Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Security Expert Joined the ACLU To Tackle 'Authoritarian Fever' (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Apple security expert Jon Callas, who helped build protection for billions of computers and smartphones against criminal hackers and government surveillance, is now taking on government and corporate spying in the policy realm. Jon Callas is an elder statesman in the world of computer security and cryptography. He's been a vanguard in developing security for mobile communications and email as chief technology officer and co-founder of PGP Corporation -- which created Pretty Good Privacy, the first widely available commercial encryption software -- and serving the same roles at Silent Circle and Blackphone, touted as the world's most secure Android phone.
As a security architect and analyst for Apple computers -- he served three stints with the tech giant in 1995-1997, 2009-2011, and 2016-2018 -- he has played an integral role in helping to develop and assess security for the Mac and iOS operating systems and various components before their release to the public. His last stretch there as manager of a Red Team (red teams hack systems to expose and fix their vulnerabilities) began just after the FBI tried to force the tech giant to undermine security it had spent years developing for its phones to break into an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters. But after realizing there's a limit to the privacy and surveillance issues technology companies can address, Callas decided to tackle the issues from the policy side, accepting a two-year position as senior technology fellow for the American Civil Liberties Union. Callas spoke to Motherboard about government backdoors, the need for tech expertise in policymaking, and what he considers the biggest challenge for the security industry.
As a security architect and analyst for Apple computers -- he served three stints with the tech giant in 1995-1997, 2009-2011, and 2016-2018 -- he has played an integral role in helping to develop and assess security for the Mac and iOS operating systems and various components before their release to the public. His last stretch there as manager of a Red Team (red teams hack systems to expose and fix their vulnerabilities) began just after the FBI tried to force the tech giant to undermine security it had spent years developing for its phones to break into an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters. But after realizing there's a limit to the privacy and surveillance issues technology companies can address, Callas decided to tackle the issues from the policy side, accepting a two-year position as senior technology fellow for the American Civil Liberties Union. Callas spoke to Motherboard about government backdoors, the need for tech expertise in policymaking, and what he considers the biggest challenge for the security industry.
Too late.
I knew I kept a bookmark to this Twitter thread for a reason.
It's simply a list of the privacy debacles that have occurred under Apple's watch.
Since I know people won't bother reading the link (even though it's to Twitter, so it's not going to be that long) it includes things like Accuweather tracking Apple users' locations even with location services disabled, Uber's special exemption that let them spy on every app running on the phone, Apple uploading all your call logs and SMS messages to their servers without permission, and Apple allowing third party apps to upload your contacts to their servers without permission. And those are only some of the more recent privacy violations Apple has been caught either helping or allowing.
You can install non-Apple-approved apps on an iPhone, right?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
- While the government can *theoretically* throw you in prison/Gitmo if it misinterprets your intercepted texts to Mom as coded threats to blow up the White House, the odds of it happening are infinitesimal and the procedure for doing so is long and tedious. In fact there's no example that I'm aware of of anything of the sort happening. The government can't do a single thing to you unless you have (or it thinks you have) explicitly committed a crime. Meanwhile tech companies can and eagerly will summarily and mercilessly financially ruin you and effectively banish you from human interaction if they simply don't like your opinions. While this isn't as bad as getting thrown in jail, the odds of it actually happening are infinitely greater, so the actual expected damage is higher.
- Government is at least theoretically hamstrung by the 1st/4th amendments, while big tech companies get to hide behind the "private company" excuse. (No the constitution isn't going to stop the government long-term, but it at least slows them down and puts them at a competitive disadvantage.) Also, as always massive bureaucracy makes the government slower/worse than the private sector at anything it tries to do.
- Google/Facebook are actively and proudly already using their power to manipulate the public's beliefs/emotions/behaviors. The government does the same, but "influencing" people via customized algorithmic manipulation of the social media feeds that they're obsessively staring at 10 hours a day is much more effective than just feeding some bullshit to gullible buzzfeed reporters now and then.
Taken as a whole, Google probably already has more raw power than all but a tiny handful of world governments (if even that many), with virtually no effective checks on its power or ambition going forward.
Sounds like a snowflake is offended.
She/he is 100% correct. So your AC nan I snowflake crap don't hold water. Go away.
Caution: Contents under pressure
The ACLU does not have a rigid policy for all of its members. So just because a few members are abandoning the civil-rights part of the oganization does not mean that the organization itself has abondoned those ideals. Also, don't believe everything you read from the right-of-center news mill, it is a popular tactic to stick "ACLU" in headlines because it's good for click-bait. There's a lot of fake news out there that doesn't hold up when examined; just because a headline matches your preconcieved bias doesn't mean it's accurate.
Help for US law enforcement?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Former ACLU legal director and Berkeley law professor John A. Powell recently told a reporter from the New Yorker that free speech rules in the United States fail to weigh the value of speech against the harms that speech can cause, and argued that we ought to regulate speech that can cause P.T.S.D. and "stereotype threat."
An internal company briefing produced by Google and leaked argues that due to a variety of factors, including the election of President Trump, the âoeAmerican traditionâ of free speech on the internet is no longer viable.
It's a real problem and it's only getting worse.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Do facts matter, or does political leaning of the one who says matter?
The process I described above about modern left is literally about the latter. Facts are irrelevant, all that matters is societal power. Which makes facts irrelevant. Which is why you made the statement you did. It was irrelevant to you that his link presented a factual argument. All that mattered was that the one who articulated the argument was against your views.
