5 ms·

This story was likely published because the companies themselves told them to take a hike, and they are now trying to garner public sympathy. I don't think the

This story was likely published because the companies themselves told them to take a hike, and they are now trying to garner public sympathy. I don't think they are going to get it. Unauthorized intruders, whether or not they have a piece of paper signed by a guy that wears a robe to work, are not welcome in my phone. I hope Apple & Google take a hard line on this, at least until the US government passes a law making it illegal to engineer things in a manner that makes it impossible for companies to comply with search warrants. I'm sure that will come, but hopefully it will take a while.

idiot900 12y ago
I hope you're right. Outside of my tech-oriented friends, most people I've discussed surreptitious electronic government surveillance with are either unconcerned about it or actually for it. And these are highly educated people who should know better.
- chris_mahan 12y ago
  if there was a terror group operating in the US, killing 10,000 children a week in all states with bombs, chemicals, and biological weapons, and you tried to stop the government, police, army, and other federal agencies from doing everything possible to stop that and save the lives of 4 year-old kids, you'd likely find yourself in jail or dead. People in America who grew up on Nintendo and Xbox don't have a clue how stupidly brutal the world can be. This is why these "highly educated people" are "actually for it". I will grant you that these activities should be under the oversight of the US government, State governments, who represent the People of the United States. The FBI is such a federal government agency.
  - rrmm 12y ago
    if.
  - NotAtWork 12y ago
    If I had a pet dragon, I could fly to Europe without paying the airlines. Clearly, it's reasonable for people not to expect to have to pay airlines for travel to Europe.
  - vfclists 12y ago
    If a group of terrorists develop the capability to kill 10,000 children a week, they are probably in league with the same US government. Just a question, why would the terrorists be targeting children in particular? Why not a mix of infants, children, adults, and elderly people? Your scum-sucking interest in over-reaching government intrusiveness is leading you to come up with demented and perverse scenarios focused on children. Dude clean up your mind.
    - chris_mahan 12y ago
      I say that because I have a child.
  - otakucode 12y ago
    If there was a terror group operating in the US doing all you claim, access to their phones would provide us with no protection whatsoever. We have absolute, concrete proof of this thanks to the 9/11 Commission Report. The NSA knew where Mohammed Atta was. They knew exactly what he was planning. And they kept it secret. They are so afraid of revealing their methods and capabilities that there is literally NO tragedy so great that they would be willing to speak up to prevent it. When the CIA and FBI both asked the NSA for their information about Atta, the NSA refused to supply it or even warn them. I think people have a very good handle on how brutal the world can be. In fact, they believe it to be quite a bit more brtual than it actually is. There have been ONE really major terrorist attack in the US in the past century. And having access to every single one of their conversations did not do anything to prevent it. Having separate entrances for pilots and passengers on planes would have prevented it completely, though.
- jfoster 12y ago
  Is there not any rational reason for them to be unconcerned or for it? They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it, that if an algorithm scans over their data that it's no big deal, and that it may lead to some criminals being caught. They can live their entire lives from start to finish, and whether their own communications were ever intercepted will likely have had zero impact on their life. I'm not trying to be dismissive of people who are concerned, just wanting to point out that there are also valid reasons to take the other view.
