3 ms·

Considering that Apple is a US company, and that millions of US citizens use Apple products, US intelligence agencies should be securing these devices. Not comp

Considering that Apple is a US company, and that millions of US citizens use Apple products, US intelligence agencies should be securing these devices. Not compromising them. The US has such an overwhelming military advantage over North Korea or Russia that it doesn't have to gain a leg up in infosec. All it has to do is level the playing field by making sure that everyone's running as securely as possible. I'll rely on the one dozen Naval Carrier Strike Groups to keep me safe. Really doubt that reading Kim Jong Un's email is going to make a difference.

Kalium 8y ago
> Considering that Apple is a US company, and that millions of US citizens use Apple products, US intelligence agencies should be securing these devices. Not compromising them. You're absolutely right! It's unquestionably the job of the US intelligence apparatus to help secure American interests. With that said, Apple is a multi-national company, with millions of units used by people of all nationalities. And a vast amount of American military superiority is based on superior technical intelligence. A carrier group can solve, at great expense in blood and treasure, a problem that intelligence can often solve more quickly and at an earlier point in time. With that in mind, it seems reckless to not take seriously the value of intelligence. Again, you're completely correct in every way. Apple is an American company! It's just perhaps possible that there could be a bit of subtlety to this.
- cdf2theworld 8y ago
  So for the sake of possibly needing to break into a non-US citizen's iPhone, they do research to create exploits that put EVERY US citizen who uses an iPhone at risk? And they really don't have a great track record of keeping these exploits safe [1] 1: https://www.vadesecure.com/en/nsa-malware-malware-protection/ https://www.vadesecure.com/en/nsa-malware-malware-protection...
  - Kalium 8y ago
    If there was a way to have exploits that only affected non-citizens, I would expect them to explore that enthusiastically. I suspect there is no such thing, but I would absolutely love to be enlightened as to how completely wrong I am! With that in mind, do you think it would be wise for an intelligence agency to refuse to consider searching for exploitable holes in a platform that is known for a fact to occasionally used by adversaries? Bear in mind that, of course, there are plenty of other groups and agencies doing the same thing. Do you think this choice would better serve to advance American interests? If so, why? Would the weaknesses the CIA could find cease to be if the CIA was not looking for them? Perhaps you imagine a scenario in which the CIA finds every exploit first, and in doing so causes them to get fixed rapidly. Would you be comfortable with an intelligence agency working hand-in-glove with a major American company selling supposedly-secure consumer goods? Would you trust such an arrangement to protect you?
    - cdf2theworld 8y ago
      You're right, there's no existing solution to exempt US citizens from these exploits. However, with the massive resources available to them, if they focused on enhancing our security rather than fouling it, I very much believe we would be better off. Think about how much crime occurs in the modern era through electronic hacks and exploits. Would it be better to have these intel back channels, or to stop these crimes? Their priorities are in the wrong place, through tradition more than anything else. There are many, many platforms that are "occasionally used by adversaries". The Intelligence Community has put exceptional resources towards one that has a very significant market share among it's citizens. And given the wholesale surveillance we are already under, I can't accept that this was an innocuous decision. Trust is built through positive actions over time. I have zero trust for our Intelligence Community as is; and I've actually worked with US intelligence. If they devoted a majority of their efforts to finding and patching security risks through public and open source means, I would slowly start to trust them again.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        You're so completely right that the NSA, CIA, and more already agree with you! The IC invests massive resources into enhancing security. I've seen it firsthand - software projects like SELinux and a whole slew of research projects come to mind in addition to stuff I worked on. Though if you've only ever been exposed to the other side of the house, it's easy to be ignorant that the defensive missions exist at all. Certainly it tends to not make any news, ever.
50656E6973 8y ago
>doesn't have to gain a leg up in infosec >I'll rely on the one dozen Naval Carrier Strike Groups to keep me safe. Really doubt that reading Kim Jong Un's email is going to make a difference. That's a weak strawman argument. The fact that spying on foreign enemies now requires the capability to spy domestically is definitely a red flag. But saying we don't need infosec when that Naval Carrier Strike Group can be owned, rendered useless by a cyber attack is naive. Moreover, rogue hacker groups from all across the world posess the power to covertly & remotely target critical infrastructure of virtually any nation. What good is a Naval Carrier Strike Group going to do against that?