That's an adult hominem fallacy, not an argument. Moreover it was CNN, MSNBC, and all the other "legitimate" media who lied about those catholic school kids who were minding their own business when adults started messing with them. Lied their assess off.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Do facts matter,
They do - that's why Breitbart doesn't.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Errm, that article starts with a lie: "Last week, the NRA kept defending gun rights" - not if you aren't white. Or more to the point: not if you aren't a gun maker.
The rights they are defending are available to nonwhites as well. Less available, granted, since the cops are more likely to execute them for exercising them, but they are not preserved for whites and/or corporations only.
With that said, I'd like to see more black people be counted as owning firearms, and see what the NRA thought about that. It would probably be hilarious.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He does have a point. The ACLU used to sort of proudly speak about defending the Nazi party's right to march in Skokie, since they weren't technically breaking any laws.
Would they do that now? no.
They used to be strictly civil liberties, regardless of the person being defended. The whole disagreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it. They now have a biases agenda in this respect.
If I find an article from an unreliable source, but the information presented is a link to a reputable source, I don't care.
Yeah, not so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The left has started eating the left, those who don't follow the exact script are out. Disagree with non-binary gender? heretic! Someone accuses you of sexual misconduct? Blasphemer! It's like the French Revolution all over again. Dershowitz supported most modern liberal ideals until the left went rabidly anti-Israel, and he saw the writing on the wall.
Errm, that article starts with a lie: "Last week, the NRA kept defending gun rights" - not if you aren't white. Or more to the point: not if you aren't a gun maker.
The rights they are defending are available to nonwhites as well
But they aren't defending them when it's about non-whites using them. Might as well just push sales of guns like they are supposed to as the marketing arm of gun makers, instead of bringing racism to the mix.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
There are better arguments. “No one is disputing how the courts have ruled on this,” john a. powell, a Berkeley law professor with joint appointments in the departments of African-American Studies and Ethnic Studies, told me. “What I’m saying is that courts are often wrong.” Powell is tall, with a relaxed sartorial style, and his manner of speaking is soft and serenely confident. Before he became an academic, he was the national legal director of the A.C.L.U. “I represented the Ku Klux Klan when I was in that job,” he said. “My family was not pleased with me, but I said, ‘Look, they have First Amendment rights, too.’ So it’s not that I don’t understand or care deeply about free speech. But what would it look like if we cared just as deeply about equality? What if we weighed the two as conflicting values, instead of this false formalism where the right to speech is recognized but the harm caused by that speech is not?”
Yiannopoulos and many of his defenders like to call themselves free-speech absolutists, but this is hyperbole. No one actually believes that all forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment. False advertising, child pornography, blackmail—all are speech, all are illegal. You’re not allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, make a “true threat,” or incite imminent violence. These are all exceptions to the First Amendment that the Supreme Court has made—made up, really—over time. The boundaries can and do shift. In 1940, a New Hampshire man was jailed for calling a city marshal “a damned Fascist.” The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the words were not protected by the First Amendment, because they were “fighting words,” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
Are some of Yiannopoulos’s antics—say, his attempts to intimidate undocumented and transgender students—closer to fighting words than to intellectual discourse? Maybe. But the fighting-words doctrine has fallen out of favor with the courts. In 2006, the Westboro Baptist Church picketed a soldier’s funeral, carrying signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “You’re going to Hell.” Even factoring in almost seven decades of epithet inflation, this would seem more injurious than “damned Fascist.” And yet the Supreme Court ruled that the signs were protected by the First Amendment.
In the nineteen-seventies, when women entered the workplace in large numbers, some male bosses made salacious comments, or hung pornographic images on the walls. “These days, we’d say, ‘That’s a hostile workplace, that’s sexual harassment,’ ” powell said. “But those weren’t recognized legal concepts yet. So the courts’ response was ‘Sorry, nothing we can do. Pornographic posters are speech. If women don’t like it, they can put up their own posters.’ ” He drew an analogy to today’s trolls and white supremacists. “The knee-jerk response is ‘Nothing we can do, it’s speech.’ ‘Well, hold on, what about the harm they’re causing?’ ‘What harm? It’s just words.’ That might sound intuitive to us now. But, if you know the history, you can imagine how our intuitions might look foolish, even immoral, a generation later.”
Because it's The New Yorker it takes way too many words to say anything, but the point abut the legality of "fighting words" is interesting. I didn't know that speech which is intended to provoke is not protected. Despite the Westboro decision, this is apparently still true.
And yes: one person's right is another person's obligation, that's an acknowledged truth. "No right without its duties, no duty without its rights." So the value of any right needs to be weighed against the harm that it causes. (Not the harm that it may cause, it always causes harm.)
So facts become something other than facts if [people I disagree with] post them?
See, this is the point where utter insanity of modern leftism kicks in. It's not the facts. It's who says them. If wrong person says them, facts aren't facts anymore, regardless of their merits.
In my youth, this sort of insanity was too much even for really far right wing people in the media. Nowadays, it's a mainstream view on the left. Which is exactly what we saw with the recent narrative on the maga hat kid from Catholic school. The fact that there were multiple videos of the event from different view points was irrelevant, because all of those videos were posted by [people who disagreed with mainstream leftist narrative]. Therefore, they weren't facts, while claims of the [people lionised by mainstream leftist narrative] were facts.
So facts become something other than facts if [people I disagree with] post them?
If they are indeed fact, you could post from some other source that sole reason for existence isn't to spread the opposite of facts. Until then, no facts for you, Nazi.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Are you sure you want to stick to your claim of "dissent from mainstream = nazi"?
Because overuse of this particular word aside, national socialists are in fact well documented for claiming that "dissent from mainstream = enemy of the people".