4 ms·

And this illustrates my problem with Franken and all the far left -- government agencies are trampling over Americans' privacy, and his issue is whether a priva

And this illustrates my problem with Franken and all the far left -- government agencies are trampling over Americans' privacy, and his issue is whether a private company is taking sufficient safeguards to avoid making it easier for the government to trample that privacy. As opposed to, you know, getting government to stop abusing its power. Half of his questions are "what's Apple's legal interpretation of our abusive laws?" It doesn't really matter what Apple's interpretation is. What matters is the secret court's secret decisions about what those laws mean. It's good that Franken voted against renewing the Patriot act, but he should be sending this letter to his colleagues that voted for it, not Apple.

joshowens 13y ago
So true. The patriot act is the real issue here, not Apple and it's tech.
Osmium 13y ago
Or, you know, you could do both. If it's politically achievable to safeguard people's private data from private companies, then why not do that? This is the old "why bother with solving x when people are starving in y?" argument, which has never been too convincing. And, for the record, I'm very interested to know what Apple's interpretation of the law is, because that could be what informs the design of their products.
- kevinpet 13y ago
  No this isn't "how can you worry about iphones while children are starving in Africa". If he had written a letter that only addressed the issues of whether Apple was exposing customers to security problems or future impersonation, then your criticism would be valid. Half his questions are about domestic spying and how the fingerprint reader impacts it. You can read the actual letter here: http://www.franken.senate.gov/files/documents/130919AppleTouchID.pdf http://www.franken.senate.gov/files/documents/130919AppleTou...
  - somebehemoth 13y ago
    "Half his questions are about domestic spying..." Only 3 of the 12 questions mention domestic spying laws. 1 question refers to "any government". Every single question seems legitimate to me. I can't understand why anyone concerned with privacy would be against asking Apple to answer these questions. Your concern appears to be fixated on the "far left" and government spying. I can understand that concern, but I think the role of private corporations handling personal data should not be ignored. Lastly, I'd like to point out that the far left and Al Franken likely did not author the laws referenced. Neither do the far left and Al Franken have the power to change these laws without support of moderates, Republicans, and the American public. Franken is pointing out, in a very open and public way, how these laws could be used to abuse TouchId. If nothing else it shines a much needed light on the relationship of spying laws to private corporations.
- baddox 13y ago
  > If it's politically achievable to safeguard people's private data from private companies, then why not do that? Because a government with the power to do that can and most likely will use that power to do things that aren't good for anyone but themselves and their stakeholders.
  - somebehemoth 13y ago
    But the government already does set rules on how businesses can use their customers' personal data. In the absence of such rules isn't it fair to say that corporations will use their customers' personal data in a way that only serves themselves and their shareholders? Not trusting the government with regards to privacy is understandable; trusting corporations to do the right thing for anyone but their shareholders is not.
    - baddox 13y ago
      You're assuming that the government has a net positive effect for consumers (versus corporations), which I doubt.
pjbringer 13y ago
I too wondered why he would ask Apple rather than the DOJ. If he did the latter, the answer would be that they don't know the details of the implementation, and can't say. Apple is the party which knows right now. So what I would like, is that after Apple comes out with the details, the question gets asked to the government. That would ensure that the government does behave according to the intent of Congress.
cruise02 13y ago
First, government agencies aren't the only ones we should be worried about, even if government abuses are on the front page of HN every day. There are other concerns, and these are questions that Apple should answer. Second, how do you know Franken isn't sending letters to his colleagues? Just because you're losing on one front doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fight on another.
anologwintermut 13y ago
I'd imagine some of the far left thinks its far easier to make it impossible for the government to do these things then to make it illegal (since the government seems to have little problem twisting laws to justify what they do). Moreover, you can and should take both paths at the same time. Plus, even if you curtail what the FBI can get, there will be circumstances when they legally should and will be allowed to get data from a business on an individual(e.g. with a subpoena/warrant). As such it makes since to make verify Apple's assertion that they can't hand over anything. Finally, he's not just asking about the government, he is asking about any third party.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
We can't stop the powerful from lying about what they're doing. We can only potentially detect the lies after the fact. We can decide that since we can't stop the powerful from lying, we won't hand them the tools to further incentivize that lying. It's perfectly reasonable for a polity to decide that no member should build land-mines, even if the most blame lies with the users of land-mines. This is not a public / private, left / right issue.
mikeyouse 13y ago
Franken is one of the good guys... he's probably the strongest proponent of net neutrality in the senate. The letter to Apple came from his role as the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. That committee was created to advocate for consumer privacy, which is probably as important as privacy from the government. How many lives could Google ruin with all of the personal information they have on hand? How many companies have your credit card and social security number on some poorly secured server? As for broader government abuse, Franken introduced a bill to mandate the NSA to reveal the extent of their surveillance, which is supported by just about every privacy-focused organization in the country (ACLU, EFF, HRW, etc.). While he's not as strong of a critic as Merkley or others, pushing things in the right direction is worth supporting.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Franken was a big supporter of SOPA/PIPA when all that was going on. He may be good in some aspects, but I'd hardly call him "one of the good guys".
  - Jgrubb 13y ago
    One of the {relatively} good guys?
rednukleus 13y ago
In what world is Al Franken "far left"?
- EpicEng 13y ago
  This one.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 13y ago
  In the current US political climate, where implementing a Republican health care plan gets you branded a "socialist", obviously.
lazyant 13y ago
to add to this, where's the NRA and supporters of the 2nd amendment regarding NSA/the government recording "everything"? wouldn't they be very vocal if the feds implemented a massive gun registry? (I'm not American so I may be off-base here)

joshowens 13y ago

So true. The patriot act is the real issue here, not Apple and it's tech.

