7 ms·

I honestly feel that engineers need not fall on their swords over this. The decision is up to them, of course. But ultimately, shareholders would expect someo

I honestly feel that engineers need not fall on their swords over this. The decision is up to them, of course. But ultimately, shareholders would expect someone to comply with the court order should the DOJ win. Note that Yahoo was threatened with daily fines of $250,000 for failing to comply in a FISA court case in 2008, and we only just learned this in 2014 [1]. I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications. I really don't want to see Apple lose this case, or any sort of anti-encryption bill. I also wouldn't want to see someone throw away working at Apple over it. Apple can maintain its integrity by complying with the law as it has publicly stated. Engineers can remain true to an employer they respect knowing said employer did everything they could to resist the government. There aren't many great employers out there like this. Don't take it for granted. That's just my 2c. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...

lugg 11y ago
Yea, we can all blame someone else. I like this, "not my job to uphold the constitution", "its the courts fault for letting it get here", "its the politicians fault for going a long with this", "its the peoples fault for voting for them". The fact is, if nobody stands up for this, do you really think anyone is going to stand up and try to take away the back door to the iphone and get away with it? Do you really believe they will stop there?
- studentrob 11y ago
  I hear you. The point is we can stand up for it here and now. This case isn't over. There are a lot of good things about the US. I believe our commitment to freedom of speech is stronger than elsewhere. This case is strongly testing that belief. And, according to the ACLU, it will be at least two years before this court reaches the supreme court [1]. There is a lot of time to educate the public on the facts about the case and how the technology in their pockets works. There are multiple examples of public figures changing their minds when presented with evidence. Lindsey Graham and Sam Harris are two. I and a few other developers are forming a grassroots campaign around this. If you'd like to get involved, whether you're a developer or not, shoot me an email at stillastudent on google's email service [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the-fbi-what-happens-next http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the...
  - polm23 11y ago
    When has Lindsey Graham changed his mind? His Senate homepage still has this statement on it: ".@tim_cook Our nation is at war & this Iphone was used to kill Americans. Protect our homeland, not terrorists. Please cooperate with @FBI." https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog/status/700348813807063040 https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog/status/700348813807063040 http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Around March 10 when he questioned Attorney General Loretta Lynch at a DOJ budget review hearing [1] The video is 6 minutes and worth watching. It sounds like he is still forming his whole opinion. He certainly has changed his view from his initial comments. He's now calling for the debate to be held in Congress via passage of new laws. [1] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s
      - polm23 11y ago
        Thank you for that, that is not something I was expecting to see.
- Bluestrike2 11y ago
  Engineers refusing to do the work might be counter-productive. It'd allow the FBI and its supporters to change the narrative to one potentially more favorable to them. Instead of a debate about encryption and privacy, they'd try to change it to a debate about respecting the courts that plays right into the "law and order" mindset. I don't know how it'd play out, but I'd hate to give the government yet another advantage, however slim it might be. That said, there's probably one benefit to being forced to do the work: the engineers involved will be extremely motivated to stick it to the government by designing systems that can't be circumvented like this again. "Too bad, so sad - we can't do that any more. We're very, very sorry for the inconvenience."
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    > by designing systems that can't be circumvented like this again. "Too bad, so sad - we can't do that any more. We're very, very sorry for the inconvenience." But that's exactly why this case is so, so critical. FBI is fishing for a precedent that will make designing these types of systems explicitly illegal. Apple is well aware of this strategy, which is why they've chosen to take their stand here, as unpleasant as the PR ramifications may be.
    - Bluestrike2 11y ago
