5 ms·

I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in

I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?

trill1 11y ago
A lot of the big tech companies had an inside look at the growing surveillance state far before the average citizen did. I think an argument can be made that the should have done more to inform the public.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Are you suggesting they go out of business like Lavabit? That is the stand you're taking when you disobey orders to keep government requests secret. And, I'm not sure a large corporation has that option. How could shareholders accept a fine for which they're not permitted to know the details? Remember when Snowden first revealed the Prism program? All the tech companies issued similar statements saying they want to tell people more, but did not have permission from the US government. For example, Apple said, > Like several other companies, we have asked the U.S. government for permission to report how many requests we receive related to national security and how we handle them. We have been authorized to share some of that data, and we are providing it here in the interest of transparency. [1] Also, I'm sure Yahoo would've loved to rally support from its users when the government was threatening to fine them $250,000 per day for refusing to hand over data, but they were not allowed to tell anyone [2] I do believe the government was doing what they thought was right to protect public safety. However, they don't understand technology. Ted Lieu is about the only guy in Congress who does. We need a bit more representation there to have our voices heard, whether through electing Congressmen with CS backgrounds, independent lobbying like the EFF, or just better tech reporting and questioning in the White House daily briefs. The existence of the FISA courts is something we should be scrutinizing more. Former NSA Director Hayden pointed out in one interview that we're the only country who has such secret courts. With these courts, democracy is circumvented. Currently, the public is not able to participate in the discussion of what's right on some major issues that have far reaching impact. [1] http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ [2] 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...
  - trill1 11y ago
    I'm only suggesting that Apple and others could have taken a stand in favor of privacy much earlier, and that their decision to do so now likely has more to do with their bottom line than any genuine concern for public welfare. BTW, hi Rob! You know me from the PPUA :)
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Hi! =). Apple is free to design products as they wish, right? If their products still have security issues, the tech community will call them out on that. I bet the public will pay more attention to such critiques on Apple's security now too. My understanding is people who are serious about security do not currently depend on Apple. Those folks use open source software and build it themselves. That said, I'm still interested in defending Apple's position (and not necessarily Apple) because I want our government to understand how to maintain public safety. Relying on access to people's phones, going forward, is not the right way to do that. You could argue that I am advocating privacy, but I'd say I am more in support of security.
      - trill1 11y ago
        Definitely, the US government can ban or backdoor every commercial encryption product on the planet, and those that are serious about security will still be using GPG, Tor, Linux/BSD, etc.
studentrob 11y ago
Some technologists hold an anarchist view that the government is evil and should be displaced. There are extremists within any group. These folks do not want to bother fighting the government for rights because they think the public is too dumb and the government will win that fight. In thinking this way, they become apathetic themselves. They're not all bad. Some of them contributed a lot to free software. But some times the ideas are toxic and hold people back from their best. For example, many believe Snowden deserves a full pardon, and anything short of that is wrong. Well, Snowden himself has said he would return to face a fair trial. So it seems we are divided on some issues, and that can weaken our side in fighting for digital rights.
- chaostree 11y ago
  Well, the USG considers Linux users to be extremists also. I think the phrase "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" applies. There should be no moderation in freedom (outside of the absolutes of killing another or dispossessing them of their property). My response to these types of comments is precisely - when it is demonstrated that people make laws rather than governments in collusion with corporations - then I will pay attention.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    I don't blame you a bit.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    > There should be no moderation in freedom (outside of the absolutes of killing another or dispossessing them of their property). Why the focus on property rights? Much libertarian thought is expended on equating freedom to how you/others interact with property. It hardly gives credence to other man made rights that should be equally, if not more, recognized. When you look at the group of people it dogmatically and absolutely resolves, and who funds think-tanks promoting the ideology, it is the well-propertied. I find it hard to believe that all other freedom can be derived from and ensured by deifying property rights.
  - 11y ago
danenania 11y ago
At a certain point, civil disobedience becomes a moral responsibility. Plus, extremely large and powerful companies do not play by the same rules as the rest of us. You aren't going to see the government risk serious economic damage just to enforce some laws. Wall Street is a case in point. When huge companies decide whether to fight unjust laws or acquiesce, their choices have a major impact on the political equation.
DanBC 11y ago
I need to explain myself a bit more clearly. For many years all tech companies have, as expected, complied with warrants. We don't expect otherwise. Now, in this one case, Apple is fighting the warrant. And some people are saying "Look how great Apple is; they really care about your privacy". Well, no, not really. Apple isn't as bad as some, but they still gather too much data and they still (as they should) obey any warrant they're given.
- studentrob 11y ago
  It seems silly to bicker over whether a company is all good or all bad. Do you know any people who are all good or bad? Are you? Hate or support the game, not the player. Stand up for ideas, not people.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  This isn't a warrant, it's a request for far more than that. Apple is being asked to develop new code to actively defeat its own encryption measures.
- rimantas 11y ago
  Can you tell more what exactly superfluous data is Apple gathering?

