4 ms·

"Could you do anything to deprive them from throwing a stone at someone or from driving a car and running over people? "You can't blame the car manufacturer at

"Could you do anything to deprive them from throwing a stone at someone or from driving a car and running over people? "You can't blame the car manufacturer at that point for delivering a car that was utilised to commit that kind of crime," he said. This is specious reasoning. The point of a car is not to run over people; it's to go from point A to point B. This technology, on the other hand, has only one purpose: to break into cellphones.

libeclipse 10y ago
A classic example of attacking the straw man.
ucaetano 10y ago
"Ben-Peretz said the company vets clients and always respects local laws, but the governments are primarily responsible." Just following orders and the local laws...
dalbasal 10y ago
I think you're misunderstanding that quote. He's saying (if I understand correctly, it's awkwardly phrased) that his company sells only to a small number of clients who are all regimes (meaning states). There are only a handful so he can vet them and demand commitments that the technology will only be used for good. Plenty of other reasons to disagree. But, he is basically agreeing with you that this technology should be treated as a dangerous weapons-like thing and controlled in the way the sale of advanced weapons is controlled.
verbify 10y ago
There can be good reasons to break into cellphones, just like there can be good reasons to have a lock pick. Our problems stem from overfunded and underregulated intelligence agencies, not from the tools they use.
gnarbarian 10y ago
I think it's an important distinction. The crime is in how it's used, not in the technology itself. Banning the tech outright only affects actors who are willing to follow the law. So banning this tool would mostly limit white hats. The same principle applies to gun rights for example. The gun itself isn't the problem, it's how someone chooses to use it. (self defense vs crime). Nobody is an absolutist here, everyone draws the line somewhere slightly different. Outlawing the tech ensures that good guys lose the arms race every time. When I say good guys I don't necessarily mean the government. I mean anyone out there who is not using the tech for malicious intent. People using guns for self defense, breaking into an encrypted device to solve a crime, or retrieve lost work etc. This keeps the focus on improving the actual technology (encryption). Rather than just banning law abiding citizens from taking part.

libeclipse 10y ago

A classic example of attacking the straw man.

ucaetano 10y ago

"Ben-Peretz said the company vets clients and always respects local laws, but the governments are primarily responsible." Just following orders and the local laws...

dalbasal 10y ago

I think you're misunderstanding that quote. He's saying (if I understand correctly, it's awkwardly phrased) that his company sells only to a small number of clients who are all regimes (meaning states). There are only a handful so he can vet them and demand commitments that the technology will only be used for good. Plenty of other reasons to disagree. But, he is basically agreeing with you that this technology should be treated as a dangerous weapons-like thing and controlled in the way the sale of advanced weapons is controlled.

verbify 10y ago

There can be good reasons to break into cellphones, just like there can be good reasons to have a lock pick. Our problems stem from overfunded and underregulated intelligence agencies, not from the tools they use.

gnarbarian 10y ago

I think it's an important distinction. The crime is in how it's used, not in the technology itself. Banning the tech outright only affects actors who are willing to follow the law. So banning this tool would mostly limit white hats. The same principle applies to gun rights for example. The gun itself isn't the problem, it's how someone chooses to use it. (self defense vs crime). Nobody is an absolutist here, everyone draws the line somewhere slightly different. Outlawing the tech ensures that good guys lose the arms race every time. When I say good guys I don't necessarily mean the government. I mean anyone out there who is not using the tech for malicious intent. People using guns for self defense, breaking into an encrypted device to solve a crime, or retrieve lost work etc. This keeps the focus on improving the actual technology (encryption). Rather than just banning law abiding citizens from taking part.