13 ms·

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about:

by mythz 11y ago

From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI" When what it's really about: "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Industry vs FBI", not what the US Govt is trying to set the narrative to: "Apple protecting Terrorism". With this announcement this brings us to: - Apple - Twitter - Yahoo - Facebook / WhatsApp - Microsoft - Google (Sundar lukewarm) Big technology companies with large user bases that's notably missing: - Amazon - Linked In

bobwaycott 11y ago
> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll responder would get confused by the second half of the question as you've phrased it. Perhaps try to phrase it like a simple headline or poll question that gets to the heart of the matter: "Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?" Here, I think, you have a much greater chance of grabbing the attention of the casual onlooker. Admittedly, it's a mostly true statement of the core issue here, while leveraging the need to hook a reader at a glance. An article/reporter/anchor can dive deep into the case particulars or not, cover and present its view of what's at stake in asking the question, include discussion of a "right to security" that may or may not be enjoyed by companies and individuals. But you want citizens to immediately grok what you're asking, and be able to, on their own, extrapolate possible implications that matter to them. This is going to be far more powerful in getting people to invest themselves in the issue--they must be able to imagine, see, understand that what's at stake could affect them. The first half of the battle is this: You've got to get people to fucking care. And you can't get them there if you confuse or lose them at the start.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  > "Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?" And phrased like that, everybody will answer yes. The dire implications of this case are not that easy to explain to someone who doesn't understand the basics of encryption/security. Welcome to give it another try, though...
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    > And phrased like that, everybody will answer yes. The normal, non-technologists I know would most certainly find the idea that their passwords could be changed against their will--or, in the absence of their assent after death--pretty unsettling and inherently wrong. It's relatively trivial to provide analogous (though not entirely homologous) situations--e.g., should the government be able to force your mortgage company to change the locks on your house so they can get in to execute a search warrant?--that people would have immediate pause and find it worth considering. I don't know many people who would just thumbs up the suggestion that Facebook could be forced by the government to change/disable their account password. Or their banking passwords, email password, etc. If people became aware of a national conversation focused on the government trying to secure the power/precedent to force Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. to change/disable their passwords via a court order, I think very many more people will refuse to accept such an issue at face-value. > The dire implications of this case are not that easy to explain to someone who doesn't understand the basics of encryption/security. HN is a predictably poor place to discuss gaining widespread understanding by the masses on certain things. We too often fall into the trap of thinking that people must understand technical details of some thing X in order to understand implications of related thing Y. I think this is nonsense. People don't need to understand all the math and physics behind rocket science to understand that an unexpected explosion during liftoff has dire implications. We can explain that to people without ever showing them an equation, or talking about scientific laws/principles. There is no reason we cannot have a meaningful and productive conversation on this issue without losing the majority of American citizens as soon as we bring up the technical details. Technologists haven't gotten much of anywhere getting the average American to understand, much less know why they should care about, encryption. Hell, we still engage in arguments here on HN about why you shouldn't roll your own encryption, even though all the programmers out there should already know that. We simply aren't going to get anywhere saying we first have to educate normal people on encryption. And it's plain wrong to think that an issue like this needs to be framed within a context that requires people to understand the basics of encryption. That's a no-win trajectory for carrying on a public conversation. You simply have to appeal to people using language that isn't overly biased, presents issues in the simplest possible ways (and builds up from there), and actually gets them involved in the conversation. It would, without any doubt, be fantastic if more people understood encryption, digital security, digital privacy, etc. But Average Joes and Janes don't really think about the devices and services they use in that way. I know a great many people who are [what I think are] normal, non-technical citizens, and their eyes just glaze over at talk of encryption--much like how many people's eyes glaze over at seeing mathematical equations, as if they're looking at Japanese. The reason there is a higher propensity among potential Average American poll respondents to support the FBI on this issue is the way it's being framed. All I'm saying is that it's just as possible, and actually necessary, to frame the issue in a way that helps average Americans understand the dire implications of this case without having any need for understanding the basics of encryption, iOS, the Secure Enclave, trusted/signed code from Apple, and everything else that most HNers are discussing here.
ddlatham 11y ago
Yahoo should be in the upper list: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/19/yahoo-sides-with-apple-in-fight-with-feds-over-iphone-san-bernardino/80608216/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/19/yahoo-sid...
