8 ms·

Apple Gets Tech Industry Backing in iPhone Dispute, Despite Misgivings

89 points by hvo 11y ago

angli 11y ago
To be honest I expected a bit more. If not more endorsement of Apple, some more, well, opinion. This read like a news piece with the word "persuasively" as the only bit of subjectivity. It's an odd piece overall.
- Archio 11y ago
  Not sure if you're unaware, but the NYT editorial board formally endorsed Apple on February 18th: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right-to-challenge-an-order-to-help-the-fbi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right... I don't see any reason for them to mix additional opinion into their news coverage.
  - morgante 11y ago
    If it's merely meant to be news coverage, it shouldn't be in the opinion section.
    - matt4077 11y ago
      This must be the first time someone complains about the NYT newsroom invading the editorial section :) I believe expectations of what constitutes an opinion piece have changed with the advent of blogs/talk radio etc. At the Times, that style is reserved for columnists while the opinion pieces that express the opinion of the institution itself are more measured. In this case, they're just basically endorsing the judge's position.
- dang 11y ago
  Either way, there isn't much there, so we changed the URL from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/the-iphone-stays-locked-for-now.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/the-iphone-stays-l... to what appears to be the closest substantive news article. If someone has a better URL we can change it again.
wil421 11y ago
Did anyone else catch part of the congressional hearing on CSPAN? I was appalled that some of the representatives want Apple to provide legislation that will make them unlock the phone under certain conditions. The 1st and 5th amendment are what apples general counsel are arguing here. Code is protected speech so Apple is being compelled to speak by the Govt. They also argue the 5th amendment is being infringed because the FBI is using an All Writs Act which subverts due process. It's really unfortunate Congress will most likely pass legislation requiring Apple to do this in the future (most likely for San Bernadino type cases but not the drug case mentioned in the acticle). It's gonna be up to the courts to determine whether or not it violates the constitution.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  I doubt the "code is speech" argument will hold up when the only speaking is to a device that the government has the court-granted right to access. Apple isn't being asked to publish the modified iOS version at-large. Also, commercial speech has substantially less protection than political speech.
  - bcook 11y ago
    (Explain your down-votes, please). The SF/SV perspective is not universal.
    - anaptdemise 11y ago
      The here was an EFF article that mentioned a few cases where the courts have deemed code = speech. The question now is what protections this specific instance of speech is awarded. Here is another review of previous case law. From the second circuit court opinion "Communication does not lose constitutional protection as “speech” simply because it is expressed in the language of computer code." http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise50.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise50.html
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
ape4 11y ago
Locked Phone = can not change carrier.
gchokov 11y ago
I wish I could say the same thing about your Android phone. p.s. Let the downvoting begin now!
imglorp 11y ago
DOJ will be be appealing, naturally. They are after a supreme court ruling setting precedent, not a phone.
SFjulie1 11y ago
http://www.france24.com/en/20160219-usa-apple-plays-digital-privacy-hardball-with-fbi-but-not-china http://www.france24.com/en/20160219-usa-apple-plays-digital-... When it comes to Privacy in China that could help their true blue collars having the privacy and security needed to organize themselves (let's say in union) Apple does not like privacy. When it comes to no poaching agreement and a fair symmetric exchange of information on information that count for hiring and being hired Apple does not support freedom of speech or transparency. When it comes to the true act of being a citizen and contribute its fair share to the civil society Apple loves the secrecy and privacy of the offshore fiscal paradise. Apple and the other techs do not care about your privacy. They care about the privacy of their white collars that is required to build complex fiscal evasion program. There budgets are so bigger than the public power that they don't even care about governments anymore. Crimes are better made in the secrecy of the alcoves. And monopolistic positions are still a threat to both economy and democracy. The question is should Apple, google, Disney JP morgan and MS be considered so utopic that we should think they could be better at ruling our lives? And that eventually public power should leave its power to private interests that are more efficient. More efficient at what? Is really Apple, Fb or google should be considered better candidate for ruling a country than a representative system?
girkyturkey 11y ago
I find this to be really inspiring that despite how much Apple is rivals with other tech giants, they can still band together and back up their competition. Microsoft and others could have turned the other cheek and talked about how selfish Apple was, but then didn't. They banded together and stood behind Apple's decision. Really powerful message.
- ygjb-dupe 11y ago
  This is less an issue of banding together behind Apple's decision, and more about retaining moral and intellectual control of their software. If the government can get a warrant to force you to ship a patch, regardless of the scope, you are giving the government control over every aspect of how you write code, and the next logical step is a CALEA style requirements that ensures that your build process has lawful code injection capabilities. I can't even begin to say how awful that would be for the entire industry.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    How would that even work? What if I use a raspberry pi that I've added GSM and put in a phone like case, but am running Debian? I'm guessing only a very tiny number of people would be happy with this once the ramifications became clear.
- esusatyo 11y ago
  I think there is something to say to how the media is portraying bloody rivalry between tech companies. I'm sure most of them don't have the same tension we have in media, and they are all hang out with each other. As an anecdote, I know that Steve Jobs used to hang out a lot with Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt, and I also know a few Microsoft employees who are really good friends with Apple and Google employees.
julie1 11y ago
http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-government-access-to-its-devices-for-a-security-assessment/ http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-... Lucky for USA citizens they are not Chinese. Why does Apple find privacy okay in USA and not okay in China? I don't quite get the consistency in the position.
- ygjb-dupe 11y ago
  Since people seem to think this is an easy set of points to win, consider: * Apple has virtually no ability to shape policy in China (at least, in comparison to western democracies) * China (the government, not the people) is not subject to the same limitations as the US government * Apple depends on China for a great deal of things, including manufacturing, and a market for products * If Apple can't manufacture and market it's products in China, it's products become more expensive and less available all over the world. * China passed laws and regulations that demand access to source code Apple choosing to fight this battle is undoubtedly motivated by the potential business impact of supplying the software that the US government has demanded, and there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a better long term move for Apple, then it's leadership team would concede, and ship the code they were asked for (see: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-security/hacked-memo-leaked--apple--nokia--rim-supply-backdoors-for-gov-t-intercept-.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-securi... among other instances). Apple is using the polarizing nature of the technical details at hand in light of modern concerns about the surveillance state to frame it's argument against what would be a very bad legal precedent that would be disastrous for Apple, and for the tech sector in general. I don't quite understand where your perceived lack of consistency is - are you implying that Apple didn't try to use every tool at it's disposal to do the best thing for it's investors?
  - julie1 11y ago
    Oh no, I do think they think in their investor's bests interests. I am not sure the investors' interests are in sync with more freedom for any citizens on earth. I am just accepting the fact the Apple has a very variable concern about freedom of speech and privacy when their business is concerned. Like when workers are prevented from exercising their freedom to choose a new job and make competition works their way and Apple take part into a no poaching agreement. Then I look at IT's budget, their contribution to the world taxes and I clearly think that they do not really care about the laws of the common people. And then I am concerned by companies that are richer than most governments in the world and how they behave when they have enough power. Should we accept that big power without control and just hope for the better? Remember UK and France used to have bad experiences with such huge companies and that it did not ended well for anyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

