3 ms·

We talk about consumer electronics. This encryption is strong enough so your wife can't see who you called last night. But now it's being used by terrorists who

We talk about consumer electronics. This encryption is strong enough so your wife can't see who you called last night. But now it's being used by terrorists who plan attacks on a country. I mean, an iPhone is not a heavily secured server storing Iran's nuclear secrets. If you really need to protect information, you as a user also have a responsibility.

andrewjl 11y ago
We have laws for a reason. And the law is clear with regard to Apple's rights. From Apple's Filing (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-00451-SP-USA-v-Black-Lexus-IS300.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...) Contrary to the government’s contention that CALEA is inapplicable to this dispute, Congress declared via CALEA that the government cannot dictate to providers of electronic communications services or manufacturers of telecommunications equipment any s pecific equipment design or software configuration. In the section of CALEA entitled “Design of features and systems configurations,” 47 U.S.C. § 1002(b)(1), the statute says that it “does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer — (1) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services. (2) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.
- FrankyHollywood 11y ago
  True! That's why I don't understand the issue at all. It's probably the reasen the FBI went in the open, to get public presure to get what they want. Anyway, China and Russia also act to their laws so we cannot rely on that. What if Trump takes his first shit in the White House and wipes his ass with every privacy law he can find? Hackers should be independent of laws, provide for their own tooling which can protect people like Snowden. People who care about privacy must take care of themselves. And if some terrorist decides to kill people and use a 4digit passphrase I won't defend the guy. I'm not against privacy, on the contrary, having worked on compliancy/risk management software. (Some of) you guys have no idea about the crazy amount of data which is acquired about almost every person with a SSN. Kept in hundreds of databases, balancing on legal boundaries. All made possible by law...
  - andrewjl 11y ago
    I see your point. In the case of countries without a strong rule of law one doesn't want to rely on legislation to protect data. Better to possess a technical means then. Where my opinion differs is regarding "[people] who care about privacy must take care of themselves." I don't think an activist should have deep technical knowledge of cryptography in order to do activism. Doing so establishes a de facto barrier to entry. (Cryptography is hard, and not everyone has the means to acquire the expertise.) I would actually go a step farther and advocate a responsibility of knowledgeable hackers to provide activists (whose objectives they agree with) with the tools needed to communicate securely. In the age of media ubiquity, privacy rights are sacrosanct. Something along the lines of what Open Whisper Systems is doing. As for the terrorists case, I won't defend them or their actions. However it's still a provable fact that the FBI was in possession of a means to access the data they are seeking, yet they chose to deliberately reset the passcode and create a need for this additional access. Viewed in the kindest light possible, it's incompetency. Assuming the worst, it's an attempt to manipulate the media and the public into giving them more invasive tools to surveil citizens.

andrewjl 11y ago

We have laws for a reason. And the law is clear with regard to Apple's rights. From Apple's Filing (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-00451-SP-USA-v-Black-Lexus-IS300.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...) Contrary to the government’s contention that CALEA is inapplicable to this dispute, Congress declared via CALEA that the government cannot dictate to providers of electronic communications services or manufacturers of telecommunications equipment any s pecific equipment design or software configuration. In the section of CALEA entitled “Design of features and systems configurations,” 47 U.S.C. § 1002(b)(1), the statute says that it “does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer — (1) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services. (2) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.

FrankyHollywood 11y ago
True! That's why I don't understand the issue at all. It's probably the reasen the FBI went in the open, to get public presure to get what they want. Anyway, China and Russia also act to their laws so we cannot rely on that. What if Trump takes his first shit in the White House and wipes his ass with every privacy law he can find? Hackers should be independent of laws, provide for their own tooling which can protect people like Snowden. People who care about privacy must take care of themselves. And if some terrorist decides to kill people and use a 4digit passphrase I won't defend the guy. I'm not against privacy, on the contrary, having worked on compliancy/risk management software. (Some of) you guys have no idea about the crazy amount of data which is acquired about almost every person with a SSN. Kept in hundreds of databases, balancing on legal boundaries. All made possible by law...
- andrewjl 11y ago
  I see your point. In the case of countries without a strong rule of law one doesn't want to rely on legislation to protect data. Better to possess a technical means then. Where my opinion differs is regarding "[people] who care about privacy must take care of themselves." I don't think an activist should have deep technical knowledge of cryptography in order to do activism. Doing so establishes a de facto barrier to entry. (Cryptography is hard, and not everyone has the means to acquire the expertise.) I would actually go a step farther and advocate a responsibility of knowledgeable hackers to provide activists (whose objectives they agree with) with the tools needed to communicate securely. In the age of media ubiquity, privacy rights are sacrosanct. Something along the lines of what Open Whisper Systems is doing. As for the terrorists case, I won't defend them or their actions. However it's still a provable fact that the FBI was in possession of a means to access the data they are seeking, yet they chose to deliberately reset the passcode and create a need for this additional access. Viewed in the kindest light possible, it's incompetency. Assuming the worst, it's an attempt to manipulate the media and the public into giving them more invasive tools to surveil citizens.