5 ms·

> “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” One thing the FBI does not realize, or does not care, is that THEY ARE NOT T

> “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” One thing the FBI does not realize, or does not care, is that THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES THE BACKDOORS WORK FOR. A backdoor is a backdoor. Period. When so much private information is on a single device it's not just about being beyond the law (which is a great reason in and of itself because law enforcement is itself beyond the law). It's about being safe.

opendais 12y ago
Exactly. The FBI's argument is basically: "Leave your front door unlocked. Just in case we want to search you for drugs/obscene material/weapons/etc." I don't know about you, but I don't want to leave my house unlocked 24/7 "just in case" the FBI wants to serve me with a warrant.
- revelation 12y ago
  You're missing the punchline: Apple left the front door unlocked and open, and once they noticed, obviously closed and locked it. Now the FBI complains they can't just go through the front door anymore. Well yes.
  - opendais 12y ago
    I try not to judge the past I suppose.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Except it isn't. When the FBI has a warrant they are legally entitled to break into your house even if you don't want them to. Edit: downvote all you like, but this is a simple factual statement.
  - thirdtruck 12y ago
    Except that we still expect them to break in, not simply waltz through the front door after unlocking with their skeleton key.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Er...no. In the real world they don't always arrive with a SWAT team. Many warrants are served peacefully, and they have even been known to use locksmiths. I don't agree with stereotyping encryption users as if they were criminals, nor do I agree with stereotyping law enforcement as if they were shock troops.
      - NotAtWork 12y ago
        If I used a locksmith to get in to your house without your permission, it would be "breaking in" in colloquial language. Your reply is overly pedantic, when taken in the best light.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        'Many warrants are served peacefully...'
  - opendais 12y ago
    > legally entitled to break into your house even if you don't want them to. You even admit I'm right yet claim I'm not. So I'm kinda confused. The key phrase there is "break in". As in, they acquire access without the consent of the owner. In this case, the "door" is the encryption key which they are expected to acquire and/or break so that they can gain access. A conventional door you can: 1) Get a locksmith to essentially duplicate the essential function of a key to gain access. [Steal the Key] 2) Kick it in. [Brute Force] 3) Convince the owner to cooperate. [Social engineering] They have the same options to acquire an encryption key. The fact it makes their job more difficult isn't relevant. Cash makes their job more difficult as well since its essentially anonymous when handled with gloves. Should we ban cash and gloves too?
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Your original claim was that you were being asked the equivalent of leaving your house unlocked for their convenience, which is a wild exaggeration.
      - opendais 12y ago
        No, it isn't. If I don't have the ability to prevent 3rd parties from entering my house, it isn't a wild exaggeration.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        Of course it is. You keep your front door locked, you might have a lockable screen door and bars on the windows, or a burglar alarm or a number of other security precautions, but I'm pretty sure you don't live in an impregnable fortress or a bank vault. More likely you have a basic level of security that deters crimes of opportunity, perhaps even a serious burglar, and that is sufficient, same as for most people. Now maybe I'm wrong and you live in a decommissioned missile silo or some other super-hardened structure, but to pretend that there's no difference between basic security measures and leaving your front door unlocked is total BS.
        12y ago
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Its more like "Give your house keys and safe combination to BigCorp, so that if we get a warrant for the contents of your safe, we can serve the warrant on BigCorp and more easily covertly execute the warrant without you knowing that it has happened. And try not to worry that no one at BigCorp will ever abuse the fact that they have your house keys and safe combination, or fail in their responsibility to safeguard those items from criminals."
  - opendais 12y ago
    Well, I kinda view giving my keys to BigCorp as leaving the door unlocked. From a privacy standpoint, I think that is also how it works [e.g. 3rd party doctrine]
michaelone 12y ago
Agreed, and it's shocking that this Washington Post article does not raise these points at all, or consult an "expert" that is not repeating the same PR rhetoric. For normal people to understand the issue and take a stance on it both sides should be illuminated. It could have been as simple as including Apple's or Google's original statements as to why they are taking this stance.
- robinhoode 12y ago
  > Agreed, and it's shocking that this Washington Post article does not raise these points at all Dude, the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos. Of course he's going to attack Apple and Google for their phones, while his phone kind of flopped.

