5 ms·

You misunderstand the notion. Happens often because I think "speech" in this case is a misnomer, as it makes people believe that it's about having a monologue o

You misunderstand the notion. Happens often because I think "speech" in this case is a misnomer, as it makes people believe that it's about having a monologue or a dialog. That's not the case. This freedom is about expression in all its forms. Which for example includes art, which is the act of creating artifacts to be primarily appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Art is not necessarily about the author wanting to speak. Going back to software, the freedom of expression is important, because software, functioning like an extension of us, of our intellect, probably more than any other human occupation except for art, happens to be very opinionated, to expose values and to incite both hope and despair for our future. It's not without reason that software development gets compared with making art. It's not a wonder that Apple is taking a stand now. Any company worth its salt has values declared long ago and breaking those values is betraying your customers, not to mention that it can also hurt your bottom line. And the people at such companies are more than just cogs in the machine. Many of them work for their paychecks, sure, but many also have gotten in this industry to make a difference and now they risk being coerced in doing something they probably don't believe in. Take Apple. They promised security and privacy to their customers and I'm sure many people at Apple worked hard to deliver that. How would you feel if you considered this to be your life's work, only to be forced later to aid in doing the exact opposite? Now that's an issue of freedom of expression ;-)

marcoperaza 11y ago
You're stretching the definition of free speech so far that any government regulation of industry would become a First Amendment violation. Not even during the Lochner era was such an expansive reading of rights accepted by the courts. All of these large tech companies have massive government compliance programs. They regularly comply with government subpoenas for account information that they can access. They most certainly have developed custom software and workflows to make their compliance easier. I don't see how this request is a greater burden than that. >How would you feel if you considered this to be your life's work, only to be forced later to aid in doing the exact opposite? Now that's an issue of freedom of expression ;-) I'd feel pretty silly for thinking that I couldn't be compelled by the government to produce secrets I possess. If want to protect my customers from the government, I have to protect them from myself as well. You'd need some kind of multi-party trust system that allows people to require multiple third-party signatures before any code is loaded by the device. Free expression doesn't mean that the government has to refrain from exercise its legitimate authority, just avoid raining reality onto your premature parade.
- bad_user 11y ago
  But this isn't about being compelled by the government to produce secrets. This is about the government wanting you to produce malicious code that you're going to give your customers, signed with your keys. So those customers will receive that code from you, signed in your name.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    >This is about the government wanting you to produce malicious code that you're going to give your customers, signed with your keys. So those customers will receive that code from you, signed in your name. That's just not true. The government is not asking Apple to release this to anyone.

marcoperaza 11y ago

You're stretching the definition of free speech so far that any government regulation of industry would become a First Amendment violation. Not even during the Lochner era was such an expansive reading of rights accepted by the courts. All of these large tech companies have massive government compliance programs. They regularly comply with government subpoenas for account information that they can access. They most certainly have developed custom software and workflows to make their compliance easier. I don't see how this request is a greater burden than that. >How would you feel if you considered this to be your life's work, only to be forced later to aid in doing the exact opposite? Now that's an issue of freedom of expression ;-) I'd feel pretty silly for thinking that I couldn't be compelled by the government to produce secrets I possess. If want to protect my customers from the government, I have to protect them from myself as well. You'd need some kind of multi-party trust system that allows people to require multiple third-party signatures before any code is loaded by the device. Free expression doesn't mean that the government has to refrain from exercise its legitimate authority, just avoid raining reality onto your premature parade.

bad_user 11y ago
But this isn't about being compelled by the government to produce secrets. This is about the government wanting you to produce malicious code that you're going to give your customers, signed with your keys. So those customers will receive that code from you, signed in your name.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >This is about the government wanting you to produce malicious code that you're going to give your customers, signed with your keys. So those customers will receive that code from you, signed in your name. That's just not true. The government is not asking Apple to release this to anyone.