5 ms·
I think that if the government was asking gun manufacturers to install an electronic lock on guns that would allow the FBI to disable any gun if the suspected t
by zw123456 11y ago
I think that if the government was asking gun manufacturers to install an electronic lock on guns that would allow the FBI to disable any gun if the suspected the person might be about to commit a terrorist act, there would be a completely different reaction.
- theseatoms 11y agoIf by "different" you mean "identical, but reflected along the partisan axis," then I agree wholeheartedly.
- zw123456 11y agoYes, that is exactly what I meant.
- guscost 11y agoThe phone backdoor thing seems to break orthogonal to left-right, closer to the libertarian-authoritarian axis. At least that's my impression.
- nibs 11y agoI tend to agree. People who love when governments control things and people who hate terrorists are both probably pro-FBI. People who want reduced government control or people who value digital freedom are probably pro-Apple. Not that these groups are mutually exclusive, it just depends on what you value most.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- sliverstorm 11y agoThat's what gets my goat, I feel like everybody is pretending to argue about technical merits, when in reality they are just arguing to their agenda.
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoIsn't that how it's supposed to work? Everybody tries to make the best possible argument for their desired outcome and then some ostensibly neutral decider reads all the arguments and decides who's right.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> People who love when governments control things and people who hate terrorists are both probably pro-FBI. Pretty much everybody hates terrorists regardless of whether they're pro-FBI.
- bcook 11y agoGuns are related to privacy?
- jonesb6 11y agoIn the Unites States, yes. I personally do not hold this opinion, but many gun owners see gun ownership as an inalienable right and any attempt to limit or take it away as a violation of privacy and overreaching by the government.
- zw123456 11y agoI agree. To me the relationship is government over reach. I think it is too much to ask Apple to write a back door into their product. I can see getting a warrant to look at phone records etc. I am a gun owner but not fanatical, I am ok with some reasonable controls. The key in both cases, 2nd and 4th amendment restrictions is reasonableness. But that is always in the eye of the beholder, hence the controversy.
- zw123456 11y ago2nd amendment vs. 4th amendment. Why is one more important than the other ? once there is a precedent to bypass the 4th ? I just think it is something to think about. I get it that it is not a perfect analogy.
- ars 11y ago> precedent to bypass the 4th You mean like a search warrant? That's a pretty old precedent...........
- scrumper 11y agoThose things aren't really comparable. One is a pre-emptive action taken by government before the commission of a crime, the other is a reactive investigation tool. I also suspect your gun example might actually generate more outrage at governmental overreach.
- throwawayukcyb 11y agoSide-note: your observation may be valid for this case, but not in the case of backdoored encryption. Backdoored encryption is exactly a pre-emptive action. Relevant b/c I think the real worry in this case is that the FBI is laying the groundwork for a PR campaign for mandated backdoored encryption.
- josu 11y ago"I also suspect your gun example might actually generate more outrage at governmental overreach." I believe that that is his point.
- Johnny555 11y agoSoftware and hardware are fundamentally different so it's hard to find a close analogy, but if Apple creates this tool (that can be applied to any phone (or at least a large subset of their phones)), it's essentially the same as if the decryption tool were present in every phone, even ones sold before the commission of a crime. The closest parallel I can think of is the Gun Microstamping law (which would require that bullet casings be stamped with a mark identifying the gun it was shot with). This has (as you might expect) generated a lot of controversy and lawsuits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping
- martin-adams 11y ago>> but if Apple creates this tool (that can be applied to any phone (or at least a large subset of their phones)), it's essentially the same as if the decryption tool were present in every phone, even ones sold before the commission of a crime. This concept I find interesting. If Apple did have the ability to create this tool, then is there much of a difference? I guess the difference is whether Apple were to give such a tool to the FBI, rather than creating it, extracting the data and deleting the tool. But who is to say that some clever individual can't create their own tool to achieve the same thing. Until Apple deliver on their desire to create phones you can't decrypt, I would therefore consider all iphones vulnerable.
- ars 11y agoHow is that even remotely similar? One has a court issued search warrant. The other doesn't. Why should iPhones be magically protected from search warrants?
- jMyles 11y ago1) There is no search warrant in the case in question, but an order under the All Writs act. 2) If Apple had designed the phone properly in the first place (ie, impenetrable even with their help), then they would indeed be protected from attacks via search warrant. A sufficiently robust security solution doesn't care whether the attack happens to come from the state.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> 1) There is no search warrant in the case in question, but an order under the All Writs act. I was under the impression that there is a search warrant that the government has secured to search the phone, and an order under the All Writs Act dragooning Apple into writing custom software to support the search authorized by the warrant.
- jhayward 11y agoThere is indeed a warrant. The writ was issued to effectuate the warrant.
- jMyles 11y ago
- baddox 11y agoThe public reaction might be different, but my reaction would be roughly the same.
- morsch 11y agoThose two are related in principle (the whole All Writs Act thing), which means in so far as you agree with Apple, but disagree with the hypothetical analogous gun manufacturer, maybe it's not so much the common principle (applying the All Writs Act) you take issue with. Which was your point, and it's a good one. At the same time, it's hardly an unreasonable or inconsistent position to take. You can be opposed to the government asking Apple to install a backdoor regardless of constitutional concerns.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- flubert 11y agoWhat if the phone belonged to an abortion clinic bomber?
- bbarn 11y agoI doubt the reaction would be any different. Both are acts of terrorism.
- Dirlewanger 11y agoFor reasonably sane people, yes, reactions would not be different. But for the evangelical nutjobs that implicitly support that kind of crap, there would definitely be an outrage about how the government is overstepping their boundaries.
- flubert 11y agoInteresting perspective, I hadn't thought of it that way. I was thinking the opposite, and we wouldn't be having a conversation, because Apple would have already complied.
- FrankyHollywood 11y agoWell, I guess if this gives the government to much trouble they will forbid phones in the USA having encryption at all. Just like they forbid having torrent software on you computer, of having radar detection in your car (in some counties). All simple available tech products, but not legal because it bothers them...
- arasmussen 11y agoThis is actually a good idea
- rhino369 11y agoThis analogy is terrible. The FBI isn't asking for this on all iphones. It's asking for apple to help them hack into a single iphone, which it already has it's possession. And it's pursuant to a court order, which limits the chance that this is a fishing expedition. It's more like asking the gun manufacturer to make a tool that fits the mold of the gun to take it apart so they can gather forensic evidence. Hell, I best most people would okay with that even if it affected all guns. But this apple situation isn't going to effect all iphones.
- walshemj 11y agoExactly its the ios is unique to the phone in question
- jordache 11y agoshortsighted argument. With digital technology, proliferation is magnitudes easier than something that involves a physical object without involving digital computer technology. The risk profile is entirely different...
- TheOsiris 11y agoI think the reaction will be exactly the same except that many of the people in the debate will immediately switch positions :). Many of the people who take privacy and the 4th amendment very seriously have no qualms being very nuanced and "progressive" about the 2nd (and vice versa). I find that fact entertaining
- stillsut 11y agoPerfect metaphor. Now go file off the serial numbers to some handguns and see how well your civil disobedience goes.