  - NotAtWork 12y ago
    These same people seem awfully shy when I ask to go through their photos, just to see if they have any using drugs. But that's exactly it: if you leave a gaping hole for the feds to get through I (in the sense of a hypothetical attacker) can go through it too, especially with how easily most federal secrets leak out and the fact that rekeying is essentially impossible for this use.
    - jfoster 12y ago
      Of course they're shy of you going through their photos. They know you personally, and you are a person, not an algorithm. Whilst it is possible that a person may go through their photos as part of mass surveillance operations, they believe it's unlikely to happen. Your second point is true only if the access mechanism is reliant on weak security. It doesn't have to be.
  - otakucode 12y ago
    >They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it That would not be rational. They have no capacity (nor does anyone else) to predict which of their behaviors will be cause for targetting at some point in the future. Additionally, once they are profiled for their 'normal usage pattern', any life changes which cause statistically significant alteration of that pattern are likely to result in scrutiny. For instance, you are currently involved in a conversation on a website called "Hacker News" with people whose backgrounds and motivations you do not know. The likelihood you're NOT connected to someone who is a criminal is probably very, very low. Everyone should expect to be targetted. If not today, then at any point for the rest of your life because all of these stores are maintained forever.
panarky 12y ago
Step 1: Have the stenographers at the Washington Post publish your scary press release as "news" full of emotionally charged hyperbole like "Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile". Step 2: After the next telegenic kidnapping / bombing / school shooting, claim "I told you so" as the perpetrator would have been stopped if not for a secure phone / encrypted chat / requirement to get a warrant. Step 3: 95% of the public demands mandatory backdoors, criminalizing strong encryption, and warrantless dragnet surveillance.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- bthornbury 12y ago
  This is terrifyingly realistic.
tedks 12y ago
>Unauthorized intruders, whether or not they have a piece of paper signed by a guy that wears a robe to work, are not welcome in my phone. In saying this, you are literally placing yourself above any law. Above democracy itself, and in doing so, above all other humans. In realizing this, you should abandon either the concept of democracy, or of your own importance above it. Choose wisely.
- downandout 12y ago
  Apple, Google, EFF, and lots of others disagree with you. The right to use legally available tools to protect our privacy is just as valid and important as the right of the government to prosecute wrongdoers.
- TheWell 12y ago
  Democracy has turned into a sham. Its inadequacy is cracking the world. The signs of it are everywhere. Since Snowden most of us have felt the world become darker. There were suggestions before that of course but since then there has been no doubt that the United States has become malevolent. I think you and I and other people here will be lucky to get to the latter half of the century without being scathed. A hard reboot is on the menu. Choose wisely yourself. Personally I am leaving. There is no hope for reform but to paraphrase The Road, we can carry the fire.
otakucode 12y ago
My guess is more that the DoJ has agreed with their collaborators to help repair their tarnished public images. Shouting loudly about not being able to unlock a phone and get its content is pretty meaningless when they still have total access to everything that ever transits the network to/from that phone. But it will make some people think "good, these companies are finally standing up for us" which reduces the chances that people will look into products and services that offer end-to-end encryption or from companies that aren't as enthusiastically cooperative.