trill1 11y ago

A lot of the big tech companies had an inside look at the growing surveillance state far before the average citizen did. I think an argument can be made that the should have done more to inform the public.

studentrob 11y ago
Are you suggesting they go out of business like Lavabit? That is the stand you're taking when you disobey orders to keep government requests secret. And, I'm not sure a large corporation has that option. How could shareholders accept a fine for which they're not permitted to know the details? Remember when Snowden first revealed the Prism program? All the tech companies issued similar statements saying they want to tell people more, but did not have permission from the US government. For example, Apple said, > Like several other companies, we have asked the U.S. government for permission to report how many requests we receive related to national security and how we handle them. We have been authorized to share some of that data, and we are providing it here in the interest of transparency. [1] Also, I'm sure Yahoo would've loved to rally support from its users when the government was threatening to fine them $250,000 per day for refusing to hand over data, but they were not allowed to tell anyone [2] I do believe the government was doing what they thought was right to protect public safety. However, they don't understand technology. Ted Lieu is about the only guy in Congress who does. We need a bit more representation there to have our voices heard, whether through electing Congressmen with CS backgrounds, independent lobbying like the EFF, or just better tech reporting and questioning in the White House daily briefs. The existence of the FISA courts is something we should be scrutinizing more. Former NSA Director Hayden pointed out in one interview that we're the only country who has such secret courts. With these courts, democracy is circumvented. Currently, the public is not able to participate in the discussion of what's right on some major issues that have far reaching impact. [1] http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ [2] 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...
- trill1 11y ago
  I'm only suggesting that Apple and others could have taken a stand in favor of privacy much earlier, and that their decision to do so now likely has more to do with their bottom line than any genuine concern for public welfare. BTW, hi Rob! You know me from the PPUA :)
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Hi! =). Apple is free to design products as they wish, right? If their products still have security issues, the tech community will call them out on that. I bet the public will pay more attention to such critiques on Apple's security now too. My understanding is people who are serious about security do not currently depend on Apple. Those folks use open source software and build it themselves. That said, I'm still interested in defending Apple's position (and not necessarily Apple) because I want our government to understand how to maintain public safety. Relying on access to people's phones, going forward, is not the right way to do that. You could argue that I am advocating privacy, but I'd say I am more in support of security.
    - trill1 11y ago
      Definitely, the US government can ban or backdoor every commercial encryption product on the planet, and those that are serious about security will still be using GPG, Tor, Linux/BSD, etc.

studentrob 11y ago

Some technologists hold an anarchist view that the government is evil and should be displaced. There are extremists within any group. These folks do not want to bother fighting the government for rights because they think the public is too dumb and the government will win that fight. In thinking this way, they become apathetic themselves. They're not all bad. Some of them contributed a lot to free software. But some times the ideas are toxic and hold people back from their best. For example, many believe Snowden deserves a full pardon, and anything short of that is wrong. Well, Snowden himself has said he would return to face a fair trial. So it seems we are divided on some issues, and that can weaken our side in fighting for digital rights.

chaostree 11y ago
Well, the USG considers Linux users to be extremists also. I think the phrase "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" applies. There should be no moderation in freedom (outside of the absolutes of killing another or dispossessing them of their property). My response to these types of comments is precisely - when it is demonstrated that people make laws rather than governments in collusion with corporations - then I will pay attention.
- studentrob 11y ago
  I don't blame you a bit.
- task_queue 11y ago
  > There should be no moderation in freedom (outside of the absolutes of killing another or dispossessing them of their property). Why the focus on property rights? Much libertarian thought is expended on equating freedom to how you/others interact with property. It hardly gives credence to other man made rights that should be equally, if not more, recognized. When you look at the group of people it dogmatically and absolutely resolves, and who funds think-tanks promoting the ideology, it is the well-propertied. I find it hard to believe that all other freedom can be derived from and ensured by deifying property rights.
- 11y ago

danenania 11y ago

At a certain point, civil disobedience becomes a moral responsibility. Plus, extremely large and powerful companies do not play by the same rules as the rest of us. You aren't going to see the government risk serious economic damage just to enforce some laws. Wall Street is a case in point. When huge companies decide whether to fight unjust laws or acquiesce, their choices have a major impact on the political equation.

DanBC 11y ago

I need to explain myself a bit more clearly. For many years all tech companies have, as expected, complied with warrants. We don't expect otherwise. Now, in this one case, Apple is fighting the warrant. And some people are saying "Look how great Apple is; they really care about your privacy". Well, no, not really. Apple isn't as bad as some, but they still gather too much data and they still (as they should) obey any warrant they're given.

studentrob 11y ago
It seems silly to bicker over whether a company is all good or all bad. Do you know any people who are all good or bad? Are you? Hate or support the game, not the player. Stand up for ideas, not people.
URSpider94 11y ago
This isn't a warrant, it's a request for far more than that. Apple is being asked to develop new code to actively defeat its own encryption measures.
rimantas 11y ago
Can you tell more what exactly superfluous data is Apple gathering?