Slashdot Mirror


Google CEO Finally Chimes In On FBI Encryption Case, Says He Agrees With Apple (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes: After Tim Cook's eloquent letter explaining why Apple wouldn't help the FBI get encrypted data from the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, the internet looked to Google to take a similar stand. Now Google CEO Sundar Pichai has posted five tweets that seem to show he agrees with Cook.
Edward Snowden had previously suggested that Google's silence meant Google had "picked a side, but it's not the public's."

20 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Is he really agreeing? by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm glad Sundar is agreeing this is an important issue... however, there are a lot of wiggle words in his phrasing.

    Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy

    Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Soulskill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. While it's nice to see him bring it up, it's definitely a weaker stance than Apple's. Pichai also says being required to enable hacking "Could be a troubling precedent." Well, yes. It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it.

      Users understand that if a company is legally bound to compromise privacy to work with law enforcement, they're going to do it. Nobody at Apple is going to go to jail for obstruction of justice. But it counts for something when they say that's the only way they'll do it, and when they put up a fight in court.

    2. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?

      Yes. It runs counter to their business model. Google's business model is to have access to all of its product's (users) data in order to sell advertising space to its customers (advertisers). Privacy reduces Google's profits.

    3. Re:Is he really agreeing? by BoogieChile · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah! Don't give us that thoughtful, nuanced debate crap! We want flat-out binary statements, black and white bold, simplistic determinations, otherwise who are we going to know who to shake our pitchforks and flaming torchs at?

    4. Re:Is he really agreeing? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well my parent's believe Apple are being a bunch of dicks about this and should just comply. I doubt they are the only ones. While you and me may believe privacy is worth fighting for I bet most companies would rather get a good feeling for the general consensus first. From a pure 'business' perspective that's the right thing to do when not specifically on the spot like Apple is.

      Apple had no good option to go with, spend lots of time and effort trying to make it possible with no return or make this a public case of privacy for their users and the government is 'bad'. Looking at those of course they go 'User Privacy!' as a rallying cry. You need to remember while peopel may run then, a company is a collective entity that is entirely selfish.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    5. Re:Is he really agreeing? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When they *put up a fight*, is it for real, or a publicity/marketing gimmick while the press is paying attention?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Is he really agreeing? by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well my parent's believe Apple are being a bunch of dicks about this and should just comply. I doubt they are the only ones. While you and me may believe privacy is worth fighting for I bet most companies would rather get a good feeling for the general consensus first. From a pure 'business' perspective that's the right thing to do when not specifically on the spot like Apple is.

      Apple had no good option to go with, spend lots of time and effort trying to make it possible with no return or make this a public case of privacy for their users and the government is 'bad'. Looking at those of course they go 'User Privacy!' as a rallying cry. You need to remember while peopel may run then, a company is a collective entity that is entirely selfish.

      To which you point out to your parents Tim Cook's letter, which is linked off the front page of apple.com. In it he details why he's making the stand, and even more importantly, why he's "being a dick". He even addresses terrorism itself. It's a very insightful and thoughtful message that explains why Apple does not want to roll over and be the FBI's pet. And he even details why encryption is not just optional on a smartphone, but mandatory. And heck, Apple did give up the data they could - the iCloud backups, which were obtained legally by a warrant.

      As for the "user privacy" stance - after the Snowden revelations, it's the only stance Apple can take. It's also beneficial, since it's the stance Apple can take to differentiate their products from their competitors.

      But think of it this way - if they didn't care, why did they go through all the trouble of the secure enclave? And to make it an extremely paranoid one at that - giving it the ultimate power to wipe the phone if attacked? (Error 53 is such an attack - perhaps a modified fingerprint sensor is trying to find a way to break the secure enclave code and allow it to run arbitrary code, allowing full access to the system without the system knowing. The secure enclave is paranoid as it should be). It's why later phones rely on it to do the 10 authentication attempts and wipe, and why the enclave enforces the delays between attempts.

      If anything, this issue should go to the Supreme Court to be decided there, putting to rest all those legislation trying to put backdoors in encryption products and other things.

      And yes, there is a chilling effect - it spreads wider than just Apple, but to everyone. Not just iOS, or Android, or Blackberry, but to the very foundations of what the Internet provides. Because it's not just encryption, but efforts like HTTPS Everywhere, Lets Encrypt and other services,

    7. Re:Is he really agreeing? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?

      Probably, considering that violating privacy is their primary source of income. Eric Schmidt actually came out against privacy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Is he really agreeing? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That and dodging tax.

      When you say "dodging"..that implies something illegal.

      As far as I can tell, everything they, as well as any other responsible company does, is perfectly legal. It would not make sense for a company to not take full advantage of the current tax laws.

