4 ms·
> 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
by 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.