8 ms·

The specifics are important. If I said, "If a police officer gives you a lawful order do you have to comply?" you would immediately say, "yes". Now what if I sa

The specifics are important. If I said, "If a police officer gives you a lawful order do you have to comply?" you would immediately say, "yes". Now what if I said, "If a police officer demands that an entire neighborhood be subject to lengthy interrogation and be held for 24 hours in custody in order to solve a murder that took place there." You'd probably say that's ridiculous. That's essentially what I view to be the case here. In theory the procedure may be perfectly "lawful" but in practice is clearly overreach. We need case law around this. I believe this is as clear a case of overreach as Apple could wish for. Finally, I believe it should be legal precedent set in public for once.

harryh 11y ago
Requesting a trivial modification to a piece of software is overreach?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- progressive_dad 11y ago
  It becomes non-trivial due to the marketing of their devices as secure systems. Just as with the burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figures, the "triviality" of the modification in this case is held to a higher standard due to the purpose of the product. * I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are no ways to "trivially" access their personal information. Even for Apple to do so would be a breach of that trust. See: "Uber God Mode"
  - harryh 11y ago
    People buy iPhones because they think that the FBI can't ever compel Apple to extract data from them? And even if that's true (which I really don't think it is) it's not a good enough reason. Say I started a bank and marketed my bank as an especially secure one. "Even the FBI will never be able to see your bank records. I won't let them!" I bet some customers might be interested in that. Just because I had marketed my bank that way doesn't mean my bank would gain some special legal protection against warrants.
    - criddell 11y ago
      The big difference between the two is that the banks have the information and are already subject to lots of record keeping regulations and so it is not an undue burden for them to comply with a subpoena demanding information. Apple does not currently have what the FBI is asking for and to comply would mean creating that software. If the government wants to pass a law requiring phone makers like Apple to include a back door, then that's what they should do. For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption.
      - progressive_dad 11y ago
        > For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption. Its easy to see why DOD originally classified it as a munition. Video games have become a powerful tool for storytelling, education, performance art, and immersive experiences for a long time but they started out as artillery simulators and a means to practice war games. That mentality pervades and we still see Jump, Shoot, and Run as the primary dynamic by which we function in these amazing experiences. You're fighting against human instinct and hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Against Dunbar's number, the core mechanic of trust and social engagement for millenia. I hope you're right, but I don't think it will be the sea-change you're expecting. Look at the adoption of bitcoin and remember that law enforcement is a retro-grade function of society. Underfunded and always behind the zeitgeist. We don't ask the secret service to build the president's merchandising website, and we shouldn't expect the FBI to be able to articulate or comprehend the, "triviality" of undermining strong encryption.
        criddell 11y ago
        I think it was classified as a munition for practical reasons - they wanted export controls. I think it's great that you name specific parts of the government because not all parts of the government think strong encryption is a problem.
        progressive_dad 11y ago
  - harryh 11y ago
    Apple can't access your personal information unless they are in physical possession of the phone. And, whether they have built the GovOS piece of software already or not, is essentially irrelevant to how easy it is. If the only reason they can't get at your data is because they haven't compiled some code yet that's ALMOST NO PROTECTION AT ALL! Anyone making a buying decision based on Apple's failure to compile a simple piece of code is nuts! Like, if you gave me a private document while I had my eyes closed and I said "Trust me, I can't see your data, I have my eyes closed. And I'm not going to open them." that would be crazy right? Building GovOS is the equivalent of opening my eyes.
    - progressive_dad 11y ago
      I think you underestimate the value of trust in business and government. Its a common failing in the hacker ethos. Just because you CAN mess with the programming of an elevator the president uses every day doesn't mean you SHOULD.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
tracker1 11y ago
I'm not saying it isn't overreach, I agree that it is... the 4th and 5th amendments indicate this, as well as other reasonable interpretations of the law. I was only responding to the gp, in that it would be billable, but the real "cost" may be incalculable... not to mention the damage to near term and long term security, and future incursions into privacy built upon yielding here.

harryh 11y ago

Requesting a trivial modification to a piece of software is overreach?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
progressive_dad 11y ago
It becomes non-trivial due to the marketing of their devices as secure systems. Just as with the burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figures, the "triviality" of the modification in this case is held to a higher standard due to the purpose of the product. * I can't reply below this threshold but I'm enjoying the back and forth. People buy iphones because they believe that there are no ways to "trivially" access their personal information. Even for Apple to do so would be a breach of that trust. See: "Uber God Mode"
- harryh 11y ago
  People buy iPhones because they think that the FBI can't ever compel Apple to extract data from them? And even if that's true (which I really don't think it is) it's not a good enough reason. Say I started a bank and marketed my bank as an especially secure one. "Even the FBI will never be able to see your bank records. I won't let them!" I bet some customers might be interested in that. Just because I had marketed my bank that way doesn't mean my bank would gain some special legal protection against warrants.
  - criddell 11y ago
    The big difference between the two is that the banks have the information and are already subject to lots of record keeping regulations and so it is not an undue burden for them to comply with a subpoena demanding information. Apple does not currently have what the FBI is asking for and to comply would mean creating that software. If the government wants to pass a law requiring phone makers like Apple to include a back door, then that's what they should do. For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption.
    - progressive_dad 11y ago
      > For me, this boils down to whether or not people are allowed to have strong encryption. Its easy to see why DOD originally classified it as a munition. Video games have become a powerful tool for storytelling, education, performance art, and immersive experiences for a long time but they started out as artillery simulators and a means to practice war games. That mentality pervades and we still see Jump, Shoot, and Run as the primary dynamic by which we function in these amazing experiences. You're fighting against human instinct and hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Against Dunbar's number, the core mechanic of trust and social engagement for millenia. I hope you're right, but I don't think it will be the sea-change you're expecting. Look at the adoption of bitcoin and remember that law enforcement is a retro-grade function of society. Underfunded and always behind the zeitgeist. We don't ask the secret service to build the president's merchandising website, and we shouldn't expect the FBI to be able to articulate or comprehend the, "triviality" of undermining strong encryption.
      - criddell 11y ago
        I think it was classified as a munition for practical reasons - they wanted export controls. I think it's great that you name specific parts of the government because not all parts of the government think strong encryption is a problem.
        progressive_dad 11y ago
- harryh 11y ago
  Apple can't access your personal information unless they are in physical possession of the phone. And, whether they have built the GovOS piece of software already or not, is essentially irrelevant to how easy it is. If the only reason they can't get at your data is because they haven't compiled some code yet that's ALMOST NO PROTECTION AT ALL! Anyone making a buying decision based on Apple's failure to compile a simple piece of code is nuts! Like, if you gave me a private document while I had my eyes closed and I said "Trust me, I can't see your data, I have my eyes closed. And I'm not going to open them." that would be crazy right? Building GovOS is the equivalent of opening my eyes.
  - progressive_dad 11y ago
    I think you underestimate the value of trust in business and government. Its a common failing in the hacker ethos. Just because you CAN mess with the programming of an elevator the president uses every day doesn't mean you SHOULD.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

tracker1 11y ago

I'm not saying it isn't overreach, I agree that it is... the 4th and 5th amendments indicate this, as well as other reasonable interpretations of the law. I was only responding to the gp, in that it would be billable, but the real "cost" may be incalculable... not to mention the damage to near term and long term security, and future incursions into privacy built upon yielding here.