8 ms·

Apple’s Privacy Fight Tests Relationship with White House

104 points by hvo 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- jnbiche 11y ago
  It may be, but this Android-using programmer is totally falling for it. I'm seriously considering buying an iPhone now. As the Obama strips away our freedoms at a greater rate than any preceding administration of the last 100 years, someone needs to stand up to them. (and that's just what we know about; who knows what they're doing in secret). Realistically, our nations most powerful corporations are the only ones who can actually get their attention. And even then, it's David vs Goliath. I'm just happy someone is pointing out the impact of this administration's rash actions directly to their faces. I don't care if it's for mercenary reasons. Besides, with the famous Apple "1984" commercial being held in reverence by the typical Apple employee, I suspect that many or most Apple employees, including the executive leadership, may hold strong views on privacy and the dangers of state surveillance in good faith.
  - daughart 11y ago
    What freedoms has Obama stripped away?
    - jnbiche 11y ago
      1. Freedom to life (claiming the government has the power to assassinate American citizens without judicial review, and actually performing some assassinations. Yes, the assholes killed were probably murdering terrorists, but depriving citizens of life without judicial review is not what our constitution permits). 2. Not only renewing, but greatly expanding the Patriot Act in 2011. You can look up the details online, but it's expanded coverage on business records in particular is pretty grim for any civil libertarian. This one hits just about every liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the 5th article. 3. Egregious persecution of American citizen whistleblowers, going so far as to force down the plane of a foreign head of state in their attempts to capture one whistleblower. 4. All the state surveillance of American citizens revealed by the Snowden whistleblowing, which is why it pissed them off so bad. 5. Continuing egregious violations against constitutional limits on unreasonable search and seizure, particularly with respect to federal "civil forfeiture", up 50%+ in money value in 2010, the last year for which I can find data [1]. If you really want, I'll continue, but I'll let others chip in. All this is pretty grim coming from a professor of constitutional law. It makes me wonder what he really believes/believed when he entered office. 1. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture#sthash.G1c3wBkR.dpbs http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture#sthash.G1c3wBkR.d...
      - venomsnake 11y ago
        This is the wrong topic - but a lot of last eight years' policies make a lot more sense if you view Obama as moderate republican (in the old timey sense of the world - probably mid 90s) when not talking about social issues. I am not sure if this is because both parties have drifted to the right economically and foreign affair wise, or it was just his world views from the beginning.
        jnbiche 11y ago
        > if you view Obama as moderate republican I'd go even farther. Philosophically, his world views seems to be a variation of the neo-conservatism that people hated so much in Bush and Cheney. Who would've guessed in 2008? (a few people did, but very few). And that's little consolation to us civil libertarians now.
        TillE 11y ago
        > Who would've guessed in 2008? (a few people did, but very few) Well, lots of people noticed that the hope-change rhetoric was almost entirely devoid of actual policy commitments. He also opposed same-sex marriage, sneered at atheists, etc. Anyone who expected a left-wing presidency was deluding themselves. But sure, he has also reversed course in a number of ways that probably surprised even the cynics. He talked a lot about transparency and shutting out lobbyists, then wound up doing the opposite.
        mindslight 11y ago
        The last sixteen years' rhetoric and policies make a lot more sense if you simply view politicians from both parties as extreme authoritarians, just marketed to different tribes with differing aesthetics.
      - mindslight 11y ago
        > All this is pretty grim coming from a professor of constitutional law. It makes me wonder what he really believes/believed when he entered office. I recall reading an article describing Obama's inheritance of Bush II's questionable programs. The concern wasn't so much that maybe torturing people (etc) were bad ideas, but how to reform the programs so that they were legitimate under the constitution. He essentially operates as a constitutional law black hat, searching for bugs which can be exploited to justify the tyrannical status quo.
  - rand1012 11y ago
    Me too. This is all making me want to switch to iOS.
chillaxtian 11y ago
"This was evident at the meeting in January in Silicon Valley." which meeting?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ipsin 11y ago
  Only context I could find was the caption photo: "Denis McDonough, President Obama’s chief of staff. He met with Apple last month."
- sigmar 11y ago
  This nytimes article mentions the talks too but doesn't give details: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-c...
