|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 18 2016 23:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 23:27 Plansix wrote:
I respect that. But I don’t trust cooperation any more than I trust governments. They claim to be all about privacy, until someone else in charge and things marketing my personal information is good for their bottom line. They are going to do what is in their best interests and that rarely benefits me. Tim Cook is gay. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if he had a strong ideological conviction on the importance of privacy.
And when Tim Cook passes away or isn’t in charge or someone other company creates similar encryption, but uses it for other means or markets it to bad people, what then? Apple is just a company that has been around for just over 4 years longer than I have been alive. They will be gone one day, likely in my lifetime.
I am not saying its not a complex issue and the government 100% right, but I see their view. It is hard enough finding out who is sending what on the internet already. This only makes it harder. And I don’t completely trust all multinationals to be responsible.
|
On February 18 2016 23:27 Plansix wrote:
I respect that. But I don’t trust cooperation any more than I trust governments. They claim to be all about privacy, until someone else in charge and things marketing my personal information is good for their bottom line. They are going to do what is in their best interests and that rarely benefits me.
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think Apple is being altruistic here (well, Apple "fans" are kind of stupid, so perhaps).
It just so happens that this is one of the very rare occasions when the customer's best interest aligns with the company's best interest.
|
On February 18 2016 23:27 Plansix wrote:
I respect that. But I don’t trust cooperation any more than I trust governments. They claim to be all about privacy, until someone else in charge and things marketing my personal information is good for their bottom line. They are going to do what is in their best interests and that rarely benefits me.
From a non-US citizens perspective, at least foreign corporations can be partially held accountable, foreign governments not so much unless it's a good time to purposefully deteriorate relations. If apple doesn't at least attempt to stand up to the US government it's only a matter of time until local governments find their solution, probably to apple's loss. Or alternatively, as Simberto put it, new encryption technologies are created.
|
On February 18 2016 23:00 Plansix wrote:
The conflict is real on this one. I believe in the right to privacy, but I do not support an encryption arms race between the government and the private sector. I’m going to get zero benefit from that and it will only assist people that want to do very bad things internationally.
Of course, the mass data collection is the main reason why everyone is so suspicious of the NSA and FBI, so they sort of did this to themselves. But I do not like the idea of exceptions being given to private corporations and digital constructs they create and sell internationally. If these were bank or medical records or any other piece of evidence, there would be no leg to stand on.
I guess I don’t trust Apple any more than I trust the FBI, but the FBI at least is going through due process.
This is entirely the wrong comparison. It's not data Apple has and doesn't want to hand over. It's far more apt to compare it to the creators of a safe who are being compelled to crack open a safe they built. Their defense is that they built the safe in such a way that even they cannot open it without creating some new tools that, if they fall in the wrong hands will compromise the safety of all similar safes already out there.
The question isn't one of forcing Apple to hand over something they have, it's of forcing them to create something they don't have. Something that they are arguing is dangerous to create.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
these things will just go in cycles. when the next big attack happens things will change.
|
United States42693 Posts
On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software.
The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist.
|
At least countries don't disappear when they have acted too altuistic for their own good. In the free market, this is the case, hence the ratio altruistic and malicious corporations is quite skewed one way.
|
I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home.
But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone.
This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court.
On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist.
My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it.
|
i guess a relevant question to ask would be is this thing actually more secure than blackberry...
|
Well I agree with DMF in that I don't think for a minute they are doing this out of some conflict in their conscience. Tech companies already have a history of complying with all sorts of data mining requests and such from the government. If anything, it is both the cost of actually having to sit down and develop this OS and then the backlash from people for them developing such a tool.
If as KwarK said the FBI were to pay them (and I would add that the public wasn't keenly aware of what was going on), they would likely do it. They just don't wan't to spend the time and money and take the PR hit.
Again I agree with DMF in that in this instance, it just so happens that the consumers interests and Apples are aligned.
EDIT:
Reminds me of the encrypted email that the government went after not long ago. They went after the creator for refusing to put in a backdoor for the government to be able to read these emails and he was forced to shut down.
Also, this is going to push these companies to develop a way so that they themselves don't have access to the private keys, and then there is going to be fuck all that anyone can do to try and break the encryption.
|
Is it true that Sanders's campaign has said that the GDP growth rate will be above 5% if his platform is implemented? If so, nonsense like this is exactly why I find his campaign so irritating. It's what the Republicans do: pull numbers out of their asses and pretend like that's the same as evaluating policy like a serious person.
If BOTH parties give up on serious policy proposals I'm pretty sure we're screwed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's probably just a pr campaign to boost their security cred after the icloud stuff. the tool requires physical access to the phone, or at least the properly least impacting tool. it's just apple grand standing
|
United States42693 Posts
On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it.
Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it".
If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it has responsibility to those it affects, including government
|
On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:
I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home.