- mythz 11y ago
  updated, thx!
  - jlongster 11y ago
    Mozilla should as well: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/02/24/continuing-the-conversation-about-encryption-and-apple-a-new-video-from-mozilla/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/02/24/continuing-the-conv...
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      I think the video on that page would be incredibly more effective and helpful if it didn't use "encryption" so many times, and tried to explain to people what encryption is. As it stands, it just repetitively uses the term to tell people when, where, or how they use it without realizing. I think the former point is more critical, and the latter less so. As it stands, meeting encryption feels more like spotting Waldo than actually meeting encryption. (PS: Hi, James!)
eva1984 11y ago
I didn't see anything wrong with 'Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI' It is what it is. You guys focuses more on how to limit FBI to abuse the terrorist card to violate privacy. But in case of a true terrorist, the answer should not be not that hard.
- mythz 11y ago
  This is exactly what the FBI want's you to think and why they've carefully handpicked this case to try and set this legal precedent on - ridding us of our fundamental rights to privacy and security. Out of all the 13 pending cases the FBI have with Apple using the All Writs Act (they've also said they have another 175 iPhones to unlock), this has the least chance of holding anything meaningful given it's his consent-to-monitor work phone, not his personal phone (which he destroyed), wasn't used at the scene of the crime, of which the FBI already have 6 week old iCloud backups of and would've had all the phones iCloud backups if they hadn't disabled them by instructing for the phones password to be reset. Yet of all the pending cases under seal this is the one they've chosen to break character and go public on, exploiting this tragic event and using the fear around terror and emotions of victims for maximum PR and political effect to further their agenda of violating the security of millions of customers - which is both deceitful and clever, as apparently it's working. I've always watched in bewilderment at the US Govt's response to terror, they're prepared to spend trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security, aren't prepared to do anything to change the easy access to the semi-automatic weapons that were actually used to kill all the victims, but are prepared to compromise the security and privacy of millions of peoples lives, violating 1st and 5th amendment constitutional rights for the theater of accessing useless data on a dead terrorist's work phone - for something which US citizens have less chance to die from than their own furniture? ...and the US public majority approves.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security That's only the means, not the goal, because... > bewilderment Spending massive amounts of money on wars makes a lot more sense once you realize that it's intended to channel money into their friends (and their jobs post-public service) in the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned[1] us, but the public didn't listen. [1] his farewell address was amazingly prescient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY
return0 11y ago
> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." For europe and the rest of the world, the answer was a resounding YES by the american government, their intelligence agencies and the american people at large, and it came years ago. So, this is not about their customers or their rights or any other abstract moral universals (which are valid only within the US). I wouldn't read too much into it, although i think it has to do with an attempt to restore the shattered image of US companies to their international audience.
- studentrob 11y ago
  So you are assuming the court will find against Apple? And that America will watch this and say they are cool with that? The first is a possibility, of course. I don't think the second is likely. I personally do not plan to stop shouting about this, and informing my representatives on my position.
samstave 11y ago
If the government wins this case, I will permanently destroy my personal cell phone and will never have one again. I will maintain a cell phone for work only.
- dlp211 11y ago
  That's a bit extreme. Just because there is a weakness in the implementation details of the iPhone PIN mechanism does not mean that all phones are weak. Apple already uses extremely strong encryption, and when coupled with a largish alphanumeric passcode, the phone would not fall to such easy attacks as the phone in question (4-6 digit PIN). This case is not about weakening encryption in any way, something that I think is not well understood outside a technical audience.
- twblalock 11y ago
  That's a bit far. I'll just stop using mine to plot major crimes.
timr 11y ago
"From recent polls most people think this debate is about..." ...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with your opinion on the matter. For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is "yes, sometimes", with an additional "there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'", added for good measure. Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't think it's Apple's job to enforce it.
- studentrob 11y ago
  The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one. I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security, however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both support Apple now in this fight against government overreach and put pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, despite appearing to be both pro Apple and anti-Apple.
  - timr 11y ago