studentrob 11y ago
Disagreement doesn't mean a relationship must turn sour. The government's decision to begin the AWA filing without notifying Apple, instead leaving Apple to find out about it from the press, probably did not help the relationship. There's not much I see from the government's side attempting to further relations with Apple. The upcoming encryption bill due out in March is another example. How much do you want to bet Apple has not been asked for their input while drafting it?
- sigmar 11y ago
  >The government's decision to begin the AWA filing without notifying Apple, instead leaving Apple to find out about it from the press, probably did not help the relationship. This doesn't seem substantiated by facts. Apple had been discussing the case with the fbi for 2 months (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-c...). Also Apple wanted the order to unlock it to be kept secret, and the fbi did not (there's another nytimes source on this, can't find it at the moment).
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Cook stated this in his interview. The government would say otherwise if that weren't true. 15:12 David Muir: You have talked to the President before on these issues [yes] of privacy and security. Are you disappointed there wasn't more of a dialog with the administration before this swift action from the justice department? Tim Cook: Yes. David Muir: You wish there was more done? Tim Cook: Yes. And I think there should've been... We found out about the filing from the press. And, I don't think that's the way it should be run. And I don't think that something so important to this country should be handled in this way. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-sits-david-muir-37174976 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook...
    - sigmar 11y ago
      Hmmm that seems to contradict the source the NYTimes used here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be... >Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
hanief 11y ago
On doing so, Apple probably gains respect from other countries except the USA.
- johansch 11y ago
  Myself, from another country is amused that Apple has managed to manipulate 95% of tech community into thinking that they can't do what the FBI wants because that would create a backdoor. To anyone whose mind is not clouded by ideology it should be clear that the backdoor already exists and that what Apple is resisting is creating an exploit for it.
  - dclowd9901 11y ago
    For the billionth time, a backdoor exists in an outdated hardware infrastructure. It's not clear if this would even be possible on current generation iPhones, but one surefire way to get Apple to create one is by setting a precedent of law enforcement dictating the actions of phone manufacturers. Stop muddying the issue; we need focus right now to keep this from happening.
    - johansch 11y ago
      For the billionth time? Seriously? Could I ask for at least 2 examples on HN? The Apple Force is strong here.
    - exodust 11y ago
      The focus should be to prevent the government from denying phone manufacturers the right to build bulletproof encryption into their phones. We want bullet proof encryption because the internet is an open book and people are sick of their privacy being compromised. Consider this future scenario: FBI: "Dear Apple, can you help us unlock this iPhone like last time?" Apple: "No can do. It uses our latest build which is bullet proof. No backdoors possible. We'll give you all the information we have related to the account holder though." FBI: "Dang. Thanks for info." And that's how it should be. That's what we should be fighting for. It seems to me by fighting this current issue for Apple's right not to bust open its exploit, we've jumped the gun. It's confusing matters, and now we have polls showing half of voters want Apple to "help fight terrorism rather than not help fight terrorism".
venomsnake 11y ago
Can we stop pretending that apple are taking a privacy stand? They are taking walled garden and vendor locking stand. If they lose this - they must create device that even they cannot compromise. After all any device that is secure from apple is not easy to be forced to stay in the apple ecosystem. Sony cares more about my privacy by not caring about what happens with their device after sale - I can unlock my bootloader, put clean AOSP, put firewall and only use F-Droid apps that I have installed. Apple fight is about - we want to have total control over our users, but we don't want to share it with USG. Well - that is not how it works.
- zepto 11y ago
  This is false at face value. Anyone who would rather maintain the security of their own device after purchase can do so by choosing a suitable android phone as you have done. There is nothing Apple can do to force users to stay in their ecosystem. Their fight is about maintaining the privacy of people who choose to be their customers.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    The "we only allow software signed by us" on iphones is forcing people quite a bit when bought iphones. There are no legal ways for a person to load their OS on the apple devices. Or alternate app stores.
    - zepto 11y ago
      Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone, and the fact that apps must be approved by Apple is not only public, but is a selling point that Apple advertises. Where is Apple forcing anyone to do anything?
      - venomsnake 11y ago
        If you buy apple ios hardware you are forced to use apple software. You cannot install lets say Debian. Not because it could not be reversed engineered enough to be built for it, but because apple has the walled garden's keys. Compare that to macbooks and x86 pc-s in which you could load anything you like. So apple are forcing you to use their software to be able to utilize their iDevices at all.
revelation 11y ago
It's the hallmark of corrupt, broken governments when the biggest companies are forced to have amicable relationships, or have their principals sent to Siberia in chains.
notthegov 11y ago
This is highly inappropriate. The argument should be based in principles and philosophies, not in political machinations motivated by a diplomat with a history degree. Denis McDonough is not qualified or educated to understand what he is arguing against. He is a man standing for the wave of Establishment thinking without ever having offered an original thought of his own. The idea that the White House could unduly influence Apple on this issue is frightening. The Chief of Staff should not be doing this. He yields ridiculous power; what if the next Tim Cook is weaker or the next Denis McDonough is even more authoritarian. We should argue from principles and philosophies. This is a dangerous world we are creating. One where individual personalities dominate us and determine our freedom, instead of philosophies derived from reason and analytical thinking. Truth should be defended with honor, while power blinds those from knowing there was ever such a thing as truth. What is right is not relative, there is only one correct answer here.
- studentrob 11y ago
  I think that's overdramatic. We have a voice in this and if we are loud enough, if we educate people enough, we can make this an election issue. Don't underestimate the power of your voice and vote.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Nobody here should want this to be an election issue. A large block of voters are against apple, are pro-backdoors. If this became an election issue anyone seeking to win (all of them) will adopt a middle ground stance. That middle ground will be something like "backdoors, but only if X Y and Z". Except trump. He won't be middle ground. He'll probably personally unlock the phone using a gold-plated hammer.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      The only way we will have a chance at making change on this issue is by electing representatives who understand technology. One way we can elect them is of the public understands technology. And, one way to educate the public is via making this an election issue and by repeatedly suggesting that if we outlaw encryption, then only two parties will have it- government and criminals. Civilians will be the ones who suffer most.
yalogin 11y ago
That is what campaign donations are for. I don't think the White House cares that much. The leadership at the CIA, DoD on the other hand care. That is who will be sour.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Of course the white house cares. Public safety is a top priority. The DOD is telling them that putting back doors on encrypted devices is the only way to keep the public safe when nothing could be further from the truth. It will make us less safe by making sure criminals always have an avenue to our digital data along with the government.
brisance 11y ago
Seems like the fix is in for Apple. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-loses-appeal-in-119-6-million-samsung-patent-case http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-lose...
rand1012 11y ago
If I knew ANYONE in real life who told me they supported the FBI's position, I would lose all respect for them and if possible cut them out of my life completely. And HN isn't an outlier among Silicon Valley with this opinion. And I would say that people young and old who agree with the FBI's position are the same people that don't care what the NSA is doing b
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Are you a child? The inability to interact with people you disagree with is something a toddler would do. Most people who agree with the FBI are merely ignorant; not stupid. If you would cut someone out of your life simply because they are ignorant of a non-trivial subject... Wow.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 11y ago
    Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone is. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
- JeremyBanks 11y ago
  That's ridiculous. This is a very complicated issue, and the right answer (from our perspective) is not at all obvious to the average person. If you care so much, take the time to walk people through the details (the state of security, the nature of the system design, the reasons to expect the precedent to be dangerous, etc.) before you start to judge.
- dang 11y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11187249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11187249 and marked it off-topic.

