It's my thread, I'll shit on it if I like. And "we" perhaps was used incorrectly, but I think you know Canada has similar laws and charters. Being Canadian doesn't make my opinion any less valid although, I agree it is a convenient scapegoat for you.
You are correct sir. I would say Mr. Cook and his marketing team made one fatal error however. They should have tried to keep this as quiet as possible and chose another case to make their stand. Standing firm on the side of a known mass murderer immediately weakens your case with the masses. I don't know a single non-technical person taking Apple's side in this argument. And the technical people that do, seem to do so more as a matter of ideological principle, than one that has actually carefully looked at the circumstances and made an informed opinion.
This isn't a deal breaker. Restrict physical access to the hardware to the Apple campus, or Apple can offer to do the brute forcing themselves and simply provide the raw data afterwards. This is why I've never gotten behind their claim that it "reduces security for everyone". It's complete FUD designed to make you think they are fighting the good fight for the little guy, when any critical thinking human being with any exposure to that company knows it is comlpete and utter BS.
It's important to remember this argument isn't about encryption, but rather what a company and/or individuals rights are with regards to their encrypted data. Apple's horribly designed and implemented anti-theft system was actually enforced by California law. This kill switch on the encrypted data is the problem. Again, this kill switch only exists because Apple apparently selectively decides when they will follow intrusive laws. The kill switch is what Apple was served a warrant to help the FBI navigate, not the encryption.
And Acme Inc has not done anything wrong. They are not criminals. One of their customers is a criminal, but Acme isn't. So why should the state have any way whatsoever to force them to do something?
Because they were presented with a warrant, from an independent judge, to do so. They are free to argue that warrant is unlawful, but there is precidence for asking companies and individuals to cooperate with law enforcement.
And it does work this way. You don't get into an "unbreakable lock" without a warrant. A warrant from a third party legislator that reviews the evidence and determines if there's reasonable cause to believe the information behind the lock can be used to solve or prevent a crime. This is a good check that serves to uphold the constitutional requirement of freedom to privacy for law abiding citizens. One we have been using just fine for centuries.
99% of people in tech--EVERYBODY who does not work with law enforcement and understands the issues--was against the FBI.
This is an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. 99% of "people in tech" were against the FBI? Really? When we're they polled? How we're "people in tech" and "understands the issues" defined? What you are saying simply isn't true. It is a blatent attempt to appeal to an authority that doesn't exist.
I provided a substantive argument why I believed Apple was wrong, with sources to other cases. You provided nothing but a logical fallacy. As a matter of law, the FBI is required to present their evidence to a judge and obtain a warrant. Apple is required to follow the orders of a warrant issued by a judge, unless the warrant is unlawful. This is the argument. If you have something substantive to offer, I'd be glad to accept it for consideration.
Sounds like we should probably work with our government to make sure normal law abiding citizens still have the right to lawfully use Acme Unbreakable locks, while also ensuring we can easily deter the effectiveness of their use in criminal activity. If only we could do this responsibly somehow. I dont know, maybe through presenting special evidence to a third party legislator and getting them to write a special order. Maybe we could call that a warrant? Im just throwing out ideas here.
Key evidence is always physical evidence. That's why search warrants are such an important thing. I could have evidence that your power bill tripled overnight, and show the court the increased heat signature of your house from an arial view during the same time period. However, reasonable doubt would still exist until I could present a pot plant physically pulled from your basement. Key evidence on a phone could be correspondance, pictures, and video.
That's up to the impartial authority issuing the warrant to decide. If your position is that the system is corrupt and judges simply do the bidding of the police agencies, then I think you need to start addressing what you believe to be the actual problem, instead of the imagined symptoms. Why would you think you can fix or prevent a fundamentally corrupt justice system through data encryption? Why would you want to? If the world is as bleak as you portray, I think we have bigger fish to fry.