    "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." I don't think that's true, but even if I'm wrong, you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Also, I don't agree that this is government overreach. This case seems about as clear-cut an example of a "good" investigatory behavior as we're likely to see. If you can't get behind the idea of compromising privacy when there's a valid warrant, in the case of a known mass murderer with probable ties to international terrorist groups, well...you've set an exceptionally high bar. I'm a reasonable person, I see your position, and I disagree with you on the merits of your argument.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - studentrob 11y ago
      >> "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." > you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law. They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress. This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. It will come down to a matter of interpretation by the justices. If they rule against Apple, the message is, "This is covered by the AWA, and the AWA was intended to compel companies to weaken their products' security". In that case, many of us in the public feel that the justices will have unfairly created a new law. If they rule for Apple, the message is, "This is an undue burden being forced upon Apple. That is not the intention of the AWA. If you want them to comply, go to Congress and ask for a law" Obama was a lawyer, he knows this, and in light of the public's disapproval of mass surveillance, he chose the path (the AWA) that is most likely to get him what he wants, which is to grant law enforcement access to all iPhones. The public currently will not re-elect congressmen and women who push through new surveillance laws. P.S. I like your site vayable.com
massemphasis 11y ago
No, it's not just that. It is also: - Should companies reveal what type of information they have on their consumers. - Should and can companies protect their data on their consumers as their own property.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Unfortunately those have already been decided and are unlikely to be reversed by this case. This case is currently about the AWA. A previous decision using the AWA, USA vs. New York Telephone, notes it can compel companies to act, given some constraints, "We agree that the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed" "The order provided that the Company be fully reimbursed at prevailing rates, and compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations." [1] We already know law enforcement can get a warrant for access to information, and that people cannot reasonably expect privacy of information given to a 3rd party, including information on computers. Those decisions, unfortunately, have already been made and that's not what's at stake here. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/19/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
biturd 11y ago
What about other large semi tech companies. Starting with Tesla, but GE, paypal, Asus, Linksys, Cisco, Sun, Bay Networks, Coca-Cola, IBM, FedEx, Starbucks, Procter and Gamble and all medical HIPAA institutions, schools and Universities, McDonalds, Disney, Pixar, Amex, Visa, MasterCard, Costco, Caterpillar, Target, Nike, UPS, USPS, Exxon, Pepsi, Samsung, AT&T, t_mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Oracle, General Mills, Wells Fargo, Investment banking companies, etc. They all have a stake in tech, and they all would not like to have their tech backed up by a system, that anyone can get into if one person leaks it out. DMV, the police, all those poorly secured systems that are now basically a new RFC that is for publicly routable address space that everyone treats like private address space, but just insert your special gummy bear finger print copy, and bam, you are in. Get all those companies behind this, and people will think the FBI are crooks and theives.
- odbol_ 11y ago
  I wonder if they could make a case that it violates the HIPAA, since your heartbeat/activity tracker info is on the device? Kind of a weak argument, but HIPAA is a pretty contentious subject.
  - swyman 11y ago
    I might be wrong, but my understanding is that HIPAA privacy rules only apply to healthcare providers like hospitals and their employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act#Privacy_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_a...
    - dmix 11y ago
      This is correct. We ran a website for diabetics where users volunteered health data and HIPAA didn't apply to us. If it coordinated data exchange with doctors directly then it would be different.
    - cakeface 11y ago
      What about doctors using an iPhone to check a patient's files? Would apple have to make a secure HIPAA compliant version for hospital use? What about government use? I bet all those FBI agents are talking to each other with iphones...
avn2109 11y ago
This strikes me as a great opportunity to use the "think of the children" argument against the government. Headlines should read like this: "FBI wants ability to steal dick pics from any iPhone, including children's phones!"
- idle_zealot 11y ago
  Sure, but that goes both ways. It could easily be said that the FBI needs to be able to look through the phones of predators in order to convict.
  - pooper 11y ago
    I think they're talking something similar to GCHQ's intercept. For those who are new, previously on hacker news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312212
- EdHominem 11y ago
  I think you may want to rethink your soundbite. Heh. But yeah, remember the scandal about school admins potentially being able to use the laptop's anti-theft programs to spy on children? Imagine that for all children worldwide.
jensvdh 11y ago
Snapchat?
jmh42 11y ago
Like it says in the video, it's mostly a business decision. All the companies in the top list are customer/user facing, while Amazon's AWS is not customer facing at all. It's about the customer's impression of the platform they are interacting with on a daily basis (presumably not Linkedin). Standing up with Apple on this issue shows their users they are (also) serious about their privacy. Turn the tables for a second: What would the US do if a foreign government had access to their citizens' information? Would it become an issue of nationalism to use your own country's homegrown smart phone, browser, social network, etc?