104 points by hvo 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jnbiche 11y ago
It may be, but this Android-using programmer is totally falling for it. I'm seriously considering buying an iPhone now. As the Obama strips away our freedoms at a greater rate than any preceding administration of the last 100 years, someone needs to stand up to them. (and that's just what we know about; who knows what they're doing in secret). Realistically, our nations most powerful corporations are the only ones who can actually get their attention. And even then, it's David vs Goliath. I'm just happy someone is pointing out the impact of this administration's rash actions directly to their faces. I don't care if it's for mercenary reasons. Besides, with the famous Apple "1984" commercial being held in reverence by the typical Apple employee, I suspect that many or most Apple employees, including the executive leadership, may hold strong views on privacy and the dangers of state surveillance in good faith.
- daughart 11y ago
  What freedoms has Obama stripped away?
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    1. Freedom to life (claiming the government has the power to assassinate American citizens without judicial review, and actually performing some assassinations. Yes, the assholes killed were probably murdering terrorists, but depriving citizens of life without judicial review is not what our constitution permits). 2. Not only renewing, but greatly expanding the Patriot Act in 2011. You can look up the details online, but it's expanded coverage on business records in particular is pretty grim for any civil libertarian. This one hits just about every liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights, except perhaps the 5th article. 3. Egregious persecution of American citizen whistleblowers, going so far as to force down the plane of a foreign head of state in their attempts to capture one whistleblower. 4. All the state surveillance of American citizens revealed by the Snowden whistleblowing, which is why it pissed them off so bad. 5. Continuing egregious violations against constitutional limits on unreasonable search and seizure, particularly with respect to federal "civil forfeiture", up 50%+ in money value in 2010, the last year for which I can find data [1]. If you really want, I'll continue, but I'll let others chip in. All this is pretty grim coming from a professor of constitutional law. It makes me wonder what he really believes/believed when he entered office. 1. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture#sthash.G1c3wBkR.dpbs http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Forfeiture#sthash.G1c3wBkR.d...
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      This is the wrong topic - but a lot of last eight years' policies make a lot more sense if you view Obama as moderate republican (in the old timey sense of the world - probably mid 90s) when not talking about social issues. I am not sure if this is because both parties have drifted to the right economically and foreign affair wise, or it was just his world views from the beginning.
      - jnbiche 11y ago
        > if you view Obama as moderate republican I'd go even farther. Philosophically, his world views seems to be a variation of the neo-conservatism that people hated so much in Bush and Cheney. Who would've guessed in 2008? (a few people did, but very few). And that's little consolation to us civil libertarians now.
        TillE 11y ago
        > Who would've guessed in 2008? (a few people did, but very few) Well, lots of people noticed that the hope-change rhetoric was almost entirely devoid of actual policy commitments. He also opposed same-sex marriage, sneered at atheists, etc. Anyone who expected a left-wing presidency was deluding themselves. But sure, he has also reversed course in a number of ways that probably surprised even the cynics. He talked a lot about transparency and shutting out lobbyists, then wound up doing the opposite.
      - mindslight 11y ago
        The last sixteen years' rhetoric and policies make a lot more sense if you simply view politicians from both parties as extreme authoritarians, just marketed to different tribes with differing aesthetics.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      > All this is pretty grim coming from a professor of constitutional law. It makes me wonder what he really believes/believed when he entered office. I recall reading an article describing Obama's inheritance of Bush II's questionable programs. The concern wasn't so much that maybe torturing people (etc) were bad ideas, but how to reform the programs so that they were legitimate under the constitution. He essentially operates as a constitutional law black hat, searching for bugs which can be exploited to justify the tyrannical status quo.
- rand1012 11y ago
  Me too. This is all making me want to switch to iOS.