      That's actually a separate, but related, issue. Right now, the courts are weighing whether the FBI can force the creation of a modified OS largely because (a) it's possible to do so with how existing iPhones are engineered, and (b) it wouldn't drastically inconvenience Apple to do so in light of their resources. If they get a favorable ruling, they have a precedent they'll try and use to gain access to other phones in their possession. But that really only applies to phones where it's possible to do so right now. If they can't do the same for future phones, the precedent is moot. The court isn't ruling on whether Apple has the right to modify their systems to prevent this strategy in the future. No matter how the court decides, it won't affect how Apple can design future devices. If the FBI were to ask for a ruling like that, they'd either lose or it'd be overturned on appeal. Something like that, where the government is actively telling manufacturers how they can and cannot design their products, could really only come from a new law instead of trying to backdoor it through the courts. I don't doubt that the government would love a tool like that, but it'd be aggressively challenged as an unprecedented expansion of federal power if it was ever signed into law. And that's iffy; a law like that would jeopardize overseas sales for tech companies even more than the NSA's actions already have. They'd have no choice but to pour an incredible sum of money into lobbying efforts, major PR campaigns, and campaign donations to fight it politically and hit back hard against any politicians who supported such a law.
shawn-furyan 11y ago
> engineers need not fall on their swords I would quibble with this characterization. Security engineers may well improve their employment prospects and professional visibility by publicly demonstrating that they are unwilling to do work that is counter to the mission of securing systems. It seems likely to me that this sort of highly public gesture would be personally profitable, rather than a net sacrifice.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Ultimately the decision is up to those engineers. I'm just sharing my opinion. I've left former employers on moral grounds and later realized I could've resolved those differences within myself and effected change in ways other than quitting. Quitting doesn't save Apple. Does it help your job prospects as a security engineer? I'm not so sure about that either, but then again I'm not a security employer. Hypothetically, if I were, then as an employer I might be more interested in the guy who stuck it out working with the government at Apple. He'd be able to give me a heads up on what conversations are like with the government and what the government might be able to impose on my business.
  - shawn-furyan 11y ago
    > Hypothetically, if I were, then as an employer I might be more interested in the guy who stuck it out working with the government at Apple. One of the principal drivers of the positive effect on career prospects is the publicity this sort of public gesture would generate. Sure, all else being equal, many may prefer the engineer that sticks with the company. But all else is not equal. This particular gesture would generate a lot of publicity tied to the engineers eligibility for hire. Sticking with the company ends the story and would not likely garner nearly the same level of personal publicity, if any. I'm not making any sort of value judgement as to whether this would be an ethically good or bad thing for an Apple security engineer to do. I just don't think they will really be risking much because enough people will view it as an attractive public display of personal integrity that s/he would have her/his pick of jobs. It would also be an ideal opportunity to launch a security consultancy. The move isn't completely devoid of personal risk, but the risk seems to be overwhelmed by the opportunities that it would generate in my estimation. That is to say, it would be a good bet, and far from a true self sacrifice.
saulrh 11y ago
> I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications. I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd only have to live with pat-downs on every plane flight for so long? That the government would eventually realize that terrorists couldn't hijack planes once passengers knew that the proper response was to storm the cockpit rather than waiting for the usual ransom demand to be acquiesced to? That the terrorists would find other ways to cause terror? If the US Government gets what it wants with this case they will use it as a wedge to permanently deny us any semblance of electronic privacy. You will get to choose between using paper and having some random police officer [1] decide that it's time for you to go down and he's absolutely sure he can find something you've done wrong [2]. This move is one of the last things standing in the way of that future. Apple's engineers are threatening to destroy one of the most successful, profitable organized entities in human history in protest. A sort of technological mutually assured destruction. I hope their threat works, and that they don't have to follow through on it, and that if they do, their statement is understood. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- lojack 11y ago
