The fact that Apple is fighting for encryption where it's possible to potentially win and not where it isn't is not a conflict of interest with their supposed goal of increasing data security. Smart people pick their battles, they don't often act entirely unilateral or ideologically and attempt to apply one solution to all case. Instead you craft a solution out of the possible variables while predicting reasonable outcomes.
Apple decided now is a good time to fight for encryption, in the US. I'm sure if Apple could make world law they would change a lot about China, but that's hardly their position in the world. They also have that silly legal obligation to stockholders to not block/ignore trillion dollar markets due to ideological/governmental or political differences of opinion.
So.. actually there is no abnormal hypocrisy to see today. Just the normal ones, like people being more worried about their iCloud data than the near slave labor and inhumane conditions used to make those fabulous phones. It's privacy vs slavery via fiscal inequality, but the slavery is really far away, so yay privacy! I guess I will take a win if I can get one, but to me it's really not an issue that deserves national or global attention like it has gotten.
There can't be one universal privacy model when you have so many different governments. On top of that laws are dynamic, some nations will require backdoors, some could ban any end to end encryption since it interferes with their justice system. However.. the reality here is that 99% of the data out there is worthless or soon to worthless. It's not as important as it seems to have end to end encryption or for a government to have the capacity to spy. Nobody is actually as important as they think and nobody is more important than the nation. You should always expect that government can flip on mass spying programs or change laws as they see fit to meet changing times.
Everytime terrorism or war threatens people, they will surrender a certain level of rights and privacy based on how threatened they feel. Fear is quite motivating stuff and as solid as the support for privacy may seem at any one day, it can quickly swing with full public opinion suggesting we allow more spying. Certainly 911 is not the last time this will happen in significant way.
The point is whatever changes we make, whatever protection we think we have, we cannot bet on them. You cannot ever fully trust remotely stored data as much as you can locally stored data, nor can you fully trust a modern OS opensource or not. You have to accept the limits of immature technology.Putting too much data into the severs of google, ms and apple is, in itself, a horrible security and privacy model. If you think Apple making a stand matters, your missing the bigger picture. Apple, MS and Google are all data mining you and their concept of security and the convent use of the cloud is just a huge security risk.
The other half of that is that you should never have anything that private on any of those platforms and your data probably isn't important to anyone anyway. If your data truly was important you'd never have put it on the cloud anyway. MS, Apple and Google are still fighting resistance to features and cloud storage that they would love customers to want and grow to need. Their stance against the FBI is quite convenient from the perspective of boosting people's confidence in cloud services. Of course, the reality is that the android platform is probably the most insecure mass used platform on Earth right now. Security and privacy means shit when you allow and app access to all that with one click or even without a click.
I would say most of these platforms are barely even secure enough to need end to end encryption considering how often they get exploited. This is the NSA/FBIs real problem, they have no idea who to actually spy on. They tried mass data collection but just wound up with piles of data and no good algorithms to pinpoint terrorists. In many ways the program will wind up being pretty harmless, ineffective and not rea
I don't see where we have enough data to make such an assumption. The universe is 13 billion years old and we've been looking at it seriously for a few hundreds years, most of which time we did very little until modern science allowed it.
You can come up with all the models you want, but they are based on 5% understand of the universe. To us that 5% might be 100%, but it's still 5% in the face of reality and things like modeling an entire universe over billions of years.
If we can't model weather or climate, we can't model a universe down to 13 billion years even if we allow ourselves great margins of error. The margin of accuracy would be many times lower than any margins of error because your using a dataset that simply does not contain the necessary information. We really aren't there on many fields, including just straight brain power. We can't see that far, we don't organize our data well enough, time is not on our side because we've only recorded the universe with real accuracy for a few decades.
Anyone who thinks they can take a couple decades of data and quantify the universe with it... is stupid.
The problem is much larger than just that. He needs to pull a nearly infinite amount of data to create a model that accurate and as you say with planets, well we can't see them. It doesn't stop there though. A model of the universe has to show how galaxies formed and we don't anything even close to accurate information no less ass the varying instances.
