Google CEO Finally Chimes In On FBI Encryption Case, Says He Agrees With Apple (gizmodo.com) 255
An anonymous reader writes: After Tim Cook's eloquent letter explaining why Apple wouldn't help the FBI get encrypted data from the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, the internet looked to Google to take a similar stand. Now Google CEO Sundar Pichai has posted five tweets that seem to show he agrees with Cook.
Edward Snowden had previously suggested that Google's silence meant Google had "picked a side, but it's not the public's."
Edward Snowden had previously suggested that Google's silence meant Google had "picked a side, but it's not the public's."
Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad Sundar is agreeing this is an important issue... however, there are a lot of wiggle words in his phrasing.
Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. While it's nice to see him bring it up, it's definitely a weaker stance than Apple's. Pichai also says being required to enable hacking "Could be a troubling precedent." Well, yes. It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it.
Users understand that if a company is legally bound to compromise privacy to work with law enforcement, they're going to do it. Nobody at Apple is going to go to jail for obstruction of justice. But it counts for something when they say that's the only way they'll do it, and when they put up a fight in court.
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well my parent's believe Apple are being a bunch of dicks about this and should just comply. I doubt they are the only ones. While you and me may believe privacy is worth fighting for I bet most companies would rather get a good feeling for the general consensus first. From a pure 'business' perspective that's the right thing to do when not specifically on the spot like Apple is.
Apple had no good option to go with, spend lots of time and effort trying to make it possible with no return or make this a public case of privacy for their users and the government is 'bad'. Looking at those of course they go 'User Privacy!' as a rallying cry. You need to remember while peopel may run then, a company is a collective entity that is entirely selfish.
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
To which you point out to your parents Tim Cook's letter, which is linked off the front page of apple.com. In it he details why he's making the stand, and even more importantly, why he's "being a dick". He even addresses terrorism itself. It's a very insightful and thoughtful message that explains why Apple does not want to roll over and be the FBI's pet. And he even details why encryption is not just optional on a smartphone, but mandatory. And heck, Apple did give up the data they could - the iCloud backups, which were obtained legally by a warrant.
As for the "user privacy" stance - after the Snowden revelations, it's the only stance Apple can take. It's also beneficial, since it's the stance Apple can take to differentiate their products from their competitors.
But think of it this way - if they didn't care, why did they go through all the trouble of the secure enclave? And to make it an extremely paranoid one at that - giving it the ultimate power to wipe the phone if attacked? (Error 53 is such an attack - perhaps a modified fingerprint sensor is trying to find a way to break the secure enclave code and allow it to run arbitrary code, allowing full access to the system without the system knowing. The secure enclave is paranoid as it should be). It's why later phones rely on it to do the 10 authentication attempts and wipe, and why the enclave enforces the delays between attempts.
If anything, this issue should go to the Supreme Court to be decided there, putting to rest all those legislation trying to put backdoors in encryption products and other things.
And yes, there is a chilling effect - it spreads wider than just Apple, but to everyone. Not just iOS, or Android, or Blackberry, but to the very foundations of what the Internet provides. Because it's not just encryption, but efforts like HTTPS Everywhere, Lets Encrypt and other services,
Re: (Score:3)
But think of it this way - if they didn't care, why did they go through all the trouble of the secure enclave? And to make it an extremely paranoid one at that - giving it the ultimate power to wipe the phone if attacked? (Error 53 is such an attack - perhaps a modified fingerprint sensor is trying to find a way to break the secure enclave code and allow it to run arbitrary code, allowing full access to the system without the system knowing. The secure enclave is paranoid as it should be). It's why later phones rely on it to do the 10 authentication attempts and wipe, and why the enclave enforces the delays between attempts.
"Caring" isn't needed. It makes economic sense to make the phones secure for two reasons 1) it sells more of them 2) it keeps Apple from having to work with every dumb little request from law enforcement about tookie and where he got the weed. Not to mention what the prop-up-it's-own-power surveillance-state will try to do "in secret."
