Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights, any more than they are morally obliged to break into your house and go through your sh*t.
If there is a court order then there is no breaking of a constitutional right. The constitution forbids searching your stuff without a warrant, but with a warrant / court order you can absolutely be searched.
The problem is that while a court may not be able to order Apple to do work for the FBI a court can probably order Apple to hand over a key. If we get to such a situation then Apple would be morally obligated to do the work for the reason previously described... name that is the only way to ensure the modified iOS will be limited to a device and can not be reused with other devices without another court order.
The absolutely worst case scenario is if Apple refuses to do the work and is forced to hand over a key, allowing the FBI to user their version of iOS anywhere. Letting that happen would be the greatest moral failure for Apple.
They only need the key for digital signature, the FBI has the technical expertise to hack the binaries just like black hats. Its all about the key.
If we end up in the horrible situation where this is going to happen then morally Apple must do it. If Apple makes the changes they can also include code that restricts this version of iOS to the single phone in question. A new court order will then be needed for any other phone. However if the FBI is left to make the changes there will be no such restriction, this version would run on any phone and a court order may not be necessary for its use.
Its a classic negative / negative decision. Both options suck but one sucks significantly worse. Apple is morally obliged to help protect its customers as best it can and that means the FBI can't be the one making the changes.
The government can't give a non-governmental organization like the FSF unrestricted authority over taxpayer funded code since the FSF will selective discriminate against some taxpayers. Also note that the FSF is free to re-write the GPL however it wants, GPL'ing code is a blank check to the FSF.
The only options are government authority or completely non-discriminatory licensing.
If you provide absolute freedom, then you also provide the freedom for some to take away freedoms from others. Releasing binaries without source is just such an act, you are using source which you had the freedom to receive and modify, but you are not extending that same level of freedom to others.
There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. Traditionally the creator of software is under no restriction under the GPL. They are free to dual license the code and use it in proprietary closed software. The GPL really only applies to users, people who modify the code. It allows these users to to re-distribute something they have not created.
The problem with this new context, government funded software, is that all taxpayers are part creators, part owners. The taxpayers paid the developer to write this software for them. So these taxpayers should have the right to use this software in an open or closed manner, as all past creators/owners could do via dual licensing.
And there is a more important problem. The GPL discriminates against some taxpayers. The government can't give an non-governmental organization like the FSS authority over taxpayer funded code. The only options are government authority or no authority.
My code. My rules. That is all the justification I need.
We are talking about coding funded by US taxpayers. It you accept government funding then its not "your" code. The government should be allowed to put a non-restrictive license on things it funds. Much like code from NASA and other agencies that had been released to the public domain.
If you want to go by "your rules" then use only your money, your resources and your time. "Your" not necessarily being singular, plural in the case of a team of private developers too.
The GPL is about the freedom of the code.
The GPL discriminates against some taxpayers. The government can't give an non-governmental organization like the FSS authority over taxpayer funded code. The only options are government authority or no authority.
Mac OS X does *not* have a walled garden. A user is free to install any app downloaded from the internet. Mac OS X will warn them and ask if they really want to do this and then proceed as the user says.
Mining is dominated by ASIC hardware. Application Specific Integrated Circuits.
The ASIC does the computationally hard "work", the hash or scrypt calculations. Regular software handles getting data into and out of the ASIC, submitting the results per some defined protocol. This regular software is not very demanding. A Raspberry Pi can handle the software that run dozens of ASIC mining devices.
Also keep in mind that it is not just that ASIC devices are faster. They also use less electricity. A very small fraction of the power needed by a GPU. Which makes ASIC more profitable.
Do you have any source for the original design increasing the block size?
Googling shows:
"It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade."
My understanding is that the opposite is true. Fees are built into the system which will take over as mining rewards decrease. Fees are now just starting down the path of taking over, as per the original design.
No. The upcoming block halving has not occurred yet (well that was redundant). The fees being currently discussed are for a different purpose, to turn people away from using Bitcoin. To get below the limit by getting people to use Bitcoin less. Turning people away does not sound like the original plan. It sounds like a desperate kludge. Largely relying on fees is something for when Bitcoin is well established, not during its early adoption phase.
There are a number of efforts to leverage the block chain for other applications. It would be interesting to see if these suffer the same issue.
The problem is only specific to this one particular implementation of the block chain concept. Its a bitcoin specific problem. In theory one easy to fix, but possibly complicated by old mining hardware that would need to be replaced. Not sure about the later, maybe current mining hardware is OK with the fix? Its not like this fix was unexpected, it was expected in the original design and discussion of bitcoin.