When it comes to astro physics we often hinge everything on a very few data sets. Basically thats all they have and they get paid to some up with something. We can't have generations of scientists openly admitting they've really not significantly professed because they've hit an information gathering limit that they probably won't overcome anytime soon or perhaps ever.
Truth is like the speed of light. The closer you get to it the more exponentially harder it becomes to achieve it.
It is not mathematically impossible because of inflation.
The universe is not consistent or disbursed in a way that we understand. That means we don't understand much about expansion/inflation. We honestly don't even know what caused it or perhaps what continues to make it go. The top assumption is nothing more than a big explosion more or less formed everything. It's a pretty weak theory, but it does help explain expansion. All too often we think of The Big Bang as explaining how the universe was created. In reality all it does is create one of many plausible means to explain an ever expanding universe which MAY have originated in a single spot. There is absolutely no proof of the single origin other than background radiation which by no means proves anything as grand as a singularity exploding into a universe.
So.. that's some perspective on our current actual knowledge of things. We don't honestly know how large the universe is, how big it is, where it started or what keeps it going. This means that no model we create using extremely unfinished theories is going to mean a damn thing in the application it's been used for.
However, it is possible that this is the only planet that ever developed life. It's not just about X amount of stars. It's about time passed also and our position in the expansion. We are, by our understanding, an early planet and only so many planets can ever be early planets in a singularity based universe. It's possible that our models are very very far off because we almost always assume that life will be distributed as matter has been, but of course there is zero proof of that currently.
Given we've only thoroughly looked at an almost infinitely small section of the universe for a period of time that is nothing more than a few hundreds years we should not expect to already have the required information to model the universe. Unfortunately most theoretical physics winds up being a complete waste of time, neither proving anything or disproving anything, rather just making wild imaginative assumptions.. or in this case not imaginative at all.
It is possible we are the only planet to develop life, yes. However, it's vastly more possible that we are just the only life we've detected in the window of time that we happen to exist in one tiny galaxy which mankind will almost certainly never even remotely explore.. in a universe filled with galaxies, many much larger than our own.
We can be sure there are many key variable which we simply don't have in order to model something so very specific. Stuff like this is a sad waste of super computer time. It pretty clear we don;'t know the laws of physics that govern the universe and one law out of place rendered over 13 billion years is enough to completely change your results, no less we've probably not yet mastered even a single aspect of physics.
We don't understand how atoms work or even interact at a very precise level. For that matter the entire universe appears to move underneath us with each measurement and we really have no idea why. Making a model so complex with so little accurate data seems like a waste of time. Whatever you think you learned you really can't be confident in at all and even if it came up with one earth, that's means next to nothing.
The one good part about this is that the scientists may at least be honest enough to not have manipulated the data to get the result he wanted.. and that's always good. Using it to suggest there is only one earth however is complete bunk BS.
If all the smart people are in in hell then that's where everyone else will want to be too. You'll need our internet and smartphones to keep your tiny little hamster brains occupied. Ignore is the only real demon and all sane people know that deep down. Religion is just a silly tradition that divides and weakens humanity and it's rapidly losing support these days. Religion is basically a moot point or a means to funnel idiots into the belief of your choice by pulling the simplistic strings holding together their fantasy.
I find it all very entertaining. Merely saying that another human will burn ensured you will also... you've judged millions of people in one statement. It's mass a sin, and I'm sure you've committed many more, so we can all burn together in your fairy tale lake of fire. There is no room in heaven for even minor sinners, it's a very elite place you know.
I feel safer than putting it ALL in google cloud as an alternative. Diversity is almost always safer.
If you use any of the big name webmails, you've getting mined pretty hardcore, especially if you search while logged on. Windows 10 isn't as bad as google normally because most people don't use the built in search and of course it's easy to turn off.
Apple was stupid to pick a terrorism case to make this stand against.. unless it's a ploy to get terrorists to use iPhone as then spy on them that way.. terrorism honey pot. I find Apple's statement to be a bit disingenuous and Gates statement to be sad, but true. The law says Apple must obey any reasonable request. Can Apple prove this is an unreasonable request in court?