There are probably MILLIONS of lawful (circumstances, or by warrant) searches of Apple phones in the US alone each year, some of them will take attention of three or four Ap
This is the problem with selling flawed products (Score:3, Interesting)
The FBI isn't asking for a new backdoor, they are asking to use one that Apple already created inadvertently. Call it a design flaw, but this older model phone has a flaw that allows Apple to send it a signed software update that will disable the limit on password tries.
And if it is a 4 digit numeric pin that means only 10k possible combinations. Basically someone trying every combination manually could probably crack it in a few days assuming Apple can also update the firmware so that it can check the pa
Re: (Score:2)
...Apple are being a bunch of dicks about...
If I may intercede here - shouldn't we, in the interest of public decency in publishing, stop calling people 'dicks' and instead refer to them as, well, how about 'dickerels'? Hmm, or perhaps 'Richards'?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Now stop being a dick.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is actually doing something very odd. It is trying to protect its customers!
It's almost as if they're doing it for free PR with next to no negative consequences to themselves. What a bunch of American heroes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When they *put up a fight*, is it for real, or a publicity/marketing gimmick while the press is paying attention?
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Informative)
It's because Google isn't currently fighting in court with the FBI. I'm sure his lawyers have told him to phrase it that way, in case Apple loses and Google is next. No point giving the FBI ammunition to use in future legal arguments.
In any case, Google is in a stronger position than Apple because its secure storage on its Nexus devices has firmware in ROM. It can't be modified or updated like Apple's, so there is no way they could introduce a back door or remove protections like rate limiting or a maximum number of incorrect guesses. It's in the silicon, so the FBI's current argument won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the only reason that iPhone didn't have the specialized hardware is it is 4 gens old. iPhones lead the way on specialized encryption hardware.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I'm not sure what other phone to use to protect my privacy. Windows 8 was great, no one used it so no malware. But 10 is not...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple have the ability to update the firmware on their Secure Enclave, their implementation of secure storage. They have issued firmware updates that adjust the time delays between attempts before. That means that the firmware is in flash memory somewhere and can be updated, which is a huge security flaw.
Check the datahsheets for other secure memories and ARM CPUs with secure storage. Very few of them have any mechanism to update the firmware, which is usually hard coded into a ROM.
Re: (Score:2)
To install a new OS patch you have to have the pin. if the Pin was known then you don't need apple's help anyways.
If you can't update the firmware then you can't provide bug fixes. so if you do have a fault it is permanent.
Security that can't be patched will be hacked. security that can be patched will be hacked.
So if you can be hacked either way isn't it better to go with the one you can fix easier?
Re: (Score:2)
"That means that the firmware is in flash memory somewhere and can be updated, which is a huge security flaw"
You mean as opposed to being burned into the hardware where any security flaw is there forever?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say "dodging"..that implies something illegal.
As far as I can tell, everything they, as well as any other responsible company does, is perfectly legal. It would not make sense for a company to not take full advantage of the current tax laws.
Do you yourself not take every deduction you can? Do you voluntarily pay more in tax that you really need to?
If you don't like the tax loopholes, have your congress-critters change the laws. Hell, make it really easy and transparent.
You made $x...you pay $y.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if he (and CEOs of other major tech firms) stated specific opposition to it.
Why? He works for his own interest, not yours. His interest and your interest rarely (if ever) coincide. It's naive to think otherwise. The best way to deal with any corporation (and the hollowed out people who occupy "executive" positions) is to treat them as you would treat a psychopath: with profound distrust.
He wants people to use his companies products, if people don't trust them they won't. There are planty of contenders who would love to see google fall to take their place. Hell, maybe bing might even get a shot /snigger.
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
Yes. It runs counter to their business model. Google's business model is to have access to all of its product's (users) data in order to sell advertising space to its customers (advertisers). Privacy reduces Google's profits.
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Funny)
But Google is still reading Privacy's emails.