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  it's is mostly a business and pr decision "Apple had asked the FBI to issue application for iPhone passcode cracking tool under seal, but government made it public, prompting Tim Cook's public remarks"[1] so no, apple doesn't really have the security of user in mind, it's just turning this on its head and putting up a show [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...
chflags 11y ago
When what it's really about: Are remote "software updates" to a buyer's phone, under the sole control of the seller of the phone, at any time (even after purchase), for any reason (e.g. the one being proposed here), a good idea? Why? Why not? Should Apple customers be given the option to flash the hardware they purchase from Apple with their own choice of software, whereby they might better control the HW and hence secure it from Apple and other third parties? Or should Apple have the _exclusive_ right to flash the HW they sell, even _after_ purchase, without the customer's consent? As they do now. Open hardware. Bad? Good? Necessary?
- chakalakasp 11y ago
  Heh. Open firmware would not solve this issue. If the firmware were open, the FBI would have already broken into the device. Apple's signing key (or, for the paranoid, the government's unwillingness to admit that they have obtained it through espionage) is primarily what is keeping the FBi's fingers out of the cookie jar. A better question is how to further lock the phone down in future updates so that Apple can't comply even if they were compelled to, something Apple engineers are no doubt looking into right now. The optimal way would be to require a device to be unlocked to update the firmware, which would require the PIN, which Apple would not have.
  - parenthephobia 11y ago
    Open doesn't mean it's an unlocked door. Open means that the owner of the device can replace the firmware. There's nothing not-open about requiring that the owner authenticate first. It's only not open if the vendor, rather than the owner, is the only one who the device will permit to replace its firmware.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      > means that the owner of the device can replace the firmware It means that a small minority of owners of the device can replace the firmware. Most people don't have the resources to do something like that.
vedaprodarte 11y ago
Thanks, you have reminded me some huge IT companies that can also be related with this case! Amazon and the other IT infrastructure companies. Why are they missing or remain silent? Does it implies anything?
vonklaus 11y ago
Twitter, Yahoo and LinkedIn aren't imperatives as their beacon data is likely the most important piece and the rest already cover that, and twitter is the only one that will be a company in a year. Amazon, Google, MS and Apple are the real players, but Facebook is closing in as well. Google is the main linchpin, within 1-2 degrees everything clears through it: CA, DNS, Search, mx, analytic beacons, OS, hosting, etc. They believe data should be used to solve problems and it should. But the consolidation risk is too high now, they own the whole stack and all the connections hopefully they have integrity here.,
rayiner 11y ago
> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." We can put the case into an even larger context and ask: should the FBI be able to compel [banks, accounting firms, insurance companies] to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to financial privacy? The answer to date, has been "yes." The right of the justice system to "every man's evidence",[1] has so far been thought to trump the interests of the customer relationship. For decades, government has had the power to compel accounting firms and banks to search through their records (often at significant expense) to deliver information relevant to an investigation. I imagine those companies would love to be able to advertise that they won't cooperate with a government investigation of your taxes or financial transactions. In my view, there are two different questions: 1) can the government ask Apple to unlock one iPhone; 2) can the government ask Apple to weaken security for all iPhones?[2] The first question, at issue in this case, is something companies deal with all the time in many different contexts. The second question, on the other hand, may well be sui generis. I understand why Apple taking a stand on this particular hill--in their shoes I'd do it too. Better to "fight them over there so you don't have to fight them over here" so to speak. I'm a little worried about the potential for blowback, though. The tech community is forced, in a way, to spread FUD to justify their argument as to (1). There are a lot of people who are confused by the reporting and think that this case involves the FBI requesting Apple to put backdoors in all of their phones, rather than leveraging an existing security weakness. That's not necessarily a great place to be in if you're found out. [1] United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974). [2] I don't think it's technically justifiable to say that (2) is implied by (1). Apple apparently already has the capability to subvert anyone's phones by using their signing keys to load weakened software. At a purely technical level, signing an "evil build of iOS" using an existing "backdoor" is different than introducing a backdoor into everyone's phone.
- DavideNL 11y ago
  (2) is implied by (1) because once Apple has created the tool to do it once (1), the government has access to it and can (and will) use that tool endlessly (2). This is why Apple refuses to create this tool to unlock 1 iPhone. History has shown we cannot restrict this by implementing laws/rules, just look at the news to see how these laws are abused right now, accessing all our private data. EDIT: ok i get your point now; I imagine the reason this 'technical backdoor' exists in the first place, is because Apple wants to be able to update that part of the OS in case of bugs. If they make it 'not-updateable' the backdoor is closed but then if problems arise, bugs can't be fixed (for example the recent Error 5/home button bug).
mmmmmjjjjjj 11y ago
mm