      Do you yourself not take every deduction you can? Do you voluntarily pay more in tax that you really need to?

      If you don't like the tax loopholes, have your congress-critters change the laws. Hell, make it really easy and transparent.

      You made $x...you pay $y.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Re:It's all well and good... by whipslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a question of honoring privacy rights in general, not a specific person's

  3. Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny after helping with PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... all the big brands are now out in public rediscovering the 4th Amendment.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. Re:It's all well and good... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This opinion is all great until someone hurts someone in your family. Then lets see how much you want to honor their privacy...

    I love how this comment was posted by an anonymous coward.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  5. Re:It's all well and good... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This opinion is all great until someone hurts someone in your family. Then lets see how much you want to honor their privacy...

    Oh, that's such happy horseshit. The government already has all the evidence they need in this San Bernadino case. They're trying to get their hands on a technology and set a precedent. Fuck them.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Satya... by ZeroSerenity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're up.

    --
    For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
  7. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Want to see smoke come out of someone's ears? Ask one of the Tim-Cook-is-a-traitor, we-can-trust-the-government crowd why the FBI shouldn't break into the gun store owner's phone, where the San Bernardino shooters bought some of their firearms and brass, just to make sure nothing hinky is going on with him or his shop. You can watch the disconnect happen in their brain. "BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT..." Exactly! "AND IT WOULDN'T HELP THE CASE..." Exactly!

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  8. Re:Not in China by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm no Apple supporter, but your comparison is (heh) apples-and-oranges. In the US, it's refusing to alter its software to allow the FBI to access private data. In China, it's allowing the government to perform a security audit of its source code - you know, just like every open source project on the planet implicitly allows China to do.

    I mean, by that standard, Linux is co-operating with Chinese attempts to violate the privacy of its users, because it publishes its source code for the government to audit (if they feel like it), too. And honestly, with this admission about the FBI coming into the open, it just goes to show how justified other governments are in demanding to examine US products for signs of government malfeasance.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  9. Re:Rulers of corporations... by Lakitu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As I get older, I'm beginning to hate people who repeat these kinds of analogies more and more. It is simply not analogous. All of the hypothetical scenarios provided are nothing like asking Apple to produce an FBI-specific iOS capable of being brute-forced.

    Apple probably helps law enforcement conduct reasonable searches all the time, but doing so in this case is more analogous to creating some kind of sci-fi time ripple that instantaneously retrofits (future-fits?) every single other person's home, past and future, to be constructed only of balsawood or whatever is easy enough for some knucklehead to brute his way through. Working with the law enforcement agencies in the past in decades past did not also simultaneously blast legislation through the Congress outlawing everyone in the future from having the same kind of housing, or safe, or hidey-hole where they kept their information that was too hard for the feds to get to. That is essentially what the FBI is asking Apple to do here.

    Not only that, but the government has shown that they have no real limit as to what they will ask for. This encryption is too difficult and prevents the FBI from doing their jobs, and why shouldn't they be able to do their jobs when they can just read all of Syed Fuckhead's text messages thanks to the NSA, anyway? Well guess what retards, Apple might never have started default-encrypting everything if it hadn't been made painfully aware to everyone in the world that the NSA was illegally snooping on all of your messages in the first place. The encryption arms race is spearheaded by the NSA, and the FBI should forward all of their crybaby memos to them instead of thanking them for being given the ill-gotten gains from their massive surveillance programs.

    That's also completely ignoring the fact that it might not even be possible for Apple to do what they want done, since it's not clear that Apple could update the OS as requested on an already locked device.

  10. "Finally" Chimes in? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Biased much against Google?

    Cook posted a letter yesterday, Pichai responded today. OH MY GOOD HOW COULD IT TAKE SO LONG!?

  11. Re:It's all well and good... by BadDreamer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If someone in my family gets hurt, I will want vengeance and retribution. I want the guilty to suffer. Death is too kind, I want to see prolonged torture, and I want to take part in it myself.

    Which is why the laws are the way they are. People who are hurt generally want vengeance, not justice. That doesn't mean that it's right to give them that, or that giving them that will make society better. In fact, it will make society worse.

    Just like in this case.

  12. Re:Rulers of corporations... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but if you think this is a 'republican' thing or 'right wing' thing,

    Of course not, but since the Republicans on the Right are crowing about how they're the party of "small government", the hypocrisy is especially galling with them.

    If someone comes out and says that they want bigger government, and mean it, I can deal with that and make an informed decision. If someone comes out and claims to want to have government small enough to drown in a bathtub and at the same time approves of ubiquitous surveillance, infinite military spending, militarized police departments, laws covering women's reproductive organs, the death penalty and the prison-industrial complex, then they're not only complicit in evil but they're bullshitting about it.

    Now, have we cleared that up?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.