  How exactly are they supposed to permanently remove all semblance of privacy? Short of infiltrating popular open source projects in plain view and proving the (potentially) unprovable, I don't see how this is possible.
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    They can make refusal to decrypt a federal felony.
    - 11y ago
jnbiche 11y ago
> I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications. So you really think the government will have gathered all that power, only to readily hand it back?
- studentrob 11y ago
  Well, eventually people will realize they can just download an encrypted communications tool right? I'm not 100% sure about what happens after 2/4/8 years. That scenario also relies on a really informed public to fight back and care. This is why I and a few other engineers are forming a grassroots campaign to support encryption. If you'd like to get involved, send me an email at stillastudent on google's email service
  - ohyeshedid 11y ago
    Sure, they can, but this entire case is about precedent. If Apple can't win this kind of fight, what do you think will happen to the developers of those encrypted communications tools; or encryption products across the board. Remember Truecrypt, Hushmail, Lavabit, etc? Too small to fight back. That's why so much rests in the outcome of the fight with Apple.
  - taneq 11y ago
    Ah, but once encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption. At which point anyone sending or receiving encrypted data that the feds can't decrypt is automatically guilty of a crime, and should be apprehended. Of course, if you have nothing to hide from your friendly government agency, you have nothing to fear!
abraae 11y ago
Indeed. Let's say Apple is forced to bake a back door into their devices. Criminals and people who care about privacy will use their own encryption tech (they probably do anyway) and life goes on for them. Eventually the govt's backdoor is abused or cracked. The people grow fretful. A truly secure device from somewhere outside the US gains market traction. The US tech industry's shrieks gather volume. The govt realises the game is up and allows Apple devices to be secured again. This issue is not one that demands that anyone fall on their sword. Even if the govt gets its way, no-one will be killed or even harmed. Eventually the natural order of things will be restored.
- protomyth 11y ago
  > Let's say Apple is forced to bake a back door into their devices. Why would another government allow the selling of a device with a know (not just suspected) backdoor for the US government? Sounds like a great opportunity to boost local companies. I would expect some serious repercussions on foreign market sales. also, we're still paying for v-chips.
ohyeshedid 11y ago
That's a little over 91 million in fines over a year. Apple has over 200 billion in cash on hand. They can ride those fines for quite awhile. Also, there won't be any anti-encryption laws. The risk is backdoor encryption across the board, which could have very similar outcome but isn't what's at stake here.
- rev_bird 11y ago
  >They can ride those fines for quite awhile. They could, but they're still a publicly traded company. I wouldn't hold it against a board that wasn't OK with spending $250,000 a day on a principle, but I'd be mad as hell at the people collecting the fine.
  - ohyeshedid 11y ago
    I agree, but they could let those fines stack up while waiting for their turn at the SCOTUS. They definitely wouldn't hold out forever, but they can hold out for long enough if need be.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
There are no terrorists. It's a fiction imposed upon the American people by a government with a power trip.
- nickles 11y ago
  That assertion is patently absurd. There are absolutely people and organized groups who perpetrate horrible acts solely to terrorize others. They are not some 'fiction' created by a 'power tripping' government. However, the risk that these people present to the world, at this point, does not merit sacrificing economic and civil liberties in their entirety to combat them. Rather, the dilemma is in determining an acceptable amount of liberty to sacrifice for safety, and vice versa.
  - exolymph 11y ago
    Yes, +1. The world is not black and white. We need to make tradeoffs.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Of course it is absurd; it was meant to be. It is also absurd the amount of money the US Govt is spending every year fighting a "War on Terrorism" when I am much more likely to die falling off my couch.
- rev_null 11y ago
  There definitely are terrorists. We spend a lot of money every year perpetuating wars to ensure that there will always be people willing to commit acts of terrorism against our country.
catshirt 11y ago
an engineering strike sounds powerful. might take a few years of striking though.