by mythz 11y ago

bobwaycott 11y ago

> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll responder would get confused by the second half of the question as you've phrased it. Perhaps try to phrase it like a simple headline or poll question that gets to the heart of the matter: "Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?" Here, I think, you have a much greater chance of grabbing the attention of the casual onlooker. Admittedly, it's a mostly true statement of the core issue here, while leveraging the need to hook a reader at a glance. An article/reporter/anchor can dive deep into the case particulars or not, cover and present its view of what's at stake in asking the question, include discussion of a "right to security" that may or may not be enjoyed by companies and individuals. But you want citizens to immediately grok what you're asking, and be able to, on their own, extrapolate possible implications that matter to them. This is going to be far more powerful in getting people to invest themselves in the issue--they must be able to imagine, see, understand that what's at stake could affect them. The first half of the battle is this: You've got to get people to fucking care. And you can't get them there if you confuse or lose them at the start.

scrollaway 11y ago
> "Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?" And phrased like that, everybody will answer yes. The dire implications of this case are not that easy to explain to someone who doesn't understand the basics of encryption/security. Welcome to give it another try, though...
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  > And phrased like that, everybody will answer yes. The normal, non-technologists I know would most certainly find the idea that their passwords could be changed against their will--or, in the absence of their assent after death--pretty unsettling and inherently wrong. It's relatively trivial to provide analogous (though not entirely homologous) situations--e.g., should the government be able to force your mortgage company to change the locks on your house so they can get in to execute a search warrant?--that people would have immediate pause and find it worth considering. I don't know many people who would just thumbs up the suggestion that Facebook could be forced by the government to change/disable their account password. Or their banking passwords, email password, etc. If people became aware of a national conversation focused on the government trying to secure the power/precedent to force Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. to change/disable their passwords via a court order, I think very many more people will refuse to accept such an issue at face-value. > The dire implications of this case are not that easy to explain to someone who doesn't understand the basics of encryption/security. HN is a predictably poor place to discuss gaining widespread understanding by the masses on certain things. We too often fall into the trap of thinking that people must understand technical details of some thing X in order to understand implications of related thing Y. I think this is nonsense. People don't need to understand all the math and physics behind rocket science to understand that an unexpected explosion during liftoff has dire implications. We can explain that to people without ever showing them an equation, or talking about scientific laws/principles. There is no reason we cannot have a meaningful and productive conversation on this issue without losing the majority of American citizens as soon as we bring up the technical details. Technologists haven't gotten much of anywhere getting the average American to understand, much less know why they should care about, encryption. Hell, we still engage in arguments here on HN about why you shouldn't roll your own encryption, even though all the programmers out there should already know that. We simply aren't going to get anywhere saying we first have to educate normal people on encryption. And it's plain wrong to think that an issue like this needs to be framed within a context that requires people to understand the basics of encryption. That's a no-win trajectory for carrying on a public conversation. You simply have to appeal to people using language that isn't overly biased, presents issues in the simplest possible ways (and builds up from there), and actually gets them involved in the conversation. It would, without any doubt, be fantastic if more people understood encryption, digital security, digital privacy, etc. But Average Joes and Janes don't really think about the devices and services they use in that way. I know a great many people who are [what I think are] normal, non-technical citizens, and their eyes just glaze over at talk of encryption--much like how many people's eyes glaze over at seeing mathematical equations, as if they're looking at Japanese. The reason there is a higher propensity among potential Average American poll respondents to support the FBI on this issue is the way it's being framed. All I'm saying is that it's just as possible, and actually necessary, to frame the issue in a way that helps average Americans understand the dire implications of this case without having any need for understanding the basics of encryption, iOS, the Secure Enclave, trusted/signed code from Apple, and everything else that most HNers are discussing here.

ddlatham 11y ago

Yahoo should be in the upper list: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/19/yahoo-sides-with-apple-in-fight-with-feds-over-iphone-san-bernardino/80608216/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/19/yahoo-sid...

