3 ms·

> The encryption technology built into today’s iPhone represents the best data security available to consumers. I appreciate Apple's willingness to fight, but

> The encryption technology built into today’s iPhone represents the best data security available to consumers. I appreciate Apple's willingness to fight, but this article could have benefited from less bragging PR talk and a little more humility. If the issue really is larger than Apple (and they are claiming it is) then we don't need this kind of messaging. The message is that being forced to create a backdoor is bad for everyone, and they're doing it to Apple today but they'll do it for everyone else tomorrow.

studentrob 11y ago
> The message is that being forced to create a backdoor is bad for everyone, and they're doing it to Apple today but they'll do it for everyone else tomorrow. I still got that vibe from the article, despite the one line you pointed out. That message becomes more clear when you see the support coming from Google, Facebook etc. It's clear they stand with Apple on the side of keeping encryption legal, secure, and backdoor-free. Apple doesn't need to speak for them too much, and I think Apple can still argue backdoors are bad for the whole tech industry while speaking about their own perspective, experience, and products.
shawn-furyan 11y ago
I don't agree with the complaint. I would be much happier if more companies actually tried on security, competed on that vector and then bragged to high heaven about their successes. Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. The companies who are actually putting forth a solid effort to compete on security, and I think Apple has a reasonable claim that they are one of these companies (even if there are nits to pick), have my blessing to brag as much as they can about it. I'm talking multimillion dollar ad campaigns touting their (actual) security advantages versus competitors. Have at it. Donald Trump style. Go wild! edit: grammar
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  > Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. I guess this is part of the reason I have an aversion to companies speaking about their security. I know Apple security is very good (anyone curious can read the white paper), but most of the time corporations speak about security in a way completely detached from reality.
- Swannie 11y ago
  Sadly, humans are flawed. Any company that "bragged to high heaven about their successes" with security are setting themselves up to fail. As the old saying goes, "pride comes before a fall". Not saying that Apple aren't doing a good job. Just saying, bragging and actively trying to differentiate, followed by a major security flaw, is a good way to lose trust.
alexqgb 11y ago
I think you missed the point of the piece, which was to reframe the issue in a very aggressive fashion. By pivoting away from the privacy angle to one that's focused squarely on national security, Apple is using the FBI's own canard against them. The fact that they're on such sold ground places the FBI in a vastly harder position to defend. In Cook's initial letter he was so careful about stating his belief that the FBI's intentions wee good that he said so twice. That was the warning shot. This piece, from Federighi was a shot to the head.

studentrob 11y ago

> The message is that being forced to create a backdoor is bad for everyone, and they're doing it to Apple today but they'll do it for everyone else tomorrow. I still got that vibe from the article, despite the one line you pointed out. That message becomes more clear when you see the support coming from Google, Facebook etc. It's clear they stand with Apple on the side of keeping encryption legal, secure, and backdoor-free. Apple doesn't need to speak for them too much, and I think Apple can still argue backdoors are bad for the whole tech industry while speaking about their own perspective, experience, and products.

shawn-furyan 11y ago

I don't agree with the complaint. I would be much happier if more companies actually tried on security, competed on that vector and then bragged to high heaven about their successes. Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. The companies who are actually putting forth a solid effort to compete on security, and I think Apple has a reasonable claim that they are one of these companies (even if there are nits to pick), have my blessing to brag as much as they can about it. I'm talking multimillion dollar ad campaigns touting their (actual) security advantages versus competitors. Have at it. Donald Trump style. Go wild! edit: grammar

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
> Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. I guess this is part of the reason I have an aversion to companies speaking about their security. I know Apple security is very good (anyone curious can read the white paper), but most of the time corporations speak about security in a way completely detached from reality.
Swannie 11y ago
Sadly, humans are flawed. Any company that "bragged to high heaven about their successes" with security are setting themselves up to fail. As the old saying goes, "pride comes before a fall". Not saying that Apple aren't doing a good job. Just saying, bragging and actively trying to differentiate, followed by a major security flaw, is a good way to lose trust.

alexqgb 11y ago

I think you missed the point of the piece, which was to reframe the issue in a very aggressive fashion. By pivoting away from the privacy angle to one that's focused squarely on national security, Apple is using the FBI's own canard against them. The fact that they're on such sold ground places the FBI in a vastly harder position to defend. In Cook's initial letter he was so careful about stating his belief that the FBI's intentions wee good that he said so twice. That was the warning shot. This piece, from Federighi was a shot to the head.