What does Apple really have to lose? All they are doing is follow the law and providing data by court order. They are not complying with some secret mass data request. It's pretty darn standard request and against terrorists at that. I agree with Gates on this. They have a court order.. it's a terrorism case... Apple doesn't honestly have anything to lose other than this silly public spat they created.
Doesn't he have have like a 160-180 IQ and pretty good poker skills? I doubt he missed something so obvious unless his mind has deteriorated over the years. Maybe he is saying you have to pick your battles on these things sometimes, which seems reasonable enough. Apple and Google and MS can make a stand against the FBI, but making it against a terrorism case might not have been the most tactful approach. Either way the law seems to say if Apple can get that data, they have to try or prove it's just too darn hard. The alternative is Apple ensures it designs systems that it honestly can't get into (without perhaps an active wiretap and login) if it really wants that level of data security for it's users.
The precedent that technology overrides law is more dangerous than the idea that courts have the right to make corporations "un-hide" data. Apple, like an US business has a legal obligation to abide to court ordered data requests. I don't see how, if they have the capacity, they can argue they have any right to decline. Honestly, corporations that can decline to hand over data to the courts is the more dangerous precedent. It's a core principle of the justice system to be able to demand data as evidence for due process to work right. Encryption is little more than a fancy term for hiding your data. Apple has a secret file cabinet that it doesn't read, like a bank with a lock box. When asked to 'un-hide' the contents of that container, if they have the capacity to do so, they must. Why would there be any different interpretation. Will Apple plead the 5th instead?
I don't know how hard it would be for Apple to do this, I don't know their systems at all. If they can do it, they really have to by law. It's a precedent that was set long before computers ever existed. If you have record you need to do your BEST to legally abide by the court order and provide them. That means providing them in readable format, not purposely printing them in very fine font, not purposely damaging the data or 'losing' it. These are all concepts that apply to physical documents too. You can't obstruct an investigation by dragging your feet in compliance because you don't like the law. You change the law with votes, not by breaking it unless you're ok with being charged with the crime you're committing and ideally when you know you can garner mass public support.
So again I ask, why did Apple pick a terrorism case to make this stand against?
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that Apple is fighting for encryption where it's possible to potentially win and not where it isn't is not a conflict of interest with their supposed goal of increasing data security. Smart people pick their battles, they don't often act entirely unilateral or ideologically and attempt to apply one solution to all case. Instead you craft a solution out of the possible variables while predicting reasonable outcomes. Apple decided now is a good time to fight for encryption, in the US. I'm sure if Apple could make world law they would change a lot about China, but that's hardly their position in the world. They also have that silly legal obligation to stockholders to not block/ignore trillion dollar markets due to ideological/governmental or political differences of opinion. So.. actually there is no abnormal hypocrisy to see today. Just the normal ones, like people being more worried about their iCloud data than the near slave labor and inhumane conditions used to make those fabulous phones. It's privacy vs slavery via fiscal inequality, but the slavery is really far away, so yay privacy! I guess I will take a win if I can get one, but to me it's really not an issue that deserves national or global attention like it has gotten. There can't be one universal privacy model when you have so many different governments. On top of that laws are dynamic, some nations will require backdoors, some could ban any end to end encryption since it interferes with their justice system. However.. the reality here is that 99% of the data out there is worthless or soon to worthless. It's not as important as it seems to have end to end encryption or for a government to have the capacity to spy. Nobody is actually as important as they think and nobody is more important than the nation. You should always expect that government can flip on mass spying programs or change laws as they see fit to meet changing times. Everytime terrorism or war threatens people, they will surrender a certain level of rights and privacy based on how threatened they feel. Fear is quite motivating stuff and as solid as the support for privacy may seem at any one day, it can quickly swing with full public opinion suggesting we allow more spying. Certainly 911 is not the last time this will happen in significant way. The point is whatever changes we make, whatever protection we think we have, we cannot bet on them. You cannot ever fully trust remotely stored data as much as you can locally stored data, nor can you fully trust a modern OS opensource or not. You have to accept the limits of immature technology.Putting too much data into the severs of google, ms and apple is, in itself, a horrible security and privacy model. If you think Apple making a stand matters, your missing the bigger picture. Apple, MS and Google are all data mining you and their concept of security and the convent use of the cloud is just a huge security risk. The other half of that is that you should never have anything that private on any of those platforms and your data probably isn't important to anyone anyway. If your data truly was important you'd never have put it on the cloud anyway. MS, Apple and Google are still fighting resistance to features and cloud storage that they would love customers to want and grow to need. Their stance against the FBI is quite convenient from the perspective of boosting people's confidence in cloud services. Of course, the reality is that the android platform is probably the most insecure mass used platform on Earth right now. Security and privacy means shit when you allow and app access to all that with one click or even without a click. I would say most of these platforms are barely even secure enough to need end to end encryption considering how often they get exploited. This is the NSA/FBIs real problem, they have no idea who to actually spy on. They tried mass data collection but just wound up with piles of data and no good algorithms to pinpoint terrorists. In many ways the program will wind up being pretty harmless, ineffective and not rea