mythz 11y ago
updated, thx!
- jlongster 11y ago
  Mozilla should as well: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/02/24/continuing-the-conversation-about-encryption-and-apple-a-new-video-from-mozilla/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/02/24/continuing-the-conv...
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    I think the video on that page would be incredibly more effective and helpful if it didn't use "encryption" so many times, and tried to explain to people what encryption is. As it stands, it just repetitively uses the term to tell people when, where, or how they use it without realizing. I think the former point is more critical, and the latter less so. As it stands, meeting encryption feels more like spotting Waldo than actually meeting encryption. (PS: Hi, James!)

eva1984 11y ago

I didn't see anything wrong with 'Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI' It is what it is. You guys focuses more on how to limit FBI to abuse the terrorist card to violate privacy. But in case of a true terrorist, the answer should not be not that hard.

mythz 11y ago
This is exactly what the FBI want's you to think and why they've carefully handpicked this case to try and set this legal precedent on - ridding us of our fundamental rights to privacy and security. Out of all the 13 pending cases the FBI have with Apple using the All Writs Act (they've also said they have another 175 iPhones to unlock), this has the least chance of holding anything meaningful given it's his consent-to-monitor work phone, not his personal phone (which he destroyed), wasn't used at the scene of the crime, of which the FBI already have 6 week old iCloud backups of and would've had all the phones iCloud backups if they hadn't disabled them by instructing for the phones password to be reset. Yet of all the pending cases under seal this is the one they've chosen to break character and go public on, exploiting this tragic event and using the fear around terror and emotions of victims for maximum PR and political effect to further their agenda of violating the security of millions of customers - which is both deceitful and clever, as apparently it's working. I've always watched in bewilderment at the US Govt's response to terror, they're prepared to spend trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security, aren't prepared to do anything to change the easy access to the semi-automatic weapons that were actually used to kill all the victims, but are prepared to compromise the security and privacy of millions of peoples lives, violating 1st and 5th amendment constitutional rights for the theater of accessing useless data on a dead terrorist's work phone - for something which US citizens have less chance to die from than their own furniture? ...and the US public majority approves.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security That's only the means, not the goal, because... > bewilderment Spending massive amounts of money on wars makes a lot more sense once you realize that it's intended to channel money into their friends (and their jobs post-public service) in the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned[1] us, but the public didn't listen. [1] his farewell address was amazingly prescient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

return0 11y ago

> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." For europe and the rest of the world, the answer was a resounding YES by the american government, their intelligence agencies and the american people at large, and it came years ago. So, this is not about their customers or their rights or any other abstract moral universals (which are valid only within the US). I wouldn't read too much into it, although i think it has to do with an attempt to restore the shattered image of US companies to their international audience.

studentrob 11y ago
So you are assuming the court will find against Apple? And that America will watch this and say they are cool with that? The first is a possibility, of course. I don't think the second is likely. I personally do not plan to stop shouting about this, and informing my representatives on my position.

samstave 11y ago

If the government wins this case, I will permanently destroy my personal cell phone and will never have one again. I will maintain a cell phone for work only.

dlp211 11y ago
That's a bit extreme. Just because there is a weakness in the implementation details of the iPhone PIN mechanism does not mean that all phones are weak. Apple already uses extremely strong encryption, and when coupled with a largish alphanumeric passcode, the phone would not fall to such easy attacks as the phone in question (4-6 digit PIN). This case is not about weakening encryption in any way, something that I think is not well understood outside a technical audience.
twblalock 11y ago
That's a bit far. I'll just stop using mine to plot major crimes.

timr 11y ago

"From recent polls most people think this debate is about..." ...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with your opinion on the matter. For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is "yes, sometimes", with an additional "there is no such thing as a 'customer's right to security'", added for good measure. Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't think it's Apple's job to enforce it.

studentrob 11y ago
The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one. I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security, however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both support Apple now in this fight against government overreach and put pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, despite appearing to be both pro Apple and anti-Apple.
- timr 11y ago
  "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." I don't think that's true, but even if I'm wrong, you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Also, I don't agree that this is government overreach. This case seems about as clear-cut an example of a "good" investigatory behavior as we're likely to see. If you can't get behind the idea of compromising privacy when there's a valid warrant, in the case of a known mass murderer with probable ties to international terrorist groups, well...you've set an exceptionally high bar. I'm a reasonable person, I see your position, and I disagree with you on the merits of your argument.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - studentrob 11y ago
    >> "The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one." > you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one. Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law. They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress. This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law. It will come down to a matter of interpretation by the justices. If they rule against Apple, the message is, "This is covered by the AWA, and the AWA was intended to compel companies to weaken their products' security". In that case, many of us in the public feel that the justices will have unfairly created a new law. If they rule for Apple, the message is, "This is an undue burden being forced upon Apple. That is not the intention of the AWA. If you want them to comply, go to Congress and ask for a law" Obama was a lawyer, he knows this, and in light of the public's disapproval of mass surveillance, he chose the path (the AWA) that is most likely to get him what he wants, which is to grant law enforcement access to all iPhones. The public currently will not re-elect congressmen and women who push through new surveillance laws. P.S. I like your site vayable.com

massemphasis 11y ago

No, it's not just that. It is also: - Should companies reveal what type of information they have on their consumers. - Should and can companies protect their data on their consumers as their own property.