Its "Classic" as in Satoshi's original design where increasing the block size was expected. Its the current core developers that are deviating from that original. The audience for this debate are the miners who are somewhat technically informed and understand the context. Users are irrelevant to the discussion, only miners control what incarnation of the software gets used.
And yet, they invariably submit to those members of State that have money or political power (which is pretty much interchangeable).
You left out the part where people with weapons overthrow the old State and create a new State more to their liking. Ask the King of France, Russian Czar, etc how well money and political power worked for them. Face it, the monied and the politicians can only get away with what the people tolerate, some people tolerate more than others.
"Sees a potential accident coming" is such a broad statement that it is useless. Expecting a car to yield when it SHOULD yield and continuing on does not automatically make you at fault in an accident.
If it is apparent the other vehicle is not yielding despite a legal requirement to do so, you are in California partly responsible if your press your right of way and a collision occurs. And yes it is a broad and general requirement of drivers.
Sure to improve with this new trend of no painted lines on the road!/sarcasm
Keep in mind that snow often hides paint. Humans and software must be able to deal with unmarked lanes in many parts of the country. Including parts of California.
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.
In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.
anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?
"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions."
http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub...
My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.
Yielding right of way is not the same as requiring someone to avoid accidents. Of course you are expected to follow at a safe distance and allow yourself room to stop. This is to prevent rear end collisions. but if someone runs a red light and pulls out in front of you and your options are A) Make an unsafe lane change and B) plow into the guy then everyone will reasonably expect you to do B. Your requirement to avoid an accident is on the basis of you driving in a safe manner and requiring someone to take any other measure besides braking to avoid an accident is dangerous. In the case of yielding right of way, you are slowing or stopping to avoid an accident.
The CA DMV manual explicitly says to not bunch up, to leave an open space in one's adjacent lane so that one can make such an emergency maneuver. The manual instructs you to do so if necessary and safe to do so. The DMV instructions with respect to avoiding an accident are not only about yielding.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
When one side says "Google said its car's safety driver thought the bus would yield." When a driver sees a potential accident coming the proper response is not to bet the other guy will yield, even if you have the right of way. Sometimes you have to accommodate the other guys illegal move.
Sure, the guy admitted that he made a mistake. I feel like there are other laws that cover this scenario, though.
I believe in California the law requires one to yield to avoid an accident even if you have the right of way.
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.
In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.
anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?
"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions." http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub...
My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.
So based on numerous descriptions I have read, the Google car was in a very wide lane and moved to the right side of the lane to make a right turn. It saw some sandbags blocking the very right side of the lane, so it tried to move back to the middle of the lane.
I don't think there is any such thing as a wide lane where cars are allowed to go side by side. Whether it is marked as such by paint on the road or not the google car had moved into a right turn lane. It is common for parking spots and bike lanes and such to turn into a right turn lane near a corner. So marked with paint or not, the google car seems to have being trying to move from a right turn lane to a traffic lane. Perhaps the lack of paint contributed to the error, the software failed to recognize the right turn lane. An implicit lane even with the lack of paint on the road.
Had you read what I wrote, you'd have seen that there was no lane change, hence the weird situation. I'm not attempting to defend anyone, just explain based on my reading.
If there is a "double wide lane" to accommodate right turns then there is essentially an implicit right turn lane despite the lack of paint on the road. The google car was attempting to maneuver around an obstacle by moving from the implicit right turn lane to the implicit traffic lane.
I've studied the CA DMV handbook a few times over the decades and I don't recall any such thing as a "double wide lane". However I do recall something about space reserved for parkings spots and bicycle lanes can turn into right turn lanes at corners.
Its more general than that. Its a catchall designed to prevent heading into a hazardous situation because you have the right of way. Its a requirement to yield even when other regulations say the other guy should yield to you.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
When one side says "Google said its car's safety driver thought the bus would yield." When a driver sees a potential accident coming the proper response is not to bet the other guy will yield, even if you have the right of way. Sometimes you have to accommodate the other guys illegal move.
Perhaps you missed it but I have repeatedly said that the real problem is that if one judge in one case can order Apple's technical assistance then any judge in any case can order it too.
Yet the simple fact remains. If Apple makes the change then a single instance of the new code is limited to a particular device. If the FBI makes the change then a single instance of the new code can be used on any compatible device. In the Apple scenario a new instance can be created only upon a court order ordering technical assistance from Apple. In the FBI scenario its merely a matter of FBI discretion.