I don't see where we have enough data to make such an assumption. The universe is 13 billion years old and we've been looking at it seriously for a few hundreds years, most of which time we did very little until modern science allowed it. You can come up with all the models you want, but they are based on 5% understand of the universe. To us that 5% might be 100%, but it's still 5% in the face of reality and things like modeling an entire universe over billions of years. If we can't model weather or climate, we can't model a universe down to 13 billion years even if we allow ourselves great margins of error. The margin of accuracy would be many times lower than any margins of error because your using a dataset that simply does not contain the necessary information. We really aren't there on many fields, including just straight brain power. We can't see that far, we don't organize our data well enough, time is not on our side because we've only recorded the universe with real accuracy for a few decades. Anyone who thinks they can take a couple decades of data and quantify the universe with it... is stupid.
The problem is much larger than just that. He needs to pull a nearly infinite amount of data to create a model that accurate and as you say with planets, well we can't see them. It doesn't stop there though. A model of the universe has to show how galaxies formed and we don't anything even close to accurate information no less ass the varying instances. When it comes to astro physics we often hinge everything on a very few data sets. Basically thats all they have and they get paid to some up with something. We can't have generations of scientists openly admitting they've really not significantly professed because they've hit an information gathering limit that they probably won't overcome anytime soon or perhaps ever. Truth is like the speed of light. The closer you get to it the more exponentially harder it becomes to achieve it.
It is not mathematically impossible because of inflation. The universe is not consistent or disbursed in a way that we understand. That means we don't understand much about expansion/inflation. We honestly don't even know what caused it or perhaps what continues to make it go. The top assumption is nothing more than a big explosion more or less formed everything. It's a pretty weak theory, but it does help explain expansion. All too often we think of The Big Bang as explaining how the universe was created. In reality all it does is create one of many plausible means to explain an ever expanding universe which MAY have originated in a single spot. There is absolutely no proof of the single origin other than background radiation which by no means proves anything as grand as a singularity exploding into a universe. So.. that's some perspective on our current actual knowledge of things. We don't honestly know how large the universe is, how big it is, where it started or what keeps it going. This means that no model we create using extremely unfinished theories is going to mean a damn thing in the application it's been used for. However, it is possible that this is the only planet that ever developed life. It's not just about X amount of stars. It's about time passed also and our position in the expansion. We are, by our understanding, an early planet and only so many planets can ever be early planets in a singularity based universe. It's possible that our models are very very far off because we almost always assume that life will be distributed as matter has been, but of course there is zero proof of that currently. Given we've only thoroughly looked at an almost infinitely small section of the universe for a period of time that is nothing more than a few hundreds years we should not expect to already have the required information to model the universe. Unfortunately most theoretical physics winds up being a complete waste of time, neither proving anything or disproving anything, rather just making wild imaginative assumptions.. or in this case not imaginative at all. It is possible we are the only planet to develop life, yes. However, it's vastly more possible that we are just the only life we've detected in the window of time that we happen to exist in one tiny galaxy which mankind will almost certainly never even remotely explore.. in a universe filled with galaxies, many much larger than our own. We can be sure there are many key variable which we simply don't have in order to model something so very specific. Stuff like this is a sad waste of super computer time. It pretty clear we don;'t know the laws of physics that govern the universe and one law out of place rendered over 13 billion years is enough to completely change your results, no less we've probably not yet mastered even a single aspect of physics. We don't understand how atoms work or even interact at a very precise level. For that matter the entire universe appears to move underneath us with each measurement and we really have no idea why. Making a model so complex with so little accurate data seems like a waste of time. Whatever you think you learned you really can't be confident in at all and even if it came up with one earth, that's means next to nothing. The one good part about this is that the scientists may at least be honest enough to not have manipulated the data to get the result he wanted.. and that's always good. Using it to suggest there is only one earth however is complete bunk BS.