lugg 11y ago

Yea, we can all blame someone else. I like this, "not my job to uphold the constitution", "its the courts fault for letting it get here", "its the politicians fault for going a long with this", "its the peoples fault for voting for them". The fact is, if nobody stands up for this, do you really think anyone is going to stand up and try to take away the back door to the iphone and get away with it? Do you really believe they will stop there?

studentrob 11y ago
I hear you. The point is we can stand up for it here and now. This case isn't over. There are a lot of good things about the US. I believe our commitment to freedom of speech is stronger than elsewhere. This case is strongly testing that belief. And, according to the ACLU, it will be at least two years before this court reaches the supreme court [1]. There is a lot of time to educate the public on the facts about the case and how the technology in their pockets works. There are multiple examples of public figures changing their minds when presented with evidence. Lindsey Graham and Sam Harris are two. I and a few other developers are forming a grassroots campaign around this. If you'd like to get involved, whether you're a developer or not, shoot me an email at stillastudent on google's email service [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the-fbi-what-happens-next http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the...
- polm23 11y ago
  When has Lindsey Graham changed his mind? His Senate homepage still has this statement on it: ".@tim_cook Our nation is at war & this Iphone was used to kill Americans. Protect our homeland, not terrorists. Please cooperate with @FBI." https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog/status/700348813807063040 https://twitter.com/GrahamBlog/status/700348813807063040 http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Around March 10 when he questioned Attorney General Loretta Lynch at a DOJ budget review hearing [1] The video is 6 minutes and worth watching. It sounds like he is still forming his whole opinion. He certainly has changed his view from his initial comments. He's now calling for the debate to be held in Congress via passage of new laws. [1] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=1m44s
    - polm23 11y ago
      Thank you for that, that is not something I was expecting to see.
Bluestrike2 11y ago
Engineers refusing to do the work might be counter-productive. It'd allow the FBI and its supporters to change the narrative to one potentially more favorable to them. Instead of a debate about encryption and privacy, they'd try to change it to a debate about respecting the courts that plays right into the "law and order" mindset. I don't know how it'd play out, but I'd hate to give the government yet another advantage, however slim it might be. That said, there's probably one benefit to being forced to do the work: the engineers involved will be extremely motivated to stick it to the government by designing systems that can't be circumvented like this again. "Too bad, so sad - we can't do that any more. We're very, very sorry for the inconvenience."
- jnbiche 11y ago
  > by designing systems that can't be circumvented like this again. "Too bad, so sad - we can't do that any more. We're very, very sorry for the inconvenience." But that's exactly why this case is so, so critical. FBI is fishing for a precedent that will make designing these types of systems explicitly illegal. Apple is well aware of this strategy, which is why they've chosen to take their stand here, as unpleasant as the PR ramifications may be.
  - Bluestrike2 11y ago
    That's actually a separate, but related, issue. Right now, the courts are weighing whether the FBI can force the creation of a modified OS largely because (a) it's possible to do so with how existing iPhones are engineered, and (b) it wouldn't drastically inconvenience Apple to do so in light of their resources. If they get a favorable ruling, they have a precedent they'll try and use to gain access to other phones in their possession. But that really only applies to phones where it's possible to do so right now. If they can't do the same for future phones, the precedent is moot. The court isn't ruling on whether Apple has the right to modify their systems to prevent this strategy in the future. No matter how the court decides, it won't affect how Apple can design future devices. If the FBI were to ask for a ruling like that, they'd either lose or it'd be overturned on appeal. Something like that, where the government is actively telling manufacturers how they can and cannot design their products, could really only come from a new law instead of trying to backdoor it through the courts. I don't doubt that the government would love a tool like that, but it'd be aggressively challenged as an unprecedented expansion of federal power if it was ever signed into law. And that's iffy; a law like that would jeopardize overseas sales for tech companies even more than the NSA's actions already have. They'd have no choice but to pour an incredible sum of money into lobbying efforts, major PR campaigns, and campaign donations to fight it politically and hit back hard against any politicians who supported such a law.

shawn-furyan 11y ago

> engineers need not fall on their swords I would quibble with this characterization. Security engineers may well improve their employment prospects and professional visibility by publicly demonstrating that they are unwilling to do work that is counter to the mission of securing systems. It seems likely to me that this sort of highly public gesture would be personally profitable, rather than a net sacrifice.

studentrob 11y ago
Ultimately the decision is up to those engineers. I'm just sharing my opinion. I've left former employers on moral grounds and later realized I could've resolved those differences within myself and effected change in ways other than quitting. Quitting doesn't save Apple. Does it help your job prospects as a security engineer? I'm not so sure about that either, but then again I'm not a security employer. Hypothetically, if I were, then as an employer I might be more interested in the guy who stuck it out working with the government at Apple. He'd be able to give me a heads up on what conversations are like with the government and what the government might be able to impose on my business.
- shawn-furyan 11y ago
  > Hypothetically, if I were, then as an employer I might be more interested in the guy who stuck it out working with the government at Apple. One of the principal drivers of the positive effect on career prospects is the publicity this sort of public gesture would generate. Sure, all else being equal, many may prefer the engineer that sticks with the company. But all else is not equal. This particular gesture would generate a lot of publicity tied to the engineers eligibility for hire. Sticking with the company ends the story and would not likely garner nearly the same level of personal publicity, if any. I'm not making any sort of value judgement as to whether this would be an ethically good or bad thing for an Apple security engineer to do. I just don't think they will really be risking much because enough people will view it as an attractive public display of personal integrity that s/he would have her/his pick of jobs. It would also be an ideal opportunity to launch a security consultancy. The move isn't completely devoid of personal risk, but the risk seems to be overwhelmed by the opportunities that it would generate in my estimation. That is to say, it would be a good bet, and far from a true self sacrifice.

