4 ms·

You, like everyone else who has these ideas every few years when this government overreach bubbles up to the surface again, have made the mistake of believing t

by jki275 7y ago

You, like everyone else who has these ideas every few years when this government overreach bubbles up to the surface again, have made the mistake of believing that first the government is responsible enough to manage this kind of program -- they aren't and never will be, and second that engineering can stop engineering. If you can make it, someone can break it, and will. And companies are not responsible, that's not how this works. Also, a "weakness of the individual part" is a break, and the entire system collapses. You're essentially arguing for security by obscurity.

umvi 7y ago
Who says the government has to manage it? Let Apple manage it so their reputation is on the line. Government just specifies that E2E is breakable with warrant; Apple can implement it how they want to preserve privacy. > And companies are not responsible, that's not how this works. Why not? If a company implements a government requirement poorly they are absolutely responsible for the ramifications, just like they are with existing regulations (like if I made a handheld gaming system that jams radios on accident, I'm responsible for not following FCC regulations properly). > Also, a "weakness of the individual part" is a break That's ridiculous. That's like saying you can't build a bridge out of pure rebar and you can't build a bridge out of pure concrete because individually they are too weak, so therefore you can't build a bridge out of rebar-reinforced concrete.
- jki275 7y ago
  You can argue about "responsibility" all day long, until my credit card information gets stolen, and then you find out it's a meaningless concept with a corporation. Do you have the money to sue Apple? I don't. Or worse, someone gets killed because of their data being stolen. Maybe you live in a privileged world where that doesn't happen, some of the rest the rest of the world doesn't. If you build a bridge out of concrete with weak rebar, guess what? Bridge falls down, people die. If you build a bridge with shit concrete and great rebar, guess what? Bridge falls down, people die. You've made nearly the perfect analogy for me. Privacy from the government is something most people want. If the government wants my data, I'm not going to build a system that makes it easier for them to get it. And finally, you can't ban math. I don't give a fuck who says what, I won't put backdoors in my code, and if someone else does I'll stop using their code and I'll build my own.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Well it's not like you can roll your hardware, software, firmware, etc. You implicitly trust Apple or Google or whoever to keep you secure at some level, so yes, responsibility and reputation matter. Apple pushes back against illegal warrants to keep prying officials from getting into your iPhone. > Privacy from the government is something most people want. If the government wants my data, I'm not going to build a system that makes it easier for them to get it. You won't have a choice; Apple will build the system and it will be transparent to you and they will only let the government into your phone if they have a warrant. > And finally, you can't ban math. No, but you can make it harder for people to use said math. That's like saying "you can't ban physics! If you try to ban my automatic weapons I'll just 3d print a part that makes my semi-auto gun full auto!" Well, yes. You can do that, physics won't stop you. Your average person, however, won't do that and everyone is better off as a result. > I don't give a fuck who says what, I won't put backdoors in my code, and if someone else does I'll stop using their code and I'll build my own. Well you'll spend the rest of your life living like RMS then because you can't control the whole stack of a phone - it takes millions of man hours to develop and maintain.
    - jki275 7y ago
      Ah so it's an inevitability argument now. You're all over the place. I don't care if you believe that it's inevitable. I don't, and won't live my life that way. Slavery was inevitable once. The holocaust was inevitable once. People standing up against it stops what weak minds believe inevitable. And gun parts are machined, not 3d printed for the most part. The laws against it are directly contrary to our Constitution and a lot of people dedicate a lot of time to working against those laws. But even that isn't math -- you simply can't ban math. The files that describe how to machine those parts -- those are readily available all over the world, even where they're banned... Also, I trust Apple a lot more than I trust the other tech companies, because they've been willing to stand up for the consumer -- other companies don't.
      - umvi 7y ago
        I think it boils down to: I believe it is possible to design a secure system that complies with warrants while otherwise retaining user privacy; you don't. That's okay. Before computers existed police could bust down your door with a warrant and search through the files/mail. I don't see why that should change just because we store files/mail digitally now.

by jki275 7y ago

umvi 7y ago

Who says the government has to manage it? Let Apple manage it so their reputation is on the line. Government just specifies that E2E is breakable with warrant; Apple can implement it how they want to preserve privacy. > And companies are not responsible, that's not how this works. Why not? If a company implements a government requirement poorly they are absolutely responsible for the ramifications, just like they are with existing regulations (like if I made a handheld gaming system that jams radios on accident, I'm responsible for not following FCC regulations properly). > Also, a "weakness of the individual part" is a break That's ridiculous. That's like saying you can't build a bridge out of pure rebar and you can't build a bridge out of pure concrete because individually they are too weak, so therefore you can't build a bridge out of rebar-reinforced concrete.

jki275 7y ago
You can argue about "responsibility" all day long, until my credit card information gets stolen, and then you find out it's a meaningless concept with a corporation. Do you have the money to sue Apple? I don't. Or worse, someone gets killed because of their data being stolen. Maybe you live in a privileged world where that doesn't happen, some of the rest the rest of the world doesn't. If you build a bridge out of concrete with weak rebar, guess what? Bridge falls down, people die. If you build a bridge with shit concrete and great rebar, guess what? Bridge falls down, people die. You've made nearly the perfect analogy for me. Privacy from the government is something most people want. If the government wants my data, I'm not going to build a system that makes it easier for them to get it. And finally, you can't ban math. I don't give a fuck who says what, I won't put backdoors in my code, and if someone else does I'll stop using their code and I'll build my own.
- umvi 7y ago
  Well it's not like you can roll your hardware, software, firmware, etc. You implicitly trust Apple or Google or whoever to keep you secure at some level, so yes, responsibility and reputation matter. Apple pushes back against illegal warrants to keep prying officials from getting into your iPhone. > Privacy from the government is something most people want. If the government wants my data, I'm not going to build a system that makes it easier for them to get it. You won't have a choice; Apple will build the system and it will be transparent to you and they will only let the government into your phone if they have a warrant. > And finally, you can't ban math. No, but you can make it harder for people to use said math. That's like saying "you can't ban physics! If you try to ban my automatic weapons I'll just 3d print a part that makes my semi-auto gun full auto!" Well, yes. You can do that, physics won't stop you. Your average person, however, won't do that and everyone is better off as a result. > I don't give a fuck who says what, I won't put backdoors in my code, and if someone else does I'll stop using their code and I'll build my own. Well you'll spend the rest of your life living like RMS then because you can't control the whole stack of a phone - it takes millions of man hours to develop and maintain.
  - jki275 7y ago
    Ah so it's an inevitability argument now. You're all over the place. I don't care if you believe that it's inevitable. I don't, and won't live my life that way. Slavery was inevitable once. The holocaust was inevitable once. People standing up against it stops what weak minds believe inevitable. And gun parts are machined, not 3d printed for the most part. The laws against it are directly contrary to our Constitution and a lot of people dedicate a lot of time to working against those laws. But even that isn't math -- you simply can't ban math. The files that describe how to machine those parts -- those are readily available all over the world, even where they're banned... Also, I trust Apple a lot more than I trust the other tech companies, because they've been willing to stand up for the consumer -- other companies don't.
    - umvi 7y ago
      I think it boils down to: I believe it is possible to design a secure system that complies with warrants while otherwise retaining user privacy; you don't. That's okay. Before computers existed police could bust down your door with a warrant and search through the files/mail. I don't see why that should change just because we store files/mail digitally now.