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah! Don't give us that thoughtful, nuanced debate crap! We want flat-out binary statements, black and white bold, simplistic determinations, otherwise who are we going to know who to shake our pitchforks and flaming torchs at?
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm a pitch fork manufacturer in a a black and white world, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
TRUE
Google already cooperates with the FBI ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence that Apple and Google gave the NSA access? According to the Snowden leaks, the NSA, with GCHQ's help, were intercepting data as it flowed between data centres and using exploits to get into accounts.
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would not surprise me if Apple had been developing their response in anticipation to the judges request for some time.
Re: (Score:3)
It would not surprise me if Apple had been developing their response in anticipation to the judges request for some time.
Well they're already paying lawyers to work on the case, and other similar ones (one FBI agent mentioned to an ABC reporter that he had upwards of 150 smart phones he was holding on to until a crack was available). So, why not pay a couple more billable hours to vet a policy statement?
Re:Is he really agreeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
Probably, considering that violating privacy is their primary source of income. Eric Schmidt actually came out against privacy [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Is it too much to ask Google to simply come out in favor of privacy of its users?
Don't you think that queston is a bit naive, all considered? Google, as all companies, can only be assumed to be working in the interests of their owners, and even that is an ideal case, as we know from the all to common examples of CEOs lining their own pockets to the loss of their shareholders. Google is not you friend - they don't care about protecting your privacy or freedom, they collect people's data for their own profit; if they are unwilling to share this information, it is because they consider the
Google copies Apple ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Google copies Apple ... (Score:5, Funny)
Google copies Apple, what a surprise :-)
And as usual they don't get it quite right.
Re:Google copies Apple ... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure. They forgot to make it impossible to change the battery, expand the storage, etc.
On the surface (Score:5)
This announcement, while still unofficial as a company policy, is moving the conversation in the right direction, but if the government wants to do something, they'll do it... I can see all cockamamie reasons, such as 'aiding and abetting criminal activity.'
I'd be the first to get a Blackphone (maybe roll-your-own-Android, if possible) if Apple caves-in regarding government-mandated backdoors. Personally, I just don't see how removing encryption from public-use would ever work. If there's ever a case where I'd rather sacrifice some convenience for security, this is it... even if it means giving up smartphones.
He takes the PR-friendly route. (Score:2)
Unlike Apple, the Android platform doesn't have a device-killing Error 53.
now the the race is on (Score:2)
U Don't say no to the fist around your (tax) balls (Score:2)
Not in China (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not in China (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no Apple supporter, but your comparison is (heh) apples-and-oranges. In the US, it's refusing to alter its software to allow the FBI to access private data. In China, it's allowing the government to perform a security audit of its source code - you know, just like every open source project on the planet implicitly allows China to do.
I mean, by that standard, Linux is co-operating with Chinese attempts to violate the privacy of its users, because it publishes its source code for the government to audit (if they feel like it), too. And honestly, with this admission about the FBI coming into the open, it just goes to show how justified other governments are in demanding to examine US products for signs of government malfeasance.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, by that standard, Linux is co-operating with Chinese attempts to violate the privacy of its users, because it publishes its source code for the government to audit (if they feel like it), too. And honestly, with this admission about the FBI coming into the open, it just goes to show how justified other governments are in demanding to examine US products for signs of government malfeasance.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Another fine reason why Open Source (or better yet, Free Software) is the only direction to go. You cannot trust any box you can't look into. Hopefully someday (probably far in the future, but who knows) we'll even have open hardware to run it on. Either way, you can't trust Apple for precisely the reason you say; they give access to the source to governments, but not to everyone else. You can't trust Google Play (etc.) either, but if you're highly security-conscious
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like their only value is... creating value for their shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
How is allowing China to do a security audit a bad thing? After the Snowden revelations about the NSA screwing with US products, I'd rather like to see that audit myself. Apple has basically been forced to allow it by the actions of the NSA, to restore trust.
Ownership (Score:2, Interesting)
FTFA
Does this mean that we own our iphones and that it is ours to hack and mod as we see fit?