studentrob 11y ago
Unfortunately those have already been decided and are unlikely to be reversed by this case. This case is currently about the AWA. A previous decision using the AWA, USA vs. New York Telephone, notes it can compel companies to act, given some constraints, "We agree that the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed" "The order provided that the Company be fully reimbursed at prevailing rates, and compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations." [1] We already know law enforcement can get a warrant for access to information, and that people cannot reasonably expect privacy of information given to a 3rd party, including information on computers. Those decisions, unfortunately, have already been made and that's not what's at stake here. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/19/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

biturd 11y ago

What about other large semi tech companies. Starting with Tesla, but GE, paypal, Asus, Linksys, Cisco, Sun, Bay Networks, Coca-Cola, IBM, FedEx, Starbucks, Procter and Gamble and all medical HIPAA institutions, schools and Universities, McDonalds, Disney, Pixar, Amex, Visa, MasterCard, Costco, Caterpillar, Target, Nike, UPS, USPS, Exxon, Pepsi, Samsung, AT&T, t_mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Oracle, General Mills, Wells Fargo, Investment banking companies, etc. They all have a stake in tech, and they all would not like to have their tech backed up by a system, that anyone can get into if one person leaks it out. DMV, the police, all those poorly secured systems that are now basically a new RFC that is for publicly routable address space that everyone treats like private address space, but just insert your special gummy bear finger print copy, and bam, you are in. Get all those companies behind this, and people will think the FBI are crooks and theives.

odbol_ 11y ago
I wonder if they could make a case that it violates the HIPAA, since your heartbeat/activity tracker info is on the device? Kind of a weak argument, but HIPAA is a pretty contentious subject.
- swyman 11y ago
  I might be wrong, but my understanding is that HIPAA privacy rules only apply to healthcare providers like hospitals and their employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act#Privacy_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_a...
  - dmix 11y ago
    This is correct. We ran a website for diabetics where users volunteered health data and HIPAA didn't apply to us. If it coordinated data exchange with doctors directly then it would be different.
  - cakeface 11y ago
    What about doctors using an iPhone to check a patient's files? Would apple have to make a secure HIPAA compliant version for hospital use? What about government use? I bet all those FBI agents are talking to each other with iphones...

avn2109 11y ago

This strikes me as a great opportunity to use the "think of the children" argument against the government. Headlines should read like this: "FBI wants ability to steal dick pics from any iPhone, including children's phones!"

idle_zealot 11y ago
Sure, but that goes both ways. It could easily be said that the FBI needs to be able to look through the phones of predators in order to convict.
- pooper 11y ago
  I think they're talking something similar to GCHQ's intercept. For those who are new, previously on hacker news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312212
EdHominem 11y ago
I think you may want to rethink your soundbite. Heh. But yeah, remember the scandal about school admins potentially being able to use the laptop's anti-theft programs to spy on children? Imagine that for all children worldwide.

jensvdh 11y ago

Snapchat?

jmh42 11y ago

Like it says in the video, it's mostly a business decision. All the companies in the top list are customer/user facing, while Amazon's AWS is not customer facing at all. It's about the customer's impression of the platform they are interacting with on a daily basis (presumably not Linkedin). Standing up with Apple on this issue shows their users they are (also) serious about their privacy. Turn the tables for a second: What would the US do if a foreign government had access to their citizens' information? Would it become an issue of nationalism to use your own country's homegrown smart phone, browser, social network, etc?