Could Apple not brute force the phone themselves, and provide the FBI with the data? I understand they have no obligation to do so, under normal circumstances, but a warrant to do so, from an independent judge, essentially becomes that obligation. I've never understood the claim that it's "all or nothing" when it comes to iPhone security. It just doesn't make any sense and reeks of someone trying to play politics.
what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones
This is such an important aspect of the argument, and it's so difficult to find any information on this. I hear this touted over and over again without any substance to back it up. Why would Apple's cooperation result in destroying the security of all their phones? From a technical standpoint, it seems extraordiary to claim that it's "all or none" when it comes to iPhone security and then offer no technical indication why this is the case. If you have any information on this I'd be happy to receive it.
My premise is that when presented with the problem of an unbreakable lock, governments will either find a way to open those locks, or to prohibit the use of those locks, in the name of preventing crime and upholding justice. Can a power like this potentially be used against law abiding citizens? Of course. This is not a new problem, it just has a new medium. We need to ensure that law abiding citizens are protected, while criminals are not. Just like we always have. Do we try to work with law enforcement within the framework of the existing checks and balances we already have? Or do we treat law enforcement like the bad guy and refuse to work with them in any aspect? Each choice has consequences to society. Consequences we must be aware of and willing to accept. The consequences could be new laws, or even drastically redifining the role and effectiveness of law enforcement in our society.
No I don't because you're making a baseless attempt to appeal to authority to validate your opinion on something. Even if the entire population of "people in tech" could be quantified by "those that understand the issue" and could then be polled, it hasn't been done. And even if it had, that still wouldn't be a suitable argument. A better one would be to explain what you believe I "must be missing" in a rational substantive way, rather than relying on intimidation through logical fallacies.
We've already made the choice to limit privacy rights of suspected criminals. Its a core component of the law. We could change that, fair enough. But short of taking drastic measures like that the simple choices boil down to what's stated above.
If the problem is the liberal distribution of warrants, as you suggest, then why not focus efforts on correcting the core problem instead of perpetually trying to manage it's symptoms, and uselessly arguing the ideological implications of such?
Precisely. I posted the following in another comment that I think anyone forming an opinion on this case should be aware of:
Let's assume you purchased an unbreakable lock from Acme Inc. There's reasonable suspicion you've comitted a crime and we need access to your locked items to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute criminals so there are two options:
1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal
One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society. Choose which one you prefer.
At the end of the day, law enforcement needs to be able to do it's job. Like it or hate it, if encryption can't learn to play nice with the law, the only logical outcome is that encryption will cease to exist.
Let's assume you purchased an unbreakable lock from Acme Inc. There's reasonable suspicion you've comitted a crime and we need access to your locked items to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute criminals so there are two options:
1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal
One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society. Choose which one you prefer.
I think there's plenty of evidence that the culture at Apple cares very very little about user freedom. I think, rather, that in the wake of the Snowden revelations Apple has identified an opportunity to run a PR campaign and has taken advantage of it. I think this is a horrible, but not surprising, thing for Apple to do.
One more point (I wish you could edit slashdot comments).
Another precedent for forcing software companies to comply with governments would be the California government requiring anti-theft measures be part of mobile phone software. Of course this is highly ironic considering it's this regulation that is responsible for locking up the phone in question. So it seems Apple is fine with having their "rights" revoked to create this problem, but not to circumvent it. Interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my thread, I'll shit on it if I like. And "we" perhaps was used incorrectly, but I think you know Canada has similar laws and charters. Being Canadian doesn't make my opinion any less valid although, I agree it is a convenient scapegoat for you.
You are correct sir. I would say Mr. Cook and his marketing team made one fatal error however. They should have tried to keep this as quiet as possible and chose another case to make their stand. Standing firm on the side of a known mass murderer immediately weakens your case with the masses. I don't know a single non-technical person taking Apple's side in this argument. And the technical people that do, seem to do so more as a matter of ideological principle, than one that has actually carefully looked at the circumstances and made an informed opinion.