Satya... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
*Perks up*
Someone actually bought a Windows Phone?! Holy shit! Where'd I put that speech I prepared...
Re: (Score:2)
Hello? (Score:2)
And where are you, Larry and Sergei? Waiting for the unpleasantness to just go away? Shivering under the covers with the rest of your lot? Shame on you. It is nearly too late to call your side, and we are all waiting.
If forced by a court order, (Score:2)
Apple should supply false keys to the FBI. When the FBI complains the backdoor doesn't work, just say "You're holding it wrong."
"Finally" Chimes in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Biased much against Google?
Cook posted a letter yesterday, Pichai responded today. OH MY GOOD HOW COULD IT TAKE SO LONG!?
backdoors become accessible to everyone eventually (Score:2)
Besides the obvious privacy concerns, wouldn't backdoors give terrorists and other bad guys a new, incredibly useful attack vector? As soon as a common backdoor is implemented on all devices, that would immediately become the most valuable target for hackers. What if a government employee goes rogue or is "convinced" to share information on how to gain access. What about the devs who implement the backdoors? You're never going to keep that secret. As the story goes, all architects and builders of the Taj Ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater (Score:4)
That doesn't mean the content that's captured is unencrypted... iMessage, etc...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Snowden says its all kabuki theater (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA should provide a backup service then. This would be the only service where you can ask for a restore from before you even subscribed.
Re:It's all well and good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all well and good... (Score:5, Informative)
Hey whipslash, on a side note...
I agree with you here, but even if I didn't - I'd like to say I find it refreshing that you're taking the time to participate in the discussions here on Slashdot. It shows that you're invested in this site in more ways than just financially, and I appreciate it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks! I think some people aren't used to editors disagreeing with them so they take a little more umbrage than they should.
It's likely, at some point, I'll disagree with you on something - but I'll do my best not to take umbrage. :-D
If we were all in lockstep all the time, this would be a very boring place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just wanted to chime in with an additional "thank you", not only for dealing with APK (at least partially...*cue response from APK*), but also for tackling a lot of the other low-hanging fruit that's been bothering the community for awhile. Not to mention the fact that you're doing it carefully. It'd be easy to swing the banhammer or eliminate the ability to post as AC, but you clearly understand the community and why neither of those would work. And it'd be easy to try revamping everything before earning o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down, Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
This is my last post here
Awww, and it's not even my birthday
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no you've attracted APK. On the plus side through perhaps this will mean Coren22 gets a little less stalked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is one behaviour which he demonstrates which I don't think I have ever seen anyone else do. Is there a way I could msg it to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think would-be terrorists put entries on their calendar to remind themselves of the time and place of an attack? The cell-service provider can provide records about how the phone was used for communication.
If he was a *known* terrorist, why wasn't he arrested and charged with a crime prior to this attack? Why wasn't he under surveillance? He's now dead, so he can't be "aided" by anyone.
Your *assumption* is ridiculous. The government could not possibly know that a phone contains the type of inform
Re: It's all well and good... (Score:3)
Re: It's all well and good... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This opinion is all great until someone hurts someone in your family. Then lets see how much you want to honor their privacy...
I love how this comment was posted by an anonymous coward.
Re:It's all well and good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that's such happy horseshit. The government already has all the evidence they need in this San Bernadino case. They're trying to get their hands on a technology and set a precedent. Fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
They're basically on a fishing expedition. Find our who the terrorists friends were, who did their dry cleaning, and so forth. They're convinced there is a wider conspiracy that they haven't uncovered.
Re: (Score:2)
> While i dont like the idea of a backdoor either, the "evidence they need" is every piece of info they can get
"All the evidence they need" is a forced confession, obtained by torture and without any assurance of the validity or source of the evidence. Poor evidence obtained forcibly is precisely why the fifth amendment was created, partly to help ensure proper provenance for the evidence, and to prevent "fishing expeditions" where forced testimony to avoid a false accusation could be used to gather evid
Re: (Score:3)
The killers are already dead. This is a fishing expedition to find accomplices.
