5 ms·
but there is no "balance" when somethig is binary. You either have encryption or you don't.
by andrewfromx 11y ago
but there is no "balance" when somethig is binary. You either have encryption or you don't.
- marcoperaza 11y agoSo Apple either designs their phones such that they themselves can't hack them, or they have to comply with government court orders.
- tehwebguy 11y agoSounds binary to me.
- ecma 11y agoIf the San Bernardino case proves anything, it's that encryption is not the whole picture.
- HillaryBriss 11y agoSo far, my takeaway from the federal government's reaction to the San Bernardino attacks is the following prioritization of freedom: Higher priority freedoms: 1. Freedom of religious choice and freedom from religious persecution. Freedom of religious assembly. 2. Freedom to immigrate to the US. Lower Priority Freedoms: 1. Freedom to purchase guns and ammunition 2. Freedom to use encryption to keep personal communication private
- harryh 11y agoThat's wrong. The government isn't saying that no one should be able to encrypt data. They just thing that, in some cases, it should be done in such a way that certain data can be read by use of a centralized master key. This, of course, presents certain problems. What if that master key leaks? But it's not binary. Data secured this way is absolutely safer than not encrypting something at all. "Is it safe enough?" is certainly a question that people can disagree on. It's not binary.
- andrewfromx 11y agono way man. either I have the right to use technology to make something encrypted (my definition of encrypted is cannot be broken) or I don't.
- marcoperaza 11y agoThere's no award for effort. Apple built a cryptosystem that doesn't work against an adversary that is Apple. "Encrypting" isn't some magical property that makes your data safe. The encryption itself is just one aspect of a whole system that must be designed to protect against certain adversaries with certain capabilities. The government would be totally allowed, for example, to tamper with your wax seals if it had a warrant to read your mail. I lied, there is an award for effort. Wherever you have an "reasonable expectation of privacy", the government must get a warrant or your permission to exercise its search and seizure authority. That's the protection that you're entitled to by our laws. Even the EFF is acknowledging the weakness of your argument when they try to frame it as an issue about Apple's free speech instead.
- andrewfromx 11y agowow, when you put it that way it's like saying "either I have the right to own a gun or I do not." So I guess if people except limits on gun ownership they should accept limits on encryption cuz it's just as dangerous?
- gambiting 11y agoTo me personally the concept of even owning a gun is utterly ridiculous, but I guess American people would be incredibly upset if every gun had to come with a built-in remotely controlled switch that could be used by the police to disable it. This is essentially what they are trying to do with encryption - you are free to use it, but we want to be able to manually switch it off if we want to.
- andrewfromx 11y agoit's that interesting, people on the LEFT want NO LIMITS on encryption but LOTS OF LIMITS on guns. Is encryption more or less dangerous than guns?
- Aleman360 11y agoWhat about disabling the bricking mechanism that would have allowed the FBI to brute-force the PIN?