This isn't a deal breaker. Restrict physical access to the hardware to the Apple campus, or Apple can offer to do the brute forcing themselves and simply provide the raw data afterwards. This is why I've never gotten behind their claim that it "reduces security for everyone". It's complete FUD designed to make you think they are fighting the good fight for the little guy, when any critical thinking human being with any exposure to that company knows it is comlpete and utter BS.
It's important to remember this argument isn't about encryption, but rather what a company and/or individuals rights are with regards to their encrypted data. Apple's horribly designed and implemented anti-theft system was actually enforced by California law. This kill switch on the encrypted data is the problem. Again, this kill switch only exists because Apple apparently selectively decides when they will follow intrusive laws. The kill switch is what Apple was served a warrant to help the FBI navigate, not the encryption.
And Acme Inc has not done anything wrong. They are not criminals. One of their customers is a criminal, but Acme isn't. So why should the state have any way whatsoever to force them to do something?
Because they were presented with a warrant, from an independent judge, to do so. They are free to argue that warrant is unlawful, but there is precidence for asking companies and individuals to cooperate with law enforcement.
And it does work this way. You don't get into an "unbreakable lock" without a warrant. A warrant from a third party legislator that reviews the evidence and determines if there's reasonable cause to believe the information behind the lock can be used to solve or prevent a crime. This is a good check that serves to uphold the constitutional requirement of freedom to privacy for law abiding citizens. One we have been using just fine for centuries.
99% of people in tech--EVERYBODY who does not work with law enforcement and understands the issues--was against the FBI.
This is an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. 99% of "people in tech" were against the FBI? Really? When we're they polled? How we're "people in tech" and "understands the issues" defined? What you are saying simply isn't true. It is a blatent attempt to appeal to an authority that doesn't exist.
I provided a substantive argument why I believed Apple was wrong, with sources to other cases. You provided nothing but a logical fallacy. As a matter of law, the FBI is required to present their evidence to a judge and obtain a warrant. Apple is required to follow the orders of a warrant issued by a judge, unless the warrant is unlawful. This is the argument. If you have something substantive to offer, I'd be glad to accept it for consideration.
Sounds like we should probably work with our government to make sure normal law abiding citizens still have the right to lawfully use Acme Unbreakable locks, while also ensuring we can easily deter the effectiveness of their use in criminal activity. If only we could do this responsibly somehow. I dont know, maybe through presenting special evidence to a third party legislator and getting them to write a special order. Maybe we could call that a warrant? Im just throwing out ideas here.
Key evidence is always physical evidence. That's why search warrants are such an important thing. I could have evidence that your power bill tripled overnight, and show the court the increased heat signature of your house from an arial view during the same time period. However, reasonable doubt would still exist until I could present a pot plant physically pulled from your basement. Key evidence on a phone could be correspondance, pictures, and video.
That's up to the impartial authority issuing the warrant to decide. If your position is that the system is corrupt and judges simply do the bidding of the police agencies, then I think you need to start addressing what you believe to be the actual problem, instead of the imagined symptoms. Why would you think you can fix or prevent a fundamentally corrupt justice system through data encryption? Why would you want to? If the world is as bleak as you portray, I think we have bigger fish to fry.
Could Apple not brute force the phone themselves, and provide the FBI with the data? I understand they have no obligation to do so, under normal circumstances, but a warrant to do so, from an independent judge, essentially becomes that obligation. I've never understood the claim that it's "all or nothing" when it comes to iPhone security. It just doesn't make any sense and reeks of someone trying to play politics.
what they did mind officially was being told to destroy the security of all their customers' phones
This is such an important aspect of the argument, and it's so difficult to find any information on this. I hear this touted over and over again without any substance to back it up. Why would Apple's cooperation result in destroying the security of all their phones? From a technical standpoint, it seems extraordiary to claim that it's "all or none" when it comes to iPhone security and then offer no technical indication why this is the case. If you have any information on this I'd be happy to receive it.
