5 ms·
I understand the hesitation here, but fundamentally this is like trying to close pandoras box. If something is technically possible to do AND governments demand
by BluSyn 5y ago
I understand the hesitation here, but fundamentally this is like trying to close pandoras box. If something is technically possible to do AND governments demand it be done, it will be done. If not by Apple, by someone else.
Rather than complain about it, I am interested in what alternative solutions exist, or how concerns regarding privacy and abuse of this system could be mitigated.
- wmf 5y agoApple beat government spying in the past so I don't see why they can't again.
- Spivak 5y agoIt’s not trying to close Pandora’s box. It’s liability limitation. They’re effectively saying that if you want to distribute CP don’t do it on an iPhone.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoThey're basically saying, that they're watching all your multimedia, to see if maybe you're distributing child porn. This is like doing rectal exams on everyone, every day, because someone might be hiding drugs there.
- ssklash 5y agoI don't understand this argument at all. Look at the Clipper Chip debacle in the 90s. It was technically feasible and the government very much wanted to do it. And the reason they didn't is push back from the public, saying this is a bad idea that can easily be misused, even if it does make some law enforcement things easier. I don't see how this is any different. Sacrificing the privacy of the many to help catch a relatively small amount of (admittedly some of the worst possible) criminals, while simultaneously enabling yet more effective surveillance and oppression by those inclined governments (of which there are plenty) is a pretty terrible idea. Eliminating the 4th amendment or mandating clear walls sure would make the cops' job easier. But no one thinks that's even a remotely good idea.
- djd7duehrj 5y agoThis argument falls on it's head when confronted by reality. Either you have a trustworthy government already that will respect your rights in a slow-rolling fashion that shifts as the dialogue within the courts evolves or you already have a government that doesn't care about you and your laws/desires at all and which will do what it wants anyway. Unless you're in the ladder there's no reason to be so hostile to empowering technologies, especially when they're being used to fight some of the most heinous types of crime.
- pseudalopex 5y agoPower corrupts.
- djd7duehrj 5y agoThe government in your country most likely could already oppress you if it wanted to.
- raxxorrax 5y agoYes, it probably could. And Apple users are helping them to normalize constant surveillance of private information. This is a read permission on the content of you phone. There is literature about how obedience enables totalitarianism. Tons of it. Should be part of any schools curriculum in my opinion.
- trav4225 5y ago> Eliminating the 4th amendment or mandating clear walls sure would make the cops' job easier. But no one thinks that's even a remotely good idea. Yet.
- bigiain 5y agoFrighteningly, there really are people who think that's a good idea. The "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" crowd. And the cops.
- dannyw 5y agoNo, we can complain about it, and we can win. Remember when the government tried to ban encryption in early 1990s? Remember SOPA that the internet killed?
- trav4225 5y agoAnd the Clipper chip!
- no_time 5y ago>what alternative solutions exist, stop trading freedom for security.
- hungryforcodes 5y agoThis is too vague. We need something concrete.