An instance of the new code can be limited to a device, preventing widespread problems if leaked by law enforcement.
Once ANYONE develops a solution and it's used in a single case, legal precedent will ensure it is whored out to every legal office in the country, making the moral aspects or "limitations" of this "one" solution completely pointless, as well as any argument from DOJ about it being limited-use. They're full of shit with that claim, and we both know this. I don't have any warm and fuzzy feelings about Apple being the moral coder here. There's none to be had, and for good reason.
The fact remains that Apple requiring a court order for every device specific instance is a better situation than allowing any law enforcement agency to just load the new code on any phone at its own discretion. With Apple's involvement there is no universal back door, without Apple's involvement there is. Preventing the later is Apple's moral obligation.
And what of the pro-Apple argument that "once you make a backdoor for one device" then you made it for all. The general point Apple and supporters are advocating is that even if they help open one device, they are compromising the security of all iPhone users everywhere.
The argument is factually wrong. Apple could add code that limits the revised iOS/firmware to one specific device. The FBI, the Chinese, the blackouts, etc... could not more alter that code than they could alter the current passcode code. Apple's digital signatures locks down any published code. Any tampering with the code and the digital signature breaks and the iPhone hardware refuses to run the code.
"Made for one == Made for all" is false. However "Done for one == Done for any" is true. The real problem is that if one court in one case can order Apple to supply this technical assistance than any court can do so.
Perhaps you missed it but I have repeatedly said that the real problem is that if one judge in one case can order Apple's technical assistance then any judge in any case can order it too.
Yet the simple fact remains. If Apple makes the change then a single instance of the new code is limited to a particular device. If the FBI makes the change then a single instance of the new code can be used on any compatible device. In the Apple scenario a new instance can be created only upon a court order ordering technical assistance from Apple. In the FBI scenario its merely a matter of FBI discretion.
An instance of the new code can be limited to a device, preventing widespread problems if leaked by law enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple isn't morally obliged to break constitutional rights, any more than they are morally obliged to break into your house and go through your sh*t.
If there is a court order then there is no breaking of a constitutional right. The constitution forbids searching your stuff without a warrant, but with a warrant / court order you can absolutely be searched.
... name that is the only way to ensure the modified iOS will be limited to a device and can not be reused with other devices without another court order.
The problem is that while a court may not be able to order Apple to do work for the FBI a court can probably order Apple to hand over a key. If we get to such a situation then Apple would be morally obligated to do the work for the reason previously described
The absolutely worst case scenario is if Apple refuses to do the work and is forced to hand over a key, allowing the FBI to user their version of iOS anywhere. Letting that happen would be the greatest moral failure for Apple.
They only need the key for digital signature, the FBI has the technical expertise to hack the binaries just like black hats. Its all about the key.
If we end up in the horrible situation where this is going to happen then morally Apple must do it. If Apple makes the changes they can also include code that restricts this version of iOS to the single phone in question. A new court order will then be needed for any other phone. However if the FBI is left to make the changes there will be no such restriction, this version would run on any phone and a court order may not be necessary for its use.
Its a classic negative / negative decision. Both options suck but one sucks significantly worse. Apple is morally obliged to help protect its customers as best it can and that means the FBI can't be the one making the changes.
The government can't give a non-governmental organization like the FSF unrestricted authority over taxpayer funded code since the FSF will selective discriminate against some taxpayers. Also note that the FSF is free to re-write the GPL however it wants, GPL'ing code is a blank check to the FSF.
The only options are government authority or completely non-discriminatory licensing.
If you provide absolute freedom, then you also provide the freedom for some to take away freedoms from others. Releasing binaries without source is just such an act, you are using source which you had the freedom to receive and modify, but you are not extending that same level of freedom to others.
There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. Traditionally the creator of software is under no restriction under the GPL. They are free to dual license the code and use it in proprietary closed software. The GPL really only applies to users, people who modify the code. It allows these users to to re-distribute something they have not created.
The problem with this new context, government funded software, is that all taxpayers are part creators, part owners. The taxpayers paid the developer to write this software for them. So these taxpayers should have the right to use this software in an open or closed manner, as all past creators/owners could do via dual licensing.
And there is a more important problem. The GPL discriminates against some taxpayers. The government can't give an non-governmental organization like the FSS authority over taxpayer funded code. The only options are government authority or no authority.
My code. My rules. That is all the justification I need.