If all the smart people are in in hell then that's where everyone else will want to be too. You'll need our internet and smartphones to keep your tiny little hamster brains occupied. Ignore is the only real demon and all sane people know that deep down. Religion is just a silly tradition that divides and weakens humanity and it's rapidly losing support these days. Religion is basically a moot point or a means to funnel idiots into the belief of your choice by pulling the simplistic strings holding together their fantasy. I find it all very entertaining. Merely saying that another human will burn ensured you will also... you've judged millions of people in one statement. It's mass a sin, and I'm sure you've committed many more, so we can all burn together in your fairy tale lake of fire. There is no room in heaven for even minor sinners, it's a very elite place you know.
I feel safer than putting it ALL in google cloud as an alternative. Diversity is almost always safer. If you use any of the big name webmails, you've getting mined pretty hardcore, especially if you search while logged on. Windows 10 isn't as bad as google normally because most people don't use the built in search and of course it's easy to turn off. Apple was stupid to pick a terrorism case to make this stand against.. unless it's a ploy to get terrorists to use iPhone as then spy on them that way.. terrorism honey pot. I find Apple's statement to be a bit disingenuous and Gates statement to be sad, but true. The law says Apple must obey any reasonable request. Can Apple prove this is an unreasonable request in court? What does Apple really have to lose? All they are doing is follow the law and providing data by court order. They are not complying with some secret mass data request. It's pretty darn standard request and against terrorists at that. I agree with Gates on this. They have a court order.. it's a terrorism case... Apple doesn't honestly have anything to lose other than this silly public spat they created.
Doesn't he have have like a 160-180 IQ and pretty good poker skills? I doubt he missed something so obvious unless his mind has deteriorated over the years. Maybe he is saying you have to pick your battles on these things sometimes, which seems reasonable enough. Apple and Google and MS can make a stand against the FBI, but making it against a terrorism case might not have been the most tactful approach. Either way the law seems to say if Apple can get that data, they have to try or prove it's just too darn hard. The alternative is Apple ensures it designs systems that it honestly can't get into (without perhaps an active wiretap and login) if it really wants that level of data security for it's users. The precedent that technology overrides law is more dangerous than the idea that courts have the right to make corporations "un-hide" data. Apple, like an US business has a legal obligation to abide to court ordered data requests. I don't see how, if they have the capacity, they can argue they have any right to decline. Honestly, corporations that can decline to hand over data to the courts is the more dangerous precedent. It's a core principle of the justice system to be able to demand data as evidence for due process to work right. Encryption is little more than a fancy term for hiding your data. Apple has a secret file cabinet that it doesn't read, like a bank with a lock box. When asked to 'un-hide' the contents of that container, if they have the capacity to do so, they must. Why would there be any different interpretation. Will Apple plead the 5th instead? I don't know how hard it would be for Apple to do this, I don't know their systems at all. If they can do it, they really have to by law. It's a precedent that was set long before computers ever existed. If you have record you need to do your BEST to legally abide by the court order and provide them. That means providing them in readable format, not purposely printing them in very fine font, not purposely damaging the data or 'losing' it. These are all concepts that apply to physical documents too. You can't obstruct an investigation by dragging your feet in compliance because you don't like the law. You change the law with votes, not by breaking it unless you're ok with being charged with the crime you're committing and ideally when you know you can garner mass public support. So again I ask, why did Apple pick a terrorism case to make this stand against?