chillaxtian 11y ago

"This was evident at the meeting in January in Silicon Valley." which meeting?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ipsin 11y ago
Only context I could find was the caption photo: "Denis McDonough, President Obama’s chief of staff. He met with Apple last month."
sigmar 11y ago
This nytimes article mentions the talks too but doesn't give details: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-c...

studentrob 11y ago

Disagreement doesn't mean a relationship must turn sour. The government's decision to begin the AWA filing without notifying Apple, instead leaving Apple to find out about it from the press, probably did not help the relationship. There's not much I see from the government's side attempting to further relations with Apple. The upcoming encryption bill due out in March is another example. How much do you want to bet Apple has not been asked for their input while drafting it?

sigmar 11y ago
>The government's decision to begin the AWA filing without notifying Apple, instead leaving Apple to find out about it from the press, probably did not help the relationship. This doesn't seem substantiated by facts. Apple had been discussing the case with the fbi for 2 months (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-c...). Also Apple wanted the order to unlock it to be kept secret, and the fbi did not (there's another nytimes source on this, can't find it at the moment).
- studentrob 11y ago
  Cook stated this in his interview. The government would say otherwise if that weren't true. 15:12 David Muir: You have talked to the President before on these issues [yes] of privacy and security. Are you disappointed there wasn't more of a dialog with the administration before this swift action from the justice department? Tim Cook: Yes. David Muir: You wish there was more done? Tim Cook: Yes. And I think there should've been... We found out about the filing from the press. And, I don't think that's the way it should be run. And I don't think that something so important to this country should be handled in this way. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-sits-david-muir-37174976 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook...
  - sigmar 11y ago
    Hmmm that seems to contradict the source the NYTimes used here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-be... >Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

hanief 11y ago

On doing so, Apple probably gains respect from other countries except the USA.

johansch 11y ago
Myself, from another country is amused that Apple has managed to manipulate 95% of tech community into thinking that they can't do what the FBI wants because that would create a backdoor. To anyone whose mind is not clouded by ideology it should be clear that the backdoor already exists and that what Apple is resisting is creating an exploit for it.
- dclowd9901 11y ago
  For the billionth time, a backdoor exists in an outdated hardware infrastructure. It's not clear if this would even be possible on current generation iPhones, but one surefire way to get Apple to create one is by setting a precedent of law enforcement dictating the actions of phone manufacturers. Stop muddying the issue; we need focus right now to keep this from happening.
  - johansch 11y ago
    For the billionth time? Seriously? Could I ask for at least 2 examples on HN? The Apple Force is strong here.
  - exodust 11y ago
    The focus should be to prevent the government from denying phone manufacturers the right to build bulletproof encryption into their phones. We want bullet proof encryption because the internet is an open book and people are sick of their privacy being compromised. Consider this future scenario: FBI: "Dear Apple, can you help us unlock this iPhone like last time?" Apple: "No can do. It uses our latest build which is bullet proof. No backdoors possible. We'll give you all the information we have related to the account holder though." FBI: "Dang. Thanks for info." And that's how it should be. That's what we should be fighting for. It seems to me by fighting this current issue for Apple's right not to bust open its exploit, we've jumped the gun. It's confusing matters, and now we have polls showing half of voters want Apple to "help fight terrorism rather than not help fight terrorism".

venomsnake 11y ago

Can we stop pretending that apple are taking a privacy stand? They are taking walled garden and vendor locking stand. If they lose this - they must create device that even they cannot compromise. After all any device that is secure from apple is not easy to be forced to stay in the apple ecosystem. Sony cares more about my privacy by not caring about what happens with their device after sale - I can unlock my bootloader, put clean AOSP, put firewall and only use F-Droid apps that I have installed. Apple fight is about - we want to have total control over our users, but we don't want to share it with USG. Well - that is not how it works.