My premise is that when presented with the problem of an unbreakable lock, governments will either find a way to open those locks, or to prohibit the use of those locks, in the name of preventing crime and upholding justice. Can a power like this potentially be used against law abiding citizens? Of course. This is not a new problem, it just has a new medium. We need to ensure that law abiding citizens are protected, while criminals are not. Just like we always have. Do we try to work with law enforcement within the framework of the existing checks and balances we already have? Or do we treat law enforcement like the bad guy and refuse to work with them in any aspect? Each choice has consequences to society. Consequences we must be aware of and willing to accept. The consequences could be new laws, or even drastically redifining the role and effectiveness of law enforcement in our society.
No I don't because you're making a baseless attempt to appeal to authority to validate your opinion on something. Even if the entire population of "people in tech" could be quantified by "those that understand the issue" and could then be polled, it hasn't been done. And even if it had, that still wouldn't be a suitable argument. A better one would be to explain what you believe I "must be missing" in a rational substantive way, rather than relying on intimidation through logical fallacies.
We've already made the choice to limit privacy rights of suspected criminals. Its a core component of the law. We could change that, fair enough. But short of taking drastic measures like that the simple choices boil down to what's stated above.
I'm Canadian. So I guess I would have been a nationalist :) The rest of your analogy I don't even think applies.
If the problem is the liberal distribution of warrants, as you suggest, then why not focus efforts on correcting the core problem instead of perpetually trying to manage it's symptoms, and uselessly arguing the ideological implications of such?
It's not a false choice. When key evidence is behind locked doors you need a way to access it. This is precisely why we have search warrants.
Let's assume you purchased an unbreakable lock from Acme Inc. There's reasonable suspicion you've comitted a crime and we need access to your locked items to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute criminals so there are two options:
1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal
One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society. Choose which one you prefer.
At the end of the day, law enforcement needs to be able to do it's job. Like it or hate it, if encryption can't learn to play nice with the law, the only logical outcome is that encryption will cease to exist.
Nice appeal to authority. I see you win the argument.
Let's assume you purchased an unbreakable lock from Acme Inc. There's reasonable suspicion you've comitted a crime and we need access to your locked items to prove it. Society needs to function in a way that we can identify and prosecute criminals so there are two options:
1) The government can petition Acme Inc with a warrant to break your lock when they have reasonable reason to do so,
2) The government can make Acme Inc locks illegal
One of the two will happen because one of the two need to happen to continue to function in a lawful society. Choose which one you prefer.
And the purpose of a battering ram is to remove your lock when there's reasonable suspicion you are a criminal. Criminals have reduced rights.
I think the FBI had a warrant, and Apple has a shitty argument.
Apple is arguing that writing software constitutes free speech. Therefore, forcing them to write software to help solve a crime would be infringing on their free speech. Except, the problem the FBI is encountering was created by Apple complying with a law that required them to write anti-theft software into their OS. Ironic, to say the least.
Also, Apple has no problem cooperating with governments when there's a net benefit to them. And there's tons of precedence that free speech rights can be revoked, within reason, by a court of law, when required by society.
I think there's plenty of evidence that the culture at Apple cares very very little about user freedom. I think, rather, that in the wake of the Snowden revelations Apple has identified an opportunity to run a PR campaign and has taken advantage of it. I think this is a horrible, but not surprising, thing for Apple to do.
Why publish this? The more attention they bring to this, the greater likelyhood someone discovers and fixes the flaw.
I think it's ridiculous Apple chose to make their little PR campaign with this case, but the FBI needs to hold their cards closer to their chest.
One more point (I wish you could edit slashdot comments). Another precedent for forcing software companies to comply with governments would be the California government requiring anti-theft measures be part of mobile phone software. Of course this is highly ironic considering it's this regulation that is responsible for locking up the phone in question. So it seems Apple is fine with having their "rights" revoked to create this problem, but not to circumvent it. Interesting.