We are talking about coding funded by US taxpayers. It you accept government funding then its not "your" code. The government should be allowed to put a non-restrictive license on things it funds. Much like code from NASA and other agencies that had been released to the public domain.
If you want to go by "your rules" then use only your money, your resources and your time. "Your" not necessarily being singular, plural in the case of a team of private developers too.
The GPL is about the freedom of the code.
The GPL discriminates against some taxpayers. The government can't give an non-governmental organization like the FSS authority over taxpayer funded code. The only options are government authority or no authority.
Mac OS X does *not* have a walled garden. A user is free to install any app downloaded from the internet. Mac OS X will warn them and ask if they really want to do this and then proceed as the user says.
Mining is dominated by ASIC hardware. Application Specific Integrated Circuits.
The ASIC does the computationally hard "work", the hash or scrypt calculations. Regular software handles getting data into and out of the ASIC, submitting the results per some defined protocol. This regular software is not very demanding. A Raspberry Pi can handle the software that run dozens of ASIC mining devices.
Also keep in mind that it is not just that ASIC devices are faster. They also use less electricity. A very small fraction of the power needed by a GPU. Which makes ASIC more profitable.
Do you have any source for the original design increasing the block size?
Googling shows:
"It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade."
https://bitcointalk.org/index....
My understanding is that the opposite is true. Fees are built into the system which will take over as mining rewards decrease. Fees are now just starting down the path of taking over, as per the original design.
No. The upcoming block halving has not occurred yet (well that was redundant). The fees being currently discussed are for a different purpose, to turn people away from using Bitcoin. To get below the limit by getting people to use Bitcoin less. Turning people away does not sound like the original plan. It sounds like a desperate kludge. Largely relying on fees is something for when Bitcoin is well established, not during its early adoption phase.
There are a number of efforts to leverage the block chain for other applications. It would be interesting to see if these suffer the same issue.
The problem is only specific to this one particular implementation of the block chain concept. Its a bitcoin specific problem. In theory one easy to fix, but possibly complicated by old mining hardware that would need to be replaced. Not sure about the later, maybe current mining hardware is OK with the fix? Its not like this fix was unexpected, it was expected in the original design and discussion of bitcoin.
Its "Classic" as in Satoshi's original design where increasing the block size was expected. Its the current core developers that are deviating from that original. The audience for this debate are the miners who are somewhat technically informed and understand the context. Users are irrelevant to the discussion, only miners control what incarnation of the software gets used.
And yet, they invariably submit to those members of State that have money or political power (which is pretty much interchangeable).
You left out the part where people with weapons overthrow the old State and create a new State more to their liking. Ask the King of France, Russian Czar, etc how well money and political power worked for them. Face it, the monied and the politicians can only get away with what the people tolerate, some people tolerate more than others.
A smartphone is a handheld computer. I think even nontechnical people get that.
"Sees a potential accident coming" is such a broad statement that it is useless. Expecting a car to yield when it SHOULD yield and continuing on does not automatically make you at fault in an accident.
If it is apparent the other vehicle is not yielding despite a legal requirement to do so, you are in California partly responsible if your press your right of way and a collision occurs. And yes it is a broad and general requirement of drivers.
Sure to improve with this new trend of no painted lines on the road! /sarcasm
Keep in mind that snow often hides paint. Humans and software must be able to deal with unmarked lanes in many parts of the country. Including parts of California.
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.
In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.
anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?
"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions." http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub... My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.
Yielding right of way is not the same as requiring someone to avoid accidents. Of course you are expected to follow at a safe distance and allow yourself room to stop. This is to prevent rear end collisions. but if someone runs a red light and pulls out in front of you and your options are A) Make an unsafe lane change and B) plow into the guy then everyone will reasonably expect you to do B. Your requirement to avoid an accident is on the basis of you driving in a safe manner and requiring someone to take any other measure besides braking to avoid an accident is dangerous. In the case of yielding right of way, you are slowing or stopping to avoid an accident.
The CA DMV manual explicitly says to not bunch up, to leave an open space in one's adjacent lane so that one can make such an emergency maneuver. The manual instructs you to do so if necessary and safe to do so. The DMV instructions with respect to avoiding an accident are not only about yielding.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
When one side says "Google said its car's safety driver thought the bus would yield." When a driver sees a potential accident coming the proper response is not to bet the other guy will yield, even if you have the right of way. Sometimes you have to accommodate the other guys illegal move.
Sure, the guy admitted that he made a mistake. I feel like there are other laws that cover this scenario, though.
