3 ms·

I'm not sure a device they couldn't unlock really solves the problem. Lets say they did have such a device. Couldn't the government just force them into buildin

by mkhpalm 11y ago

I'm not sure a device they couldn't unlock really solves the problem. Lets say they did have such a device. Couldn't the government just force them into building a back door even if they themselves can't unlock it? This is the underlying argument to me, and I feel a bit like a conspiracy theorist saying it. But based on the talk about Apple or Whatsapp or the lack of documented evidence for the latest FCC ruling about wifi radios. It feels more like the government is positioning itself to have private back door access to everything. Not to mention the president basically said just that while speaking at SXSW.

mindslight 11y ago
Sure, which is why proprietary solutions are ultimately doomed if USG continues down its totalitarian path. But it would have been a tougher legal battle to constrain what types of software can be written in general, compared to just compelling Apple to unlock one specific device of interest using an existing backdoor. And it seems like once the easier precedent has been set, the worse one will be a much shorter leap.
SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
> It feels more like the government is positioning itself to have private back door access to everything That's exactly what it's doing. Total Information Awareness is more than just the name of a "cancelled" program, it's a concept which is inextricably interwoven throughout the entire intelligence community.