Re:It's all well and good... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone in my family gets hurt, I will want vengeance and retribution. I want the guilty to suffer. Death is too kind, I want to see prolonged torture, and I want to take part in it myself.
Which is why the laws are the way they are. People who are hurt generally want vengeance, not justice. That doesn't mean that it's right to give them that, or that giving them that will make society better. In fact, it will make society worse.
Just like in this case.
Re:Apple Unlocked iPhones for Feds 70 Times Before (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
this isn't a backdoor as such.. (Score:5, Informative)
this one case is a bit more tricky, since the fbi can reasonably say that apple can do what they want and it's not even that expensive. anyone with apples toolset and more importantly the signing key can do what fbi is requesting. fundamentally it's not even about 'creating' such a tool and that it would open a can of worms. it wouldn't. if something that could be created in half a day by altering a few lines would be a can of worms then it would already be a can of worms. on iphone 5C. those few lines would be the line where is the check for ten tries and the amount of delay introduced between tries. that would be enough to brute force it with a robot finger. another few hours would have the sw just brute force through all combinations on the phone itself - at just a rate of 1 per second it would be just few hours and since you can query the cpu/soc multiple times per second if the given pin is correct then if it's a 4 number pin it would take only something along the lines of half an hour, 5 number one would be still under half a day and six not too much long either. the part on the cpu on 5C that coughs up the code does not have extra protections or limits or any of that fancy stuff that 5S would do.
because it's an iphone 5C and apple _CAN_ write firmware for it and load it on the phone to brute force the correct pin on the cpu to make the cpu cough up the encryption key this is not quite how apple spins it up. but apple doesn't want to admit(nor is it denying) that it can write the requested software - it's trying to argue that it doesn't have to, I guess in order to fight off further requests to modify firmwares that actually are delivered to consumer phones, which would need backdoors installed before hand.
on iphone 5S and onwards it would not be possible. but try explaining this to a normal journalist. if apple opens it, they think that iphones all can be opened in same way - and apple has been publicly saying that they can't open them, (which is true for newer iphones than the 5C). suppose they do open it for them? what then? lawsuits from 5C owners who could arguably argue that they were mislead with marketing about the capabilities of their phone.
so, on 5C the encryption key is on the cpu and can be queried multiple times per second with the right firmware and the right firmware can be loaded on boot from usb if you have apples signing keys(or if you can break the bootloader, I suppose). that is, on an iphone 5C the penalty wipe for guessing more than 10 times is performed in firmware loaded software and can be trivially circumvented if you have firmware source code and signing key. apple doesn't deny or admit this due to marketing and that it would confuse the hell out of people who don't understand the difference between 5c and 5s.
Re: (Score:2)
it's already happening: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... [thedailybeast.com]
But in a legal brief, Apple acknowledged that the phone in the meth case was running version 7 of the iPhone operating system, which means the company can access it. “For these devices, Apple has the technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data from a passcode locked iOS device,” the company said in a court brief.
Two sentences later retrieving "certain categories of unencrypted data" becomes "cracking the iphone":
But as a general matter, yes, Apple could crack the iPhone for the government.
Here's the BBC chiming in with the "if you agree with Apple, you support beheading veterans" angle: http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... [bbc.com]
"If a court issued a warrant in the UK or United States to search somebody's house, you wouldn't stop them, you would allow them in - why should a smartphone be any different?
Gee I don't know, Ray, but I'm going to bank on houses being made out of wood, sweat, and tiers compared to my smartphone, which is more of a mathematics problem than a physical object.
The technical gap between those
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo. That is the problem with this case. I don't agree they should be forced to give the FBI their signing keys because that would give the FBI and any third parties that got Apple's signing keys access to make all sorts of changes to the firmware that would undermine security for all devices and not just this one. And I firmly oppose making companies provide future back doors to the government.