LoSboccacc 11y ago
it's is mostly a business and pr decision "Apple had asked the FBI to issue application for iPhone passcode cracking tool under seal, but government made it public, prompting Tim Cook's public remarks"[1] so no, apple doesn't really have the security of user in mind, it's just turning this on its head and putting up a show [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be...

chflags 11y ago

When what it's really about: Are remote "software updates" to a buyer's phone, under the sole control of the seller of the phone, at any time (even after purchase), for any reason (e.g. the one being proposed here), a good idea? Why? Why not? Should Apple customers be given the option to flash the hardware they purchase from Apple with their own choice of software, whereby they might better control the HW and hence secure it from Apple and other third parties? Or should Apple have the _exclusive_ right to flash the HW they sell, even _after_ purchase, without the customer's consent? As they do now. Open hardware. Bad? Good? Necessary?

chakalakasp 11y ago
Heh. Open firmware would not solve this issue. If the firmware were open, the FBI would have already broken into the device. Apple's signing key (or, for the paranoid, the government's unwillingness to admit that they have obtained it through espionage) is primarily what is keeping the FBi's fingers out of the cookie jar. A better question is how to further lock the phone down in future updates so that Apple can't comply even if they were compelled to, something Apple engineers are no doubt looking into right now. The optimal way would be to require a device to be unlocked to update the firmware, which would require the PIN, which Apple would not have.
- parenthephobia 11y ago
  Open doesn't mean it's an unlocked door. Open means that the owner of the device can replace the firmware. There's nothing not-open about requiring that the owner authenticate first. It's only not open if the vendor, rather than the owner, is the only one who the device will permit to replace its firmware.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    > means that the owner of the device can replace the firmware It means that a small minority of owners of the device can replace the firmware. Most people don't have the resources to do something like that.

vedaprodarte 11y ago

Thanks, you have reminded me some huge IT companies that can also be related with this case! Amazon and the other IT infrastructure companies. Why are they missing or remain silent? Does it implies anything?

vonklaus 11y ago

Twitter, Yahoo and LinkedIn aren't imperatives as their beacon data is likely the most important piece and the rest already cover that, and twitter is the only one that will be a company in a year. Amazon, Google, MS and Apple are the real players, but Facebook is closing in as well. Google is the main linchpin, within 1-2 degrees everything clears through it: CA, DNS, Search, mx, analytic beacons, OS, hosting, etc. They believe data should be used to solve problems and it should. But the consolidation risk is too high now, they own the whole stack and all the connections hopefully they have integrity here.,

rayiner 11y ago

> "Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security." We can put the case into an even larger context and ask: should the FBI be able to compel [banks, accounting firms, insurance companies] to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to financial privacy? The answer to date, has been "yes." The right of the justice system to "every man's evidence",[1] has so far been thought to trump the interests of the customer relationship. For decades, government has had the power to compel accounting firms and banks to search through their records (often at significant expense) to deliver information relevant to an investigation. I imagine those companies would love to be able to advertise that they won't cooperate with a government investigation of your taxes or financial transactions. In my view, there are two different questions: 1) can the government ask Apple to unlock one iPhone; 2) can the government ask Apple to weaken security for all iPhones?[2] The first question, at issue in this case, is something companies deal with all the time in many different contexts. The second question, on the other hand, may well be sui generis. I understand why Apple taking a stand on this particular hill--in their shoes I'd do it too. Better to "fight them over there so you don't have to fight them over here" so to speak. I'm a little worried about the potential for blowback, though. The tech community is forced, in a way, to spread FUD to justify their argument as to (1). There are a lot of people who are confused by the reporting and think that this case involves the FBI requesting Apple to put backdoors in all of their phones, rather than leveraging an existing security weakness. That's not necessarily a great place to be in if you're found out. [1] United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974). [2] I don't think it's technically justifiable to say that (2) is implied by (1). Apple apparently already has the capability to subvert anyone's phones by using their signing keys to load weakened software. At a purely technical level, signing an "evil build of iOS" using an existing "backdoor" is different than introducing a backdoor into everyone's phone.

DavideNL 11y ago
(2) is implied by (1) because once Apple has created the tool to do it once (1), the government has access to it and can (and will) use that tool endlessly (2). This is why Apple refuses to create this tool to unlock 1 iPhone. History has shown we cannot restrict this by implementing laws/rules, just look at the news to see how these laws are abused right now, accessing all our private data. EDIT: ok i get your point now; I imagine the reason this 'technical backdoor' exists in the first place, is because Apple wants to be able to update that part of the OS in case of bugs. If they make it 'not-updateable' the backdoor is closed but then if problems arise, bugs can't be fixed (for example the recent Error 5/home button bug).

mmmmmjjjjjj 11y ago