Osmium 13y ago

Or, you know, you could do both. If it's politically achievable to safeguard people's private data from private companies, then why not do that? This is the old "why bother with solving x when people are starving in y?" argument, which has never been too convincing. And, for the record, I'm very interested to know what Apple's interpretation of the law is, because that could be what informs the design of their products.

kevinpet 13y ago
No this isn't "how can you worry about iphones while children are starving in Africa". If he had written a letter that only addressed the issues of whether Apple was exposing customers to security problems or future impersonation, then your criticism would be valid. Half his questions are about domestic spying and how the fingerprint reader impacts it. You can read the actual letter here: http://www.franken.senate.gov/files/documents/130919AppleTouchID.pdf http://www.franken.senate.gov/files/documents/130919AppleTou...
- somebehemoth 13y ago
  "Half his questions are about domestic spying..." Only 3 of the 12 questions mention domestic spying laws. 1 question refers to "any government". Every single question seems legitimate to me. I can't understand why anyone concerned with privacy would be against asking Apple to answer these questions. Your concern appears to be fixated on the "far left" and government spying. I can understand that concern, but I think the role of private corporations handling personal data should not be ignored. Lastly, I'd like to point out that the far left and Al Franken likely did not author the laws referenced. Neither do the far left and Al Franken have the power to change these laws without support of moderates, Republicans, and the American public. Franken is pointing out, in a very open and public way, how these laws could be used to abuse TouchId. If nothing else it shines a much needed light on the relationship of spying laws to private corporations.
baddox 13y ago
> If it's politically achievable to safeguard people's private data from private companies, then why not do that? Because a government with the power to do that can and most likely will use that power to do things that aren't good for anyone but themselves and their stakeholders.
- somebehemoth 13y ago
  But the government already does set rules on how businesses can use their customers' personal data. In the absence of such rules isn't it fair to say that corporations will use their customers' personal data in a way that only serves themselves and their shareholders? Not trusting the government with regards to privacy is understandable; trusting corporations to do the right thing for anyone but their shareholders is not.
  - baddox 13y ago
    You're assuming that the government has a net positive effect for consumers (versus corporations), which I doubt.

pjbringer 13y ago

I too wondered why he would ask Apple rather than the DOJ. If he did the latter, the answer would be that they don't know the details of the implementation, and can't say. Apple is the party which knows right now. So what I would like, is that after Apple comes out with the details, the question gets asked to the government. That would ensure that the government does behave according to the intent of Congress.

cruise02 13y ago

First, government agencies aren't the only ones we should be worried about, even if government abuses are on the front page of HN every day. There are other concerns, and these are questions that Apple should answer. Second, how do you know Franken isn't sending letters to his colleagues? Just because you're losing on one front doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fight on another.

anologwintermut 13y ago

I'd imagine some of the far left thinks its far easier to make it impossible for the government to do these things then to make it illegal (since the government seems to have little problem twisting laws to justify what they do). Moreover, you can and should take both paths at the same time. Plus, even if you curtail what the FBI can get, there will be circumstances when they legally should and will be allowed to get data from a business on an individual(e.g. with a subpoena/warrant). As such it makes since to make verify Apple's assertion that they can't hand over anything. Finally, he's not just asking about the government, he is asking about any third party.

JabavuAdams 13y ago

We can't stop the powerful from lying about what they're doing. We can only potentially detect the lies after the fact. We can decide that since we can't stop the powerful from lying, we won't hand them the tools to further incentivize that lying. It's perfectly reasonable for a polity to decide that no member should build land-mines, even if the most blame lies with the users of land-mines. This is not a public / private, left / right issue.

mikeyouse 13y ago

Franken is one of the good guys... he's probably the strongest proponent of net neutrality in the senate. The letter to Apple came from his role as the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. That committee was created to advocate for consumer privacy, which is probably as important as privacy from the government. How many lives could Google ruin with all of the personal information they have on hand? How many companies have your credit card and social security number on some poorly secured server? As for broader government abuse, Franken introduced a bill to mandate the NSA to reveal the extent of their surveillance, which is supported by just about every privacy-focused organization in the country (ACLU, EFF, HRW, etc.). While he's not as strong of a critic as Merkley or others, pushing things in the right direction is worth supporting.

mikeash 13y ago
Franken was a big supporter of SOPA/PIPA when all that was going on. He may be good in some aspects, but I'd hardly call him "one of the good guys".
- Jgrubb 13y ago
  One of the {relatively} good guys?

rednukleus 13y ago

In what world is Al Franken "far left"?

EpicEng 13y ago
This one.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 13y ago
In the current US political climate, where implementing a Republican health care plan gets you branded a "socialist", obviously.

lazyant 13y ago

to add to this, where's the NRA and supporters of the 2nd amendment regarding NSA/the government recording "everything"? wouldn't they be very vocal if the feds implemented a massive gun registry? (I'm not American so I may be off-base here)