Wow, and I thought Smapti was drifting off into the Twilight Zone.
Apple is not performing the encryption. If it were, Apple, not the user, would have set the encryption key. Your bizarre spin on the situation is equivalent to asserting that automobile manufacturers are responsible for speeding because their cars are equipped by default with engines capable of speeds above 55 MPH.
Jeez, the “damn slut has no right to object to a little butt-squeeze” argument again?
Back to the implication that poor Apple is being raped again?
The numerous assertions in this thread about Apple’s role with the iPhone – comparing them to a homebuilder, for example – are just factually false.
Perhaps you should examine your poisoning the well debating tactics of implicitly accusing someone who wishes to correct those poor analogies as being a crypto-misogynist.
Nonsense; the comparison is precisely on point. In both cases, a third party sells you something, which is then your property and your responsbility.
Since you haven’t posted an answer to the obvious and rather compelling analogy (“He gave up his personal info to Google, so he has no right to complain if the government snoops into it” is essentially equivalent to “She lets guys screw her, so she has no right to complain if I pinch her butt”), I assume that you have none.
No, that’s just factually wrong. There’s a whole end user agreement that specifies limits on the use of software that accompanies the iPhone. That agreement states that the owner of the iPhone understands that various applications are LICENSED, not sold, to the iPhone owner. It’s right there in the first 10 words of the agreement. I can’t think of anything remotely like such licenses being applicable to someone who buys a house.
First of all, your use of sexual assault in this debate is positively offensive to me; and as I have discussed before, there is literally no comparison to be made between a sexual assault and a court-ordered warrant for the collection of evidence of a crime in a manner that complies fully with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. There’s no further response on your odious word game required.
But there is more than just searches pursuant to a warrant. Yes those may be thwarted, but also will be thwarted other non-warrant authorized searches. This improves security against those. It is the same issue, but I think I’m focusing on one aspect and you another. I’m willing to accept the risk of a thwarted lawful search for the tradeoff of improved overall security.
I’m not sure what you would accept as a fair analogy - but consider that the security that is being discussed is already widely available. The only difference here is that it is being enabled and available by default. Do you have a problem with those types of encryption?
I am reminded of old Knight Rider episodes where Kitt could unlock anything remotely - including pad locks. I found that absurd, but essentially we already have ways to encrypt things and there is no way to gain unauthorized access.
Not quite. But a company can limit the information it retains or has access to to reduce such liability. You’ve heard of document retention policies, right? They exist pretty much to reduce storage costs, and to limit liability. This is similar.
Apple is currently being sued for the recent breach. Do you think it will cost them zero dollars to defend and/or settle this suit? Reducing potential liabilities is prudent.
I wasn’t aware. Thanks! I’ll need to read about that.
If it was one of Google’s self driving cars that was set to drive over 55mph by default, then yes, they would be responsible, as it would be doing so without the user having to do anything.
Do you still not understand that? It’s not the user encrypting anything, it’s Apple. Their software does it automatically, without the user’s involvement.
This again? Come on. This is your second day of grappling with this analogy, and I think Steve MB explained it to you twice now.
It would be more accurate to say that there are many services that people don’t bother to secure. This hullabaloo is just about Apple and Google encrypting smartphone contents by default. Encryption is already standard practice for information whose privacy people care about, and recently it turns out that many consumers care about the privacy of the data on their smartphones.
The data is encrypted on the user’s phone. By the user’s phone. It does not matter who wrote the software. If I open up Photoshop and save a RAW format photo from my camera as JPEG, I did the conversion, even though I did not write the software to do it and don’t even know much offhand about JPEG compression. Additionally, Adobe cannot see and never receives the photo that I converted. The same is true of a user’s private data encrypted on the user’s device.
Yeah, and I’ve given it more of a response than it has deserved twice now.
You’ve never actually addressed the point that was being made. You’ve expressed a bunch of outrage about the comparison without commenting on the substance, which was that letting a private company access your data is not the same as letting the government access it.
The logic he’s using is that if Party A does something totally legitimate, they do not subject themselves to doing something illegitimate. That is logically and ethically air-tight.
Court orders to do something are not illegitimate.
It is also not illegitimate, in response to a court order, to say: “I’m sorry, what you are ordering is physically impossible. I cannot comply.” Easy peasy.
Where I have a problem with it is that they are changing their product with the specific intent to avoid lawful court orders. See their marketing materials, as I’ve quoted them earlier.
The mere fact that they mentioned that enabling encryption would make it impossible to unilaterally divulge customer data to the government does not mean that was their “specific intent.” Their intent could simply be to better safeguard their customers’ data, in response to market pressure, which has as a necessary consequence their inability to render that data to the authorities. That’s just how security works. There are many possible actors from whom a person may wish to safeguard their data for purposes that have nothing to do with concealing crimes. Identity thieves, the Russian mafia, your next door neighbors, script kiddies looking for a thrill at some random schmuck’s expense, corporate spies, blackmailers, foreign governments. That last aspect is important and can be a matter of national security as well. It’s in all our best interests to foster a technological ecosystem in which security means security. That means no backdoors.
But that’s all beside the point. Even if it was their specific intent to make it impossible for them to comply with future warrants, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s perfectly legal to refrain from holding information that may, under unforeseeable circumstances, someday be requested by law enforcement. To suggest otherwise is to make a mockery of due process.
Does it really matter whether it’s the default, or whether a user has access to it by doing a little work?
Because I keep saying it: there is nothing here new except that it gets set up to be secure by default. I don’t see how that matters as to its legality or ethicality.
But not to avoid complying with lawful court orders - they are avoiding getting the court orders in the first place. Key difference.
Look, my PCs are already securely encrypted and no one can get the data without me giving them a password. Although I don’t have anything illegal, I still strongly prefer it this way over a scheme where a corporation has a back door that they can use to retrieve my data. Is that so hard to understand? Therefore I use these technologies, and I’ll prefer to buy products that do this by default. Apple can legally create these products, and seeing as how many of their customers, like me, have these preferences, will offer these features so they can sell more of their product. There is nothing unethical about any of this.
I will agree with you that the rape analogy is strained and even if there is a point (which I don’t see), it’s too inflammatory to be useful here.
Eric Holder sets his hair on fire
One insightful article comment:
I don’t think it is that insightful. Nobody has proposed that the government hold the backdoor keys, and besides – that comment seems to presuppose that if the US government knows something, then all other governments know exactly what the US government knows. Do you really think that foreign governments have totally penetrated the US government so that we are unable to keep any secrets at all? And even further, do you actually think that the Russian Mafia knows about US government secret communications – like, can the Russian Mafia crack our nuclear command and control system?
And if so, does that also mean that you think the US government has totally penetrated all foreign governments so that we know all of their secrets?
It’s a very silly comment that indicates the depth of paranoia and cluelessness on the Internet.
Why, of course – it’s “paranoia and cluelessness” to assume that the US government isn’t a reliable keeper of secret information.
How did this whole discussion get started, anyway? There was some guy in the news… Sleetnest or Icelair or Slushlodge or something…
So you actually believe that that Snowden revealed more secrets to foreign intelligence services than we know about, eh? Like maybe the identities of our secret agents in foreign countries, those were compromised too, in your estimation? So much for him being a “whistleblower.” Sounds like he quite simply committed espionage.