7 ms·

I personally don't have a problem with this, just as I had no problem with Apple not wanting to help the government with an investigation. I don't think it is r

by Esau 10y ago

I personally don't have a problem with this, just as I had no problem with Apple not wanting to help the government with an investigation. I don't think it is right to want it both ways.

ksdale 10y ago
I'm not sure I have a problem with this, but I think it's perfectly consistent to want it both ways. There are plenty of rights that accrue to citizens that don't accrue to government actors and vice versa.
- nashashmi 10y ago
  > rights that accrue to citizens that don't accrue to government Apple should not be compelled to help the government break into one of its devices. But they can "choose" to help the government break in. Likewise, government should not be compelled to help secure its companies by buying zero-days off the black market for public security. But again they can "choose" to. The cooperation of corporations and goverments is a symbol of trade and teamwork. The lack of cooperation is a symbol of distrust and hostility.
  - woodman 10y ago
    > ...government should not be compelled... Yes, it should. Who is working for who here? I can understand someone delegating the initial implementation details of a public service to the state, but to say that the state shouldn't be subject to the demands of the public - well that is just insane. > ...trade and teamwork. The lack of cooperation is a symbol of distrust and hostility. Teamwork conveys some idea of equality, which isn't going to work if you're interested in maintaining the idea of "public servant". The state's degree of trust in the public (corporate or individual) is irrelevant, the state doesn't get to selectively perform its duties on such a basis.
r0m4n0 10y ago
The government doesn't get to play by the same rules as private companies. They don't get to operate under a veil of secrecy unless they can justify why so. They really didn't provide useful details in this article but claiming ignorance seems absurd and a bit of an eye for an eye mentality...
Johnny555 10y ago
If the FBI were a private organization, I'd agree with you, but the FBI is paid by the public and is supposed to be protecting the public, so they should not leave the public open to a gaping security hole in a product that millions of people use. They can't even pretend that the technique would never be utilized by "bad guys" outside of the USA government since whatever the technique is, it's already available for purchase.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  They are protecting the public. Just a question if it's the best decision to make for the public. Without backdoors, 0-days are a legit tool for law enforcement. Even Bruce Schneier likes it as a compromise IIRC.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Yeah, and British intelligence should have just called up the Germans to tell them that their Enigma machines weren't configured correctly.
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    I'm guessing you are just trolling, but still going to address this. Every time an american agency finds a vulnerability they are faced with a choice: - Use it, possibly against foreign targets - Share it with american vendors to make the country and its businesses safer It should be clear that in most cases the value of protecting american interest is vastly more valuable than attacking foreign interests. It's like Clinton lobbying cruise missiles at Afghanistan, whatever they destroyed was worth a lot less than the missile itself. If for example Apple and Google can be protected that is probably worth a lot more than whatever can be gained by using this offensively. And note that every time a cyber weapon is used there is a large risk that the entity being attacked can learn how the attack worked and use this back at your interests.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      You're absolutely right that there's multiple interests being balanced here. That's the point I was trying to make. I think the FBI is making the right call here. An exploit that requires physical access to the phone and that sells for a million dollars per use is not a big risk to anyone.

by Esau 10y ago

I personally don't have a problem with this, just as I had no problem with Apple not wanting to help the government with an investigation. I don't think it is right to want it both ways.

ksdale 10y ago

I'm not sure I have a problem with this, but I think it's perfectly consistent to want it both ways. There are plenty of rights that accrue to citizens that don't accrue to government actors and vice versa.

nashashmi 10y ago
> rights that accrue to citizens that don't accrue to government Apple should not be compelled to help the government break into one of its devices. But they can "choose" to help the government break in. Likewise, government should not be compelled to help secure its companies by buying zero-days off the black market for public security. But again they can "choose" to. The cooperation of corporations and goverments is a symbol of trade and teamwork. The lack of cooperation is a symbol of distrust and hostility.
- woodman 10y ago
  > ...government should not be compelled... Yes, it should. Who is working for who here? I can understand someone delegating the initial implementation details of a public service to the state, but to say that the state shouldn't be subject to the demands of the public - well that is just insane. > ...trade and teamwork. The lack of cooperation is a symbol of distrust and hostility. Teamwork conveys some idea of equality, which isn't going to work if you're interested in maintaining the idea of "public servant". The state's degree of trust in the public (corporate or individual) is irrelevant, the state doesn't get to selectively perform its duties on such a basis.

r0m4n0 10y ago

The government doesn't get to play by the same rules as private companies. They don't get to operate under a veil of secrecy unless they can justify why so. They really didn't provide useful details in this article but claiming ignorance seems absurd and a bit of an eye for an eye mentality...

Johnny555 10y ago

If the FBI were a private organization, I'd agree with you, but the FBI is paid by the public and is supposed to be protecting the public, so they should not leave the public open to a gaping security hole in a product that millions of people use. They can't even pretend that the technique would never be utilized by "bad guys" outside of the USA government since whatever the technique is, it's already available for purchase.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
They are protecting the public. Just a question if it's the best decision to make for the public. Without backdoors, 0-days are a legit tool for law enforcement. Even Bruce Schneier likes it as a compromise IIRC.
marcoperaza 10y ago
Yeah, and British intelligence should have just called up the Germans to tell them that their Enigma machines weren't configured correctly.
- kmonsen 10y ago
  I'm guessing you are just trolling, but still going to address this. Every time an american agency finds a vulnerability they are faced with a choice: - Use it, possibly against foreign targets - Share it with american vendors to make the country and its businesses safer It should be clear that in most cases the value of protecting american interest is vastly more valuable than attacking foreign interests. It's like Clinton lobbying cruise missiles at Afghanistan, whatever they destroyed was worth a lot less than the missile itself. If for example Apple and Google can be protected that is probably worth a lot more than whatever can be gained by using this offensively. And note that every time a cyber weapon is used there is a large risk that the entity being attacked can learn how the attack worked and use this back at your interests.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    You're absolutely right that there's multiple interests being balanced here. That's the point I was trying to make. I think the FBI is making the right call here. An exploit that requires physical access to the phone and that sells for a million dollars per use is not a big risk to anyone.