Kalium 8y ago

> Considering that Apple is a US company, and that millions of US citizens use Apple products, US intelligence agencies should be securing these devices. Not compromising them. You're absolutely right! It's unquestionably the job of the US intelligence apparatus to help secure American interests. With that said, Apple is a multi-national company, with millions of units used by people of all nationalities. And a vast amount of American military superiority is based on superior technical intelligence. A carrier group can solve, at great expense in blood and treasure, a problem that intelligence can often solve more quickly and at an earlier point in time. With that in mind, it seems reckless to not take seriously the value of intelligence. Again, you're completely correct in every way. Apple is an American company! It's just perhaps possible that there could be a bit of subtlety to this.

cdf2theworld 8y ago
So for the sake of possibly needing to break into a non-US citizen's iPhone, they do research to create exploits that put EVERY US citizen who uses an iPhone at risk? And they really don't have a great track record of keeping these exploits safe [1] 1: https://www.vadesecure.com/en/nsa-malware-malware-protection/ https://www.vadesecure.com/en/nsa-malware-malware-protection...
- Kalium 8y ago
  If there was a way to have exploits that only affected non-citizens, I would expect them to explore that enthusiastically. I suspect there is no such thing, but I would absolutely love to be enlightened as to how completely wrong I am! With that in mind, do you think it would be wise for an intelligence agency to refuse to consider searching for exploitable holes in a platform that is known for a fact to occasionally used by adversaries? Bear in mind that, of course, there are plenty of other groups and agencies doing the same thing. Do you think this choice would better serve to advance American interests? If so, why? Would the weaknesses the CIA could find cease to be if the CIA was not looking for them? Perhaps you imagine a scenario in which the CIA finds every exploit first, and in doing so causes them to get fixed rapidly. Would you be comfortable with an intelligence agency working hand-in-glove with a major American company selling supposedly-secure consumer goods? Would you trust such an arrangement to protect you?
  - cdf2theworld 8y ago
    You're right, there's no existing solution to exempt US citizens from these exploits. However, with the massive resources available to them, if they focused on enhancing our security rather than fouling it, I very much believe we would be better off. Think about how much crime occurs in the modern era through electronic hacks and exploits. Would it be better to have these intel back channels, or to stop these crimes? Their priorities are in the wrong place, through tradition more than anything else. There are many, many platforms that are "occasionally used by adversaries". The Intelligence Community has put exceptional resources towards one that has a very significant market share among it's citizens. And given the wholesale surveillance we are already under, I can't accept that this was an innocuous decision. Trust is built through positive actions over time. I have zero trust for our Intelligence Community as is; and I've actually worked with US intelligence. If they devoted a majority of their efforts to finding and patching security risks through public and open source means, I would slowly start to trust them again.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      You're so completely right that the NSA, CIA, and more already agree with you! The IC invests massive resources into enhancing security. I've seen it firsthand - software projects like SELinux and a whole slew of research projects come to mind in addition to stuff I worked on. Though if you've only ever been exposed to the other side of the house, it's easy to be ignorant that the defensive missions exist at all. Certainly it tends to not make any news, ever.

50656E6973 8y ago

>doesn't have to gain a leg up in infosec >I'll rely on the one dozen Naval Carrier Strike Groups to keep me safe. Really doubt that reading Kim Jong Un's email is going to make a difference. That's a weak strawman argument. The fact that spying on foreign enemies now requires the capability to spy domestically is definitely a red flag. But saying we don't need infosec when that Naval Carrier Strike Group can be owned, rendered useless by a cyber attack is naive. Moreover, rogue hacker groups from all across the world posess the power to covertly & remotely target critical infrastructure of virtually any nation. What good is a Naval Carrier Strike Group going to do against that?