But if Apple themselves can take the phone and treat it like a test phone and load up a custom firmware tha
Re: (Score:3)
Then before we start hating on google... are there similar vulnerabilities in their wipe-if-too-many-unlock-fails? If not then this whole apple/google comparison is a garbage headline grab. This sounds a lot more like apple trying to save face for a poor implementation while the FBI is trying to get something that can be used to crack a whole class of iOS devices. Neither of which has anything to do with google unless their branded handsets (not just any android handset) are similarly poorly designed. S
Re: (Score:2)
> If you're saying FBI can compel features intended to backdoor the security measures, then you're establishing the legal principle of forced backdoors.
It's been done before. The US encryption policies effectively enforce poor quality encryption as the default standard for many applications. The "80-bit maximum SSL key" policy was just such a policy.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There is a constitution for a reason, and the reason is the minority needs strong protection from the majority.
The Constitution was written in a time when you needed a majority to be a threat. Now with technology any band of a few like-minded individuals can cause just as much damage.
If we look through history, there are three documents stand out as pivotal in human development. The Bible, the Magna Carta, and the US Constitution. All contributed immensely (and are still useful), but we are approaching a time when document number 4 is going to be needed to cover all the new dynamics of technologically advanced soci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution was written in a time when you needed a majority to be a threat. Now with technology any band of a few like-minded individuals can cause just as much damage.
Remember, remember, the what? I forget.
The truth is that a band of a few like-minded individuals has been causing all the damage throughout history. Recently it's been the wealthiest people alive. Before that it was those who had declared themselves to be royalty.
Re:Rulers of corporations... (Score:5, Informative)
I get that you're trolling, but I just came in from walking the dog and was listening to some Right Wing talk radio in between periods of the Blackhawks-Rangers game. All the Right-Wing jackoffs are going on about how Tim Cook should be jailed for contempt or treason or something or other and how a corporation giving up encryption keys and backdoors is the same as if the local cops come to your door with a warrant and we should trust the NSA and FBI and all the three-letter agencies to make sure it's only the information on one phone that is decrypted.
It just shows they don't mean a bit of it when they say how they hate Big Government. They just want Big Government on their own terms.
Re:Rulers of corporations... (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to see smoke come out of someone's ears? Ask one of the Tim-Cook-is-a-traitor, we-can-trust-the-government crowd why the FBI shouldn't break into the gun store owner's phone, where the San Bernardino shooters bought some of their firearms and brass, just to make sure nothing hinky is going on with him or his shop. You can watch the disconnect happen in their brain. "BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT..." Exactly! "AND IT WOULDN'T HELP THE CASE..." Exactly!
Re:Rulers of corporations... (Score:4, Insightful)
As I get older, I'm beginning to hate people who repeat these kinds of analogies more and more. It is simply not analogous. All of the hypothetical scenarios provided are nothing like asking Apple to produce an FBI-specific iOS capable of being brute-forced.
Apple probably helps law enforcement conduct reasonable searches all the time, but doing so in this case is more analogous to creating some kind of sci-fi time ripple that instantaneously retrofits (future-fits?) every single other person's home, past and future, to be constructed only of balsawood or whatever is easy enough for some knucklehead to brute his way through. Working with the law enforcement agencies in the past in decades past did not also simultaneously blast legislation through the Congress outlawing everyone in the future from having the same kind of housing, or safe, or hidey-hole where they kept their information that was too hard for the feds to get to. That is essentially what the FBI is asking Apple to do here.
Not only that, but the government has shown that they have no real limit as to what they will ask for. This encryption is too difficult and prevents the FBI from doing their jobs, and why shouldn't they be able to do their jobs when they can just read all of Syed Fuckhead's text messages thanks to the NSA, anyway? Well guess what retards, Apple might never have started default-encrypting everything if it hadn't been made painfully aware to everyone in the world that the NSA was illegally snooping on all of your messages in the first place. The encryption arms race is spearheaded by the NSA, and the FBI should forward all of their crybaby memos to them instead of thanking them for being given the ill-gotten gains from their massive surveillance programs.
That's also completely ignoring the fact that it might not even be possible for Apple to