3 ms·

Gates' interview with Axios was somewhat surprising: https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-ce4ef8c4-95b3-4c81-ab87-eb7494d74c07.html https://www.axios.com

by uptown 9y ago

Gates' interview with Axios was somewhat surprising: https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-ce4ef8c4-95b3-4c81-ab87-eb7494d74c07.html https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-ce4ef8c4-95b3-4c8... Gates said in a phone interview: "The tech companies have to be ... careful that they're not trying to think their view is more important than the government's view, or than the government being able to function in some key areas." Asked for an example, Gates pointed to the companies' "enthusiasm about making financial transactions anonymous and invisible, and their view that even a clear mass-murdering criminal's communication should never be available to the government." When I said he seemed to be referring to being able to unlock an iPhone, Gates replied: "There's no question of ability; it's the question of willingness." So he seems to imply that devices should be built with backdoors to enable law enforcement.

tptacek 9y ago
That's not an especially uncommon perspective to have on the issue. It only feels like it's a line that all of civil society is holding because we're on a message board where almost everyone agrees.
ikeboy 9y ago
With regard to the iPhone case, the backdoor was already built, Apple can sign any software they choose to. It was 100% about their unwillingness to cooperate.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Sort of. But the moment they sign that software, they’ve created a backdoor which didn’t previously exist, and that fundamentally weakens the security of the platform.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    Not really, because the signature is tied to a specific device and a specific upgrade. It can never be used again unless Apple signs it again. Apple had some arguments about precedent and the like, and that’s fine, but from a technical perspective they could have easily done it and it wouldn’t have weakened anything else, unless they decided to sign the software again later.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      Interesting, I was totally misinformed about how that works. Thanks for the explanation!
dlwdlw 9y ago
I think one of the fundamental tensions in society is the role of gatekeepers and their gates. The young are biased to view them as unnecessary and the old view them as necessary. The young often are overconfident, tearing down gates before understanding why they were out up. The old are often blind, gatekeepers often being descendants of the original keepers. So the gatekeepers never saw what the gates are for. Gatekeeping is a self selective process for stubborn loyalty to a cause driven by overbuilt social status needs. This is why I think "young" energy that wasn't developed in a bubble is the source of everything new. The gatekeepers WANT to pass along the keys as we are always one generation away from extinction. The trouble is when. And that is muddied by the overconfidence and the over-conservatism. That moment when the toys and the games become serious...
skookumchuck 9y ago
> clear mass-murdering criminal's communication How much freedom are we willing to give up to get that last percent of criminals?
paulddraper 9y ago
Wait...what are we talking about? Some conversation Bill Gates had awhile ago, unrelated to anything else?

by uptown 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

That's not an especially uncommon perspective to have on the issue. It only feels like it's a line that all of civil society is holding because we're on a message board where almost everyone agrees.

ikeboy 9y ago

With regard to the iPhone case, the backdoor was already built, Apple can sign any software they choose to. It was 100% about their unwillingness to cooperate.

jrs95 9y ago
Sort of. But the moment they sign that software, they’ve created a backdoor which didn’t previously exist, and that fundamentally weakens the security of the platform.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Not really, because the signature is tied to a specific device and a specific upgrade. It can never be used again unless Apple signs it again. Apple had some arguments about precedent and the like, and that’s fine, but from a technical perspective they could have easily done it and it wouldn’t have weakened anything else, unless they decided to sign the software again later.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Interesting, I was totally misinformed about how that works. Thanks for the explanation!

dlwdlw 9y ago

I think one of the fundamental tensions in society is the role of gatekeepers and their gates. The young are biased to view them as unnecessary and the old view them as necessary. The young often are overconfident, tearing down gates before understanding why they were out up. The old are often blind, gatekeepers often being descendants of the original keepers. So the gatekeepers never saw what the gates are for. Gatekeeping is a self selective process for stubborn loyalty to a cause driven by overbuilt social status needs. This is why I think "young" energy that wasn't developed in a bubble is the source of everything new. The gatekeepers WANT to pass along the keys as we are always one generation away from extinction. The trouble is when. And that is muddied by the overconfidence and the over-conservatism. That moment when the toys and the games become serious...

skookumchuck 9y ago

> clear mass-murdering criminal's communication How much freedom are we willing to give up to get that last percent of criminals?

paulddraper 9y ago

Wait...what are we talking about? Some conversation Bill Gates had awhile ago, unrelated to anything else?