Slashdot Mirror
Tim Cook: "Weakening Encryption Or Taking It Away Harms Good People"
Patrick O'Neill writes: Over the last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook has repeatedly made headlines as a spearpoint in the new crypto wars. As FBI director James Comey pushes for legally mandated backdoors on encryption, Cook has added default strong encryption to Apple devices and vocally resisted Comey's campaign. Echoing warnings from technical experts across the world, Cook said that adding encryption backdoors for law enforcement would weaken the security of all devices and "is incredibly dangerous," he said last night at the Electronic Privacy Information Center awards dinner. "So let me be crystal clear: Weakening encryption or taking it away harms good people who are using it for the right reason."
I mean, this is the same guy who wants to effectively "take away" the ability of users to write their own code on their own machines, sure, but how's that even accomplished.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Obama - "Only bad people use encryption"
#3 - You rely upon Apple maintaining and respecting your privacy
Tim Cook didn't address Apple's real privacy problem
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm sure I'll take a beating for this, but I wonder if Cook's being gay -- and not being completely "out" until relatively recently -- have some influence on this thinking about privacy?
If you think about it, someone who is gay and had been less than publicly out about it has had a period of their life where they were pretty intense about guarding their personal privacy, especially someone in a high profile corporate job where there are plenty of people inside and outside of the company who would want to take you down.
And not to say that his homosexuality is the only explanation, he's obviously intelligent and presents the case for privacy and encryption in principled, intellectual terms.
Sure, it doesn't explain everything. Straight CEOs also support encryption and not always because they have secret drug/hooker/mistress/etc issued to hide, too.
But it's also works as a counter-explanation, CEOs who may not have had a deep interest in their personal privacy may have less personal association with privacy and may fall for the trap of "I have nothing to hide" and "It only helps criminals" or other deferential logic where they see granting government access as reasonable.
Well, wouldn't want to keep "Your Snarky-ness' waiting. Here you go. Google supplies many, many, many more.
Intruder shot by 73-year-old: http://www.cbs46.com/story/263...
84-year-old Richmond woman shoots intruder: http://abc7news.com/archive/79...
82-year-old woman kills 2 teens who broke into her home: http://news.aazah.com/content/...
'Not Here': 53-year-old woman shoots intruder: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07...
Yeah, go ahead, take away Grandma's only effective defense. Humoring your hoplophobia is much more important than Grandma's life, after all, right?
I don't typically resort to name-calling, but in this case I must call it like I see it and point out that you, Sir, are a moron.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.