If one actor has a magic key to a system, n actors have that key because logic and the faliability of human systems. The government has proven too often that information security is not its chief concern, and we should expect they'll not perfectly protect the capability they're asking for as well. Do we care to keep information safe, or "safe"? I think that's what the legislature is going to have to decide.

mtgx 11y ago

FISA should apply only to foreigners' data. That's why it has "Foreign" in its name.

pdkl95 11y ago
> foreigners' data That's commonly assumed, but it's not quite accurate. It's not about "data originating from foreigner". Instead, the criteria[1] is "foreign data" or "data that traveled over a foreign connection". It's not the person that must be foreign, but the data or specific wire on which it travels. Several sources have explained how the NSA captures domestic data when it travels internationally, such email (gmail) that is stored or processed at a foreign data center. This probably allows almost any data to be captured with some clever packet re-routing. [1] this may be from one of the infamous "new interpretations" of FISA/etc

MaysonL 11y ago

Note that it is the DOJ/FBI that wanted it public: Apple asked for it to be sealed, as the previous requests were.