89 points by hvo 11y ago

angli 11y ago

To be honest I expected a bit more. If not more endorsement of Apple, some more, well, opinion. This read like a news piece with the word "persuasively" as the only bit of subjectivity. It's an odd piece overall.

Archio 11y ago
Not sure if you're unaware, but the NYT editorial board formally endorsed Apple on February 18th: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right-to-challenge-an-order-to-help-the-fbi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right... I don't see any reason for them to mix additional opinion into their news coverage.
- morgante 11y ago
  If it's merely meant to be news coverage, it shouldn't be in the opinion section.
  - matt4077 11y ago
    This must be the first time someone complains about the NYT newsroom invading the editorial section :) I believe expectations of what constitutes an opinion piece have changed with the advent of blogs/talk radio etc. At the Times, that style is reserved for columnists while the opinion pieces that express the opinion of the institution itself are more measured. In this case, they're just basically endorsing the judge's position.
dang 11y ago
Either way, there isn't much there, so we changed the URL from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/the-iphone-stays-locked-for-now.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/the-iphone-stays-l... to what appears to be the closest substantive news article. If someone has a better URL we can change it again.

wil421 11y ago

Did anyone else catch part of the congressional hearing on CSPAN? I was appalled that some of the representatives want Apple to provide legislation that will make them unlock the phone under certain conditions. The 1st and 5th amendment are what apples general counsel are arguing here. Code is protected speech so Apple is being compelled to speak by the Govt. They also argue the 5th amendment is being infringed because the FBI is using an All Writs Act which subverts due process. It's really unfortunate Congress will most likely pass legislation requiring Apple to do this in the future (most likely for San Bernadino type cases but not the drug case mentioned in the acticle). It's gonna be up to the courts to determine whether or not it violates the constitution.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I doubt the "code is speech" argument will hold up when the only speaking is to a device that the government has the court-granted right to access. Apple isn't being asked to publish the modified iOS version at-large. Also, commercial speech has substantially less protection than political speech.
- bcook 11y ago
  (Explain your down-votes, please). The SF/SV perspective is not universal.
  - anaptdemise 11y ago
    The here was an EFF article that mentioned a few cases where the courts have deemed code = speech. The question now is what protections this specific instance of speech is awarded. Here is another review of previous case law. From the second circuit court opinion "Communication does not lose constitutional protection as “speech” simply because it is expressed in the language of computer code." http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise50.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise50.html
    - marcoperaza 11y ago

ape4 11y ago

Locked Phone = can not change carrier.

gchokov 11y ago

I wish I could say the same thing about your Android phone. p.s. Let the downvoting begin now!

imglorp 11y ago

DOJ will be be appealing, naturally. They are after a supreme court ruling setting precedent, not a phone.