saulrh 11y ago

> I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications. I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd only have to live with pat-downs on every plane flight for so long? That the government would eventually realize that terrorists couldn't hijack planes once passengers knew that the proper response was to storm the cockpit rather than waiting for the usual ransom demand to be acquiesced to? That the terrorists would find other ways to cause terror? If the US Government gets what it wants with this case they will use it as a wedge to permanently deny us any semblance of electronic privacy. You will get to choose between using paper and having some random police officer [1] decide that it's time for you to go down and he's absolutely sure he can find something you've done wrong [2]. This move is one of the last things standing in the way of that future. Apple's engineers are threatening to destroy one of the most successful, profitable organized entities in human history in protest. A sort of technological mutually assured destruction. I hope their threat works, and that they don't have to follow through on it, and that if they do, their statement is understood. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

lojack 11y ago
How exactly are they supposed to permanently remove all semblance of privacy? Short of infiltrating popular open source projects in plain view and proving the (potentially) unprovable, I don't see how this is possible.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  They can make refusal to decrypt a federal felony.
  - 11y ago

jnbiche 11y ago

studentrob 11y ago
Well, eventually people will realize they can just download an encrypted communications tool right? I'm not 100% sure about what happens after 2/4/8 years. That scenario also relies on a really informed public to fight back and care. This is why I and a few other engineers are forming a grassroots campaign to support encryption. If you'd like to get involved, send me an email at stillastudent on google's email service
- ohyeshedid 11y ago
  Sure, they can, but this entire case is about precedent. If Apple can't win this kind of fight, what do you think will happen to the developers of those encrypted communications tools; or encryption products across the board. Remember Truecrypt, Hushmail, Lavabit, etc? Too small to fight back. That's why so much rests in the outcome of the fight with Apple.
- taneq 11y ago
  Ah, but once encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption. At which point anyone sending or receiving encrypted data that the feds can't decrypt is automatically guilty of a crime, and should be apprehended. Of course, if you have nothing to hide from your friendly government agency, you have nothing to fear!

abraae 11y ago

Indeed. Let's say Apple is forced to bake a back door into their devices. Criminals and people who care about privacy will use their own encryption tech (they probably do anyway) and life goes on for them. Eventually the govt's backdoor is abused or cracked. The people grow fretful. A truly secure device from somewhere outside the US gains market traction. The US tech industry's shrieks gather volume. The govt realises the game is up and allows Apple devices to be secured again. This issue is not one that demands that anyone fall on their sword. Even if the govt gets its way, no-one will be killed or even harmed. Eventually the natural order of things will be restored.

protomyth 11y ago
> Let's say Apple is forced to bake a back door into their devices. Why would another government allow the selling of a device with a know (not just suspected) backdoor for the US government? Sounds like a great opportunity to boost local companies. I would expect some serious repercussions on foreign market sales. also, we're still paying for v-chips.

ohyeshedid 11y ago

That's a little over 91 million in fines over a year. Apple has over 200 billion in cash on hand. They can ride those fines for quite awhile. Also, there won't be any anti-encryption laws. The risk is backdoor encryption across the board, which could have very similar outcome but isn't what's at stake here.

rev_bird 11y ago
>They can ride those fines for quite awhile. They could, but they're still a publicly traded company. I wouldn't hold it against a board that wasn't OK with spending $250,000 a day on a principle, but I'd be mad as hell at the people collecting the fine.
- ohyeshedid 11y ago
  I agree, but they could let those fines stack up while waiting for their turn at the SCOTUS. They definitely wouldn't hold out forever, but they can hold out for long enough if need be.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

There are no terrorists. It's a fiction imposed upon the American people by a government with a power trip.

nickles 11y ago
That assertion is patently absurd. There are absolutely people and organized groups who perpetrate horrible acts solely to terrorize others. They are not some 'fiction' created by a 'power tripping' government. However, the risk that these people present to the world, at this point, does not merit sacrificing economic and civil liberties in their entirety to combat them. Rather, the dilemma is in determining an acceptable amount of liberty to sacrifice for safety, and vice versa.
- exolymph 11y ago
  Yes, +1. The world is not black and white. We need to make tradeoffs.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Of course it is absurd; it was meant to be. It is also absurd the amount of money the US Govt is spending every year fighting a "War on Terrorism" when I am much more likely to die falling off my couch.
rev_null 11y ago
There definitely are terrorists. We spend a lot of money every year perpetuating wars to ensure that there will always be people willing to commit acts of terrorism against our country.

catshirt 11y ago

an engineering strike sounds powerful. might take a few years of striking though.