zepto 11y ago
This is false at face value. Anyone who would rather maintain the security of their own device after purchase can do so by choosing a suitable android phone as you have done. There is nothing Apple can do to force users to stay in their ecosystem. Their fight is about maintaining the privacy of people who choose to be their customers.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  The "we only allow software signed by us" on iphones is forcing people quite a bit when bought iphones. There are no legal ways for a person to load their OS on the apple devices. Or alternate app stores.
  - zepto 11y ago
    Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone, and the fact that apps must be approved by Apple is not only public, but is a selling point that Apple advertises. Where is Apple forcing anyone to do anything?
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      If you buy apple ios hardware you are forced to use apple software. You cannot install lets say Debian. Not because it could not be reversed engineered enough to be built for it, but because apple has the walled garden's keys. Compare that to macbooks and x86 pc-s in which you could load anything you like. So apple are forcing you to use their software to be able to utilize their iDevices at all.

revelation 11y ago

It's the hallmark of corrupt, broken governments when the biggest companies are forced to have amicable relationships, or have their principals sent to Siberia in chains.

notthegov 11y ago

This is highly inappropriate. The argument should be based in principles and philosophies, not in political machinations motivated by a diplomat with a history degree. Denis McDonough is not qualified or educated to understand what he is arguing against. He is a man standing for the wave of Establishment thinking without ever having offered an original thought of his own. The idea that the White House could unduly influence Apple on this issue is frightening. The Chief of Staff should not be doing this. He yields ridiculous power; what if the next Tim Cook is weaker or the next Denis McDonough is even more authoritarian. We should argue from principles and philosophies. This is a dangerous world we are creating. One where individual personalities dominate us and determine our freedom, instead of philosophies derived from reason and analytical thinking. Truth should be defended with honor, while power blinds those from knowing there was ever such a thing as truth. What is right is not relative, there is only one correct answer here.

studentrob 11y ago
I think that's overdramatic. We have a voice in this and if we are loud enough, if we educate people enough, we can make this an election issue. Don't underestimate the power of your voice and vote.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Nobody here should want this to be an election issue. A large block of voters are against apple, are pro-backdoors. If this became an election issue anyone seeking to win (all of them) will adopt a middle ground stance. That middle ground will be something like "backdoors, but only if X Y and Z". Except trump. He won't be middle ground. He'll probably personally unlock the phone using a gold-plated hammer.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    The only way we will have a chance at making change on this issue is by electing representatives who understand technology. One way we can elect them is of the public understands technology. And, one way to educate the public is via making this an election issue and by repeatedly suggesting that if we outlaw encryption, then only two parties will have it- government and criminals. Civilians will be the ones who suffer most.

yalogin 11y ago

That is what campaign donations are for. I don't think the White House cares that much. The leadership at the CIA, DoD on the other hand care. That is who will be sour.

studentrob 11y ago
Of course the white house cares. Public safety is a top priority. The DOD is telling them that putting back doors on encrypted devices is the only way to keep the public safe when nothing could be further from the truth. It will make us less safe by making sure criminals always have an avenue to our digital data along with the government.

brisance 11y ago

Seems like the fix is in for Apple. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-loses-appeal-in-119-6-million-samsung-patent-case http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-lose...

rand1012 11y ago

If I knew ANYONE in real life who told me they supported the FBI's position, I would lose all respect for them and if possible cut them out of my life completely. And HN isn't an outlier among Silicon Valley with this opinion. And I would say that people young and old who agree with the FBI's position are the same people that don't care what the NSA is doing b

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Are you a child? The inability to interact with people you disagree with is something a toddler would do. Most people who agree with the FBI are merely ignorant; not stupid. If you would cut someone out of your life simply because they are ignorant of a non-trivial subject... Wow.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 11y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone is. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
JeremyBanks 11y ago
That's ridiculous. This is a very complicated issue, and the right answer (from our perspective) is not at all obvious to the average person. If you care so much, take the time to walk people through the details (the state of security, the nature of the system design, the reasons to expect the precedent to be dangerous, etc.) before you start to judge.
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11187249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11187249 and marked it off-topic.