I believe in California the law requires one to yield to avoid an accident even if you have the right of way.
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.
In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.
anyone have a link to the DMV rules about that?
"Never assume other drivers will give you the right-of-way. Yield your right-of-way when it helps to prevent collisions."
http://test-www.dmv.ca.gov/pub...
My understanding is that this is a paraphrasing of what is in the Motor Vehicle Code.
So based on numerous descriptions I have read, the Google car was in a very wide lane and moved to the right side of the lane to make a right turn. It saw some sandbags blocking the very right side of the lane, so it tried to move back to the middle of the lane.
I don't think there is any such thing as a wide lane where cars are allowed to go side by side. Whether it is marked as such by paint on the road or not the google car had moved into a right turn lane. It is common for parking spots and bike lanes and such to turn into a right turn lane near a corner. So marked with paint or not, the google car seems to have being trying to move from a right turn lane to a traffic lane. Perhaps the lack of paint contributed to the error, the software failed to recognize the right turn lane. An implicit lane even with the lack of paint on the road.
I do not believe that most jurisdictions require you to take action to avoid someone else hitting you.
In California you actually are required to do so if it can be done safely.
A car changing lanes does not have right of way.
Had you read what I wrote, you'd have seen that there was no lane change, hence the weird situation. I'm not attempting to defend anyone, just explain based on my reading.
If there is a "double wide lane" to accommodate right turns then there is essentially an implicit right turn lane despite the lack of paint on the road. The google car was attempting to maneuver around an obstacle by moving from the implicit right turn lane to the implicit traffic lane.
I've studied the CA DMV handbook a few times over the decades and I don't recall any such thing as a "double wide lane". However I do recall something about space reserved for parkings spots and bicycle lanes can turn into right turn lanes at corners.
Its more general than that. Its a catchall designed to prevent heading into a hazardous situation because you have the right of way. Its a requirement to yield even when other regulations say the other guy should yield to you.
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
When one side says "Google said its car's safety driver thought the bus would yield." When a driver sees a potential accident coming the proper response is not to bet the other guy will yield, even if you have the right of way. Sometimes you have to accommodate the other guys illegal move.
Perhaps you missed it but I have repeatedly said that the real problem is that if one judge in one case can order Apple's technical assistance then any judge in any case can order it too. Yet the simple fact remains. If Apple makes the change then a single instance of the new code is limited to a particular device. If the FBI makes the change then a single instance of the new code can be used on any compatible device. In the Apple scenario a new instance can be created only upon a court order ordering technical assistance from Apple. In the FBI scenario its merely a matter of FBI discretion. An instance of the new code can be limited to a device, preventing widespread problems if leaked by law enforcement.
Once ANYONE develops a solution and it's used in a single case, legal precedent will ensure it is whored out to every legal office in the country, making the moral aspects or "limitations" of this "one" solution completely pointless, as well as any argument from DOJ about it being limited-use. They're full of shit with that claim, and we both know this. I don't have any warm and fuzzy feelings about Apple being the moral coder here. There's none to be had, and for good reason.
The fact remains that Apple requiring a court order for every device specific instance is a better situation than allowing any law enforcement agency to just load the new code on any phone at its own discretion. With Apple's involvement there is no universal back door, without Apple's involvement there is. Preventing the later is Apple's moral obligation.
And what of the pro-Apple argument that "once you make a backdoor for one device" then you made it for all. The general point Apple and supporters are advocating is that even if they help open one device, they are compromising the security of all iPhone users everywhere.
The argument is factually wrong. Apple could add code that limits the revised iOS/firmware to one specific device. The FBI, the Chinese, the blackouts, etc ... could not more alter that code than they could alter the current passcode code. Apple's digital signatures locks down any published code. Any tampering with the code and the digital signature breaks and the iPhone hardware refuses to run the code.
"Made for one == Made for all" is false. However "Done for one == Done for any" is true. The real problem is that if one court in one case can order Apple to supply this technical assistance than any court can do so.
Perhaps you missed it but I have repeatedly said that the real problem is that if one judge in one case can order Apple's technical assistance then any judge in any case can order it too.
Yet the simple fact remains. If Apple makes the change then a single instance of the new code is limited to a particular device. If the FBI makes the change then a single instance of the new code can be used on any compatible device. In the Apple scenario a new instance can be created only upon a court order ordering technical assistance from Apple. In the FBI scenario its merely a matter of FBI discretion.
An instance of the new code can be limited to a device, preventing widespread problems if leaked by law enforcement.