SFjulie1 11y ago

http://www.france24.com/en/20160219-usa-apple-plays-digital-privacy-hardball-with-fbi-but-not-china http://www.france24.com/en/20160219-usa-apple-plays-digital-... When it comes to Privacy in China that could help their true blue collars having the privacy and security needed to organize themselves (let's say in union) Apple does not like privacy. When it comes to no poaching agreement and a fair symmetric exchange of information on information that count for hiring and being hired Apple does not support freedom of speech or transparency. When it comes to the true act of being a citizen and contribute its fair share to the civil society Apple loves the secrecy and privacy of the offshore fiscal paradise. Apple and the other techs do not care about your privacy. They care about the privacy of their white collars that is required to build complex fiscal evasion program. There budgets are so bigger than the public power that they don't even care about governments anymore. Crimes are better made in the secrecy of the alcoves. And monopolistic positions are still a threat to both economy and democracy. The question is should Apple, google, Disney JP morgan and MS be considered so utopic that we should think they could be better at ruling our lives? And that eventually public power should leave its power to private interests that are more efficient. More efficient at what? Is really Apple, Fb or google should be considered better candidate for ruling a country than a representative system?

girkyturkey 11y ago

I find this to be really inspiring that despite how much Apple is rivals with other tech giants, they can still band together and back up their competition. Microsoft and others could have turned the other cheek and talked about how selfish Apple was, but then didn't. They banded together and stood behind Apple's decision. Really powerful message.

ygjb-dupe 11y ago
This is less an issue of banding together behind Apple's decision, and more about retaining moral and intellectual control of their software. If the government can get a warrant to force you to ship a patch, regardless of the scope, you are giving the government control over every aspect of how you write code, and the next logical step is a CALEA style requirements that ensures that your build process has lawful code injection capabilities. I can't even begin to say how awful that would be for the entire industry.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  How would that even work? What if I use a raspberry pi that I've added GSM and put in a phone like case, but am running Debian? I'm guessing only a very tiny number of people would be happy with this once the ramifications became clear.
esusatyo 11y ago
I think there is something to say to how the media is portraying bloody rivalry between tech companies. I'm sure most of them don't have the same tension we have in media, and they are all hang out with each other. As an anecdote, I know that Steve Jobs used to hang out a lot with Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt, and I also know a few Microsoft employees who are really good friends with Apple and Google employees.

julie1 11y ago

http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-government-access-to-its-devices-for-a-security-assessment/ http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-... Lucky for USA citizens they are not Chinese. Why does Apple find privacy okay in USA and not okay in China? I don't quite get the consistency in the position.

ygjb-dupe 11y ago
Since people seem to think this is an easy set of points to win, consider: * Apple has virtually no ability to shape policy in China (at least, in comparison to western democracies) * China (the government, not the people) is not subject to the same limitations as the US government * Apple depends on China for a great deal of things, including manufacturing, and a market for products * If Apple can't manufacture and market it's products in China, it's products become more expensive and less available all over the world. * China passed laws and regulations that demand access to source code Apple choosing to fight this battle is undoubtedly motivated by the potential business impact of supplying the software that the US government has demanded, and there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a better long term move for Apple, then it's leadership team would concede, and ship the code they were asked for (see: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-security/hacked-memo-leaked--apple--nokia--rim-supply-backdoors-for-gov-t-intercept-.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-securi... among other instances). Apple is using the polarizing nature of the technical details at hand in light of modern concerns about the surveillance state to frame it's argument against what would be a very bad legal precedent that would be disastrous for Apple, and for the tech sector in general. I don't quite understand where your perceived lack of consistency is - are you implying that Apple didn't try to use every tool at it's disposal to do the best thing for it's investors?
- julie1 11y ago
  Oh no, I do think they think in their investor's bests interests. I am not sure the investors' interests are in sync with more freedom for any citizens on earth. I am just accepting the fact the Apple has a very variable concern about freedom of speech and privacy when their business is concerned. Like when workers are prevented from exercising their freedom to choose a new job and make competition works their way and Apple take part into a no poaching agreement. Then I look at IT's budget, their contribution to the world taxes and I clearly think that they do not really care about the laws of the common people. And then I am concerned by companies that are richer than most governments in the world and how they behave when they have enough power. Should we accept that big power without control and just hope for the better? Remember UK and France used to have bad experiences with such huge companies and that it did not ended well for anyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company