3 ms·

The arguments in this article are hinged on one crucial premise: Apple stills owns your device even after selling it to you. This is different from gmail where

The arguments in this article are hinged on one crucial premise: Apple stills owns your device even after selling it to you. This is different from gmail where your data is on servers owned by google. The analogy to this premise is that the producers of a safe that they sell to you must be able to provide the government a key to the safe. This clearly does not make sense, and neither does requiring Apple to always have a backdoor to your device.

nl 12y ago
The arguments in this article are hinged on one crucial premise: Apple stills owns your device even after selling it to you. Hu? That idea isn't even mentioned in the article, and it seems entirely irrelevant. The analogy to this premise is that the producers of a safe that they sell to you must be able to provide the government a key to the safe. This clearly does not make sense.. It may not make sense to you, but key escrow is a thing both for encryption keys[1] and for physical keys[2]. I agree there are pretty serious problems in both cases [1] This is basically what happens in iOS 6 and below: Apple has a key they use to unlock the device. Another example is the aborted Clipper chip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip [2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/07/physical_key_es.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/07/physical_key_...
- golemotron 12y ago
  The point is that when someone sells you a thing, they should no longer be responsible to someone else for it. You should be responsible. It is now your thing.
  - nl 12y ago
    Oh, I see what you are saying. That's an argument that isn't supported in the physical world, and one that isn't made in the article. In this case it is more similar to car manufacturer being asked under warrant to produce a new electronic key for a car. They have specialized skills and tools that allow them to do that, as did Apple prior to iOS 8. No one is making the argument that Apple retain ownership of the device. (To be clear - I think Apple is doing the right thing here. But there is no point in trying to confuse the issue with inaccurate arguments)

nl 12y ago

The arguments in this article are hinged on one crucial premise: Apple stills owns your device even after selling it to you. Hu? That idea isn't even mentioned in the article, and it seems entirely irrelevant. The analogy to this premise is that the producers of a safe that they sell to you must be able to provide the government a key to the safe. This clearly does not make sense.. It may not make sense to you, but key escrow is a thing both for encryption keys[1] and for physical keys[2]. I agree there are pretty serious problems in both cases [1] This is basically what happens in iOS 6 and below: Apple has a key they use to unlock the device. Another example is the aborted Clipper chip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip [2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/07/physical_key_es.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/07/physical_key_...

golemotron 12y ago
The point is that when someone sells you a thing, they should no longer be responsible to someone else for it. You should be responsible. It is now your thing.
- nl 12y ago
  Oh, I see what you are saying. That's an argument that isn't supported in the physical world, and one that isn't made in the article. In this case it is more similar to car manufacturer being asked under warrant to produce a new electronic key for a car. They have specialized skills and tools that allow them to do that, as did Apple prior to iOS 8. No one is making the argument that Apple retain ownership of the device. (To be clear - I think Apple is doing the right thing here. But there is no point in trying to confuse the issue with inaccurate arguments)