But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone.
This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court.
Funny since arms manufacturers get away with pretty much the same reasoning.
|
On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo.
If we are going to go down the road of duty, the US government doesn’t care about the quarterly earnings of Apple stock holders. Just like they give zero fucks about my client’s overhead costs. Why should they care in any way about that?
And courts can compel specific actions from people and companies. My clients have been required to create databases that didn’t exist due to court orders. Create systems and controls to deal compliance. None of this is new.
And if they don’t, the government can just restrict the sale of this encryption. Apple isn’t above the US government. The government isn’t required to pay them, though Apple could request it from the court if they wanted.
|
On February 19 2016 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
it's probably just a pr campaign to boost their security cred after the icloud stuff. the tool requires physical access to the phone, or at least the properly least impacting tool. it's just apple grand standing
Stupid shit like that makes great Facebook memes, which is essentially the Sanders campaign.
|
United States42693 Posts
On February 19 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo. If we are going to go down the road of duty, the US government doesn’t care about the quarterly earnings of Apple stock holders. Just like they give zero fucks about my client’s overhead costs. Why should they care in any way about that? And courts can compel specific actions from people and companies. My clients have been required to create databases that didn’t exist due to court orders. Create systems and controls to deal compliance. None of this is new. And if they don’t, the government can just restrict the sale of this encryption. Apple isn’t above the US government.
Absolutely they can ban encryption in the US. I wish them good luck in trying.
|
Illegal downloading is a thing as well, doesn't stop a huge amount of people from doing it. As KwarK said, they can ban encryption if they like, but such a thing will bankrupt the government if they try to enforce it.
|
On February 19 2016 00:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On February 19 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On February 19 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote:I find that argument only slightly compelling because currently they created a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands, just in a different way. Creating another tool doesn’t really seem that terrible. The difference is that they are making money off the first tool. And the government can force people to do things. They can force me to go to war and fight. Or stay in my home. But I have conflicts with a lot of the tech/silicon valley passive, unconcerned attitude about the impacts of the tech they create. The whole “I just make the thing, I can’t control how or who uses it” to be hollow when they sell the products internationally to anyone. This is clearly a case for the Supreme Court. On February 19 2016 00:05 KwarK wrote:On February 18 2016 23:41 Silvanel wrote:
Its not new software, its an update of existing software. And its not adding new features but removing features that are already there (which is much cheaper usually). Yeah its not free, but it isnt super expansive either. And complying with courts orders often comes with a cost. Its not first times courts order company to modify their software. The cost in this case is likely to be a multibillion dollar loss in consumer goodwill, trust and ultimately sales. They deliberately built a product so secure they couldn't get into it, that was a feature. Compelling them to invent a way to undermine their own product is absurd. By all means pay them to do it if you can agree upon a price but they've complied sufficiently with the FBI already. Apple are happy to use help the FBI with data stored on the cloud or on devices that can be readily unlocked but the tools to do what the FBI are asking just don't exist. My firm loses tens of thousands complying with government regulations and requirements. We have complied with numerous court orders relating any number of cases brought against our clients for any number of reasons. Don’t get into the encryption business if those costs are a concern, because they are going to happen. One of the most profitable companies in the US can afford it. Afford it is irrelevant, Apple's duty is to its shareholders, not the US government. Once you accept that the US government can demand that Apple invent custom software for them because "they can afford it" you might as well demand that Bill Gates reimburse Apple for their trouble because "he can afford it". If someone has information you can get a warrant for it. Apple readily comply with warrants and anything they have access to is given to the police/FBI when needed. In this case Apple has no information and the FBI are not asking for information. They're asking for custom software to be designed so that they can obtain the information for themselves. Buy it or gtfo. If we are going to go down the road of duty, the US government doesn’t care about the quarterly earnings of Apple stock holders. Just like they give zero fucks about my client’s overhead costs. Why should they care in any way about that? And courts can compel specific actions from people and companies. My clients have been required to create databases that didn’t exist due to court orders. Create systems and controls to deal compliance. None of this is new. And if they don’t, the government can just restrict the sale of this encryption. Apple isn’t above the US government. Absolutely they can ban encryption in the US. I wish them good luck in trying.
They restricted lots of technology. Commercial GPS’s were limited in their accuracy for a long time and still are in some ways. Drones are limited in how they are allowed to operate and how large they can be and be sold commercially. My grandfather developed camera’s and lenses for decades and they were limited as to who they could sell them to. It isn’t crazy that the government might limit globally solid encryption software.
The point is that Apple can’t expect to invent things, sell them to whoever will pay and then claim they have zero responsibility if bad people us them. Its like twitter and it claiming they can’t figure out how to stop ISIS from making recruiting accounts. Its not that they can't do it, its they don't really think its their problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