idiot900 12y ago

I hope you're right. Outside of my tech-oriented friends, most people I've discussed surreptitious electronic government surveillance with are either unconcerned about it or actually for it. And these are highly educated people who should know better.

chris_mahan 12y ago
if there was a terror group operating in the US, killing 10,000 children a week in all states with bombs, chemicals, and biological weapons, and you tried to stop the government, police, army, and other federal agencies from doing everything possible to stop that and save the lives of 4 year-old kids, you'd likely find yourself in jail or dead. People in America who grew up on Nintendo and Xbox don't have a clue how stupidly brutal the world can be. This is why these "highly educated people" are "actually for it". I will grant you that these activities should be under the oversight of the US government, State governments, who represent the People of the United States. The FBI is such a federal government agency.
- rrmm 12y ago
  if.
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  If I had a pet dragon, I could fly to Europe without paying the airlines. Clearly, it's reasonable for people not to expect to have to pay airlines for travel to Europe.
- vfclists 12y ago
  If a group of terrorists develop the capability to kill 10,000 children a week, they are probably in league with the same US government. Just a question, why would the terrorists be targeting children in particular? Why not a mix of infants, children, adults, and elderly people? Your scum-sucking interest in over-reaching government intrusiveness is leading you to come up with demented and perverse scenarios focused on children. Dude clean up your mind.
  - chris_mahan 12y ago
    I say that because I have a child.
- otakucode 12y ago
  If there was a terror group operating in the US doing all you claim, access to their phones would provide us with no protection whatsoever. We have absolute, concrete proof of this thanks to the 9/11 Commission Report. The NSA knew where Mohammed Atta was. They knew exactly what he was planning. And they kept it secret. They are so afraid of revealing their methods and capabilities that there is literally NO tragedy so great that they would be willing to speak up to prevent it. When the CIA and FBI both asked the NSA for their information about Atta, the NSA refused to supply it or even warn them. I think people have a very good handle on how brutal the world can be. In fact, they believe it to be quite a bit more brtual than it actually is. There have been ONE really major terrorist attack in the US in the past century. And having access to every single one of their conversations did not do anything to prevent it. Having separate entrances for pilots and passengers on planes would have prevented it completely, though.
jfoster 12y ago
Is there not any rational reason for them to be unconcerned or for it? They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it, that if an algorithm scans over their data that it's no big deal, and that it may lead to some criminals being caught. They can live their entire lives from start to finish, and whether their own communications were ever intercepted will likely have had zero impact on their life. I'm not trying to be dismissive of people who are concerned, just wanting to point out that there are also valid reasons to take the other view.
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  These same people seem awfully shy when I ask to go through their photos, just to see if they have any using drugs. But that's exactly it: if you leave a gaping hole for the feds to get through I (in the sense of a hypothetical attacker) can go through it too, especially with how easily most federal secrets leak out and the fact that rekeying is essentially impossible for this use.
  - jfoster 12y ago
    Of course they're shy of you going through their photos. They know you personally, and you are a person, not an algorithm. Whilst it is possible that a person may go through their photos as part of mass surveillance operations, they believe it's unlikely to happen. Your second point is true only if the access mechanism is reliant on weak security. It doesn't have to be.
- otakucode 12y ago
  >They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it That would not be rational. They have no capacity (nor does anyone else) to predict which of their behaviors will be cause for targetting at some point in the future. Additionally, once they are profiled for their 'normal usage pattern', any life changes which cause statistically significant alteration of that pattern are likely to result in scrutiny. For instance, you are currently involved in a conversation on a website called "Hacker News" with people whose backgrounds and motivations you do not know. The likelihood you're NOT connected to someone who is a criminal is probably very, very low. Everyone should expect to be targetted. If not today, then at any point for the rest of your life because all of these stores are maintained forever.

panarky 12y ago

Step 1: Have the stenographers at the Washington Post publish your scary press release as "news" full of emotionally charged hyperbole like "Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile". Step 2: After the next telegenic kidnapping / bombing / school shooting, claim "I told you so" as the perpetrator would have been stopped if not for a secure phone / encrypted chat / requirement to get a warrant. Step 3: 95% of the public demands mandatory backdoors, criminalizing strong encryption, and warrantless dragnet surveillance.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bthornbury 12y ago
This is terrifyingly realistic.

tedks 12y ago

>Unauthorized intruders, whether or not they have a piece of paper signed by a guy that wears a robe to work, are not welcome in my phone. In saying this, you are literally placing yourself above any law. Above democracy itself, and in doing so, above all other humans. In realizing this, you should abandon either the concept of democracy, or of your own importance above it. Choose wisely.

downandout 12y ago
Apple, Google, EFF, and lots of others disagree with you. The right to use legally available tools to protect our privacy is just as valid and important as the right of the government to prosecute wrongdoers.
TheWell 12y ago
Democracy has turned into a sham. Its inadequacy is cracking the world. The signs of it are everywhere. Since Snowden most of us have felt the world become darker. There were suggestions before that of course but since then there has been no doubt that the United States has become malevolent. I think you and I and other people here will be lucky to get to the latter half of the century without being scathed. A hard reboot is on the menu. Choose wisely yourself. Personally I am leaving. There is no hope for reform but to paraphrase The Road, we can carry the fire.

otakucode 12y ago

My guess is more that the DoJ has agreed with their collaborators to help repair their tarnished public images. Shouting loudly about not being able to unlock a phone and get its content is pretty meaningless when they still have total access to everything that ever transits the network to/from that phone. But it will make some people think "good, these companies are finally standing up for us" which reduces the chances that people will look into products and services that offer end-to-end encryption or from companies that aren't as enthusiastically cooperative.