opendais 12y ago

Exactly. The FBI's argument is basically: "Leave your front door unlocked. Just in case we want to search you for drugs/obscene material/weapons/etc." I don't know about you, but I don't want to leave my house unlocked 24/7 "just in case" the FBI wants to serve me with a warrant.

revelation 12y ago
You're missing the punchline: Apple left the front door unlocked and open, and once they noticed, obviously closed and locked it. Now the FBI complains they can't just go through the front door anymore. Well yes.
- opendais 12y ago
  I try not to judge the past I suppose.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Except it isn't. When the FBI has a warrant they are legally entitled to break into your house even if you don't want them to. Edit: downvote all you like, but this is a simple factual statement.
- thirdtruck 12y ago
  Except that we still expect them to break in, not simply waltz through the front door after unlocking with their skeleton key.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Er...no. In the real world they don't always arrive with a SWAT team. Many warrants are served peacefully, and they have even been known to use locksmiths. I don't agree with stereotyping encryption users as if they were criminals, nor do I agree with stereotyping law enforcement as if they were shock troops.
    - NotAtWork 12y ago
      If I used a locksmith to get in to your house without your permission, it would be "breaking in" in colloquial language. Your reply is overly pedantic, when taken in the best light.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        'Many warrants are served peacefully...'
- opendais 12y ago
  > legally entitled to break into your house even if you don't want them to. You even admit I'm right yet claim I'm not. So I'm kinda confused. The key phrase there is "break in". As in, they acquire access without the consent of the owner. In this case, the "door" is the encryption key which they are expected to acquire and/or break so that they can gain access. A conventional door you can: 1) Get a locksmith to essentially duplicate the essential function of a key to gain access. [Steal the Key] 2) Kick it in. [Brute Force] 3) Convince the owner to cooperate. [Social engineering] They have the same options to acquire an encryption key. The fact it makes their job more difficult isn't relevant. Cash makes their job more difficult as well since its essentially anonymous when handled with gloves. Should we ban cash and gloves too?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Your original claim was that you were being asked the equivalent of leaving your house unlocked for their convenience, which is a wild exaggeration.
    - opendais 12y ago
      No, it isn't. If I don't have the ability to prevent 3rd parties from entering my house, it isn't a wild exaggeration.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Of course it is. You keep your front door locked, you might have a lockable screen door and bars on the windows, or a burglar alarm or a number of other security precautions, but I'm pretty sure you don't live in an impregnable fortress or a bank vault. More likely you have a basic level of security that deters crimes of opportunity, perhaps even a serious burglar, and that is sufficient, same as for most people. Now maybe I'm wrong and you live in a decommissioned missile silo or some other super-hardened structure, but to pretend that there's no difference between basic security measures and leaving your front door unlocked is total BS.
        12y ago
dragonwriter 12y ago
Its more like "Give your house keys and safe combination to BigCorp, so that if we get a warrant for the contents of your safe, we can serve the warrant on BigCorp and more easily covertly execute the warrant without you knowing that it has happened. And try not to worry that no one at BigCorp will ever abuse the fact that they have your house keys and safe combination, or fail in their responsibility to safeguard those items from criminals."
- opendais 12y ago
  Well, I kinda view giving my keys to BigCorp as leaving the door unlocked. From a privacy standpoint, I think that is also how it works [e.g. 3rd party doctrine]

michaelone 12y ago

Agreed, and it's shocking that this Washington Post article does not raise these points at all, or consult an "expert" that is not repeating the same PR rhetoric. For normal people to understand the issue and take a stance on it both sides should be illuminated. It could have been as simple as including Apple's or Google's original statements as to why they are taking this stance.

robinhoode 12y ago
> Agreed, and it's shocking that this Washington Post article does not raise these points at all Dude, the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos. Of course he's going to attack Apple and Google for their phones, while his phone kind of flopped.