3 ms·

I think he made sense. There is nothing bad about all of this, if there are proper mandates. The only obstacle here seems to be iPhone fanboys who feels they a

by jokoon 11y ago

I think he made sense. There is nothing bad about all of this, if there are proper mandates. The only obstacle here seems to be iPhone fanboys who feels they are attacked for some reason. On top of this, if Apple really wants to not fall into this situation, they should have built a phone even they could not break (which I thought was already the case, and I'm surprised they didn't). If they can break into this phone, they should let it happen so that the FBI can do it. And even if they don't supply this software, somebody else, or the FBI, will do it instead. Which is what Snowden said. In the end, why should only Apple be able to break in that device? Nobody should be able to, not even Apple. That's what I feel it's Apple fault anyway. To be fair this seems to be a play to make companies like Apple, who hold so much data about their users, to look bad. Because this only shows that Apple can access that data, which to me is a bad thing in itself.

TheRealPomax 11y ago
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNKtwAGvqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNKtwAGvqc, it's 8 minutes, feel free to still hold your opinion afterwards, but challenge yourself to listen to someone give you substance instead of "whatever" reasons. They kind of matter a lot, and whether it's "Apple" or someone else is pretty much irrelevant.
- jokoon 11y ago
  As I said, Apple shouldn't have made this "golden key" possible. That's on them. Same thing for the juniper backdoor. It should be up to the government to tighten up internet infrastructure security. I really don't see any initiative to do so, and it's the same thing for most businesses: there are no "security standard", mainly because all those communication technologies are very new, and a little too complex for engineers to think about making rules about them. Ultimately, the law will say the last word, because that's how things work. I don't think tech companies should do what they want in all the countries of the world. If apple doesn't comply with the FBI, that same kind of story will happen later for another company in another country. My point is that all those technology are new, so there is this vacuum which makes it impossible to really define things or protect yourself. All those could be solved if there were better security standards, or any standard at all, no data centralization (all internet is structurally centralized), and more consumer awareness. P2P techs are already quite secure, and would make things very difficult for intelligence agencies.

by jokoon 11y ago

TheRealPomax 11y ago

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNKtwAGvqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNKtwAGvqc, it's 8 minutes, feel free to still hold your opinion afterwards, but challenge yourself to listen to someone give you substance instead of "whatever" reasons. They kind of matter a lot, and whether it's "Apple" or someone else is pretty much irrelevant.

jokoon 11y ago
As I said, Apple shouldn't have made this "golden key" possible. That's on them. Same thing for the juniper backdoor. It should be up to the government to tighten up internet infrastructure security. I really don't see any initiative to do so, and it's the same thing for most businesses: there are no "security standard", mainly because all those communication technologies are very new, and a little too complex for engineers to think about making rules about them. Ultimately, the law will say the last word, because that's how things work. I don't think tech companies should do what they want in all the countries of the world. If apple doesn't comply with the FBI, that same kind of story will happen later for another company in another country. My point is that all those technology are new, so there is this vacuum which makes it impossible to really define things or protect yourself. All those could be solved if there were better security standards, or any standard at all, no data centralization (all internet is structurally centralized), and more consumer awareness. P2P techs are already quite secure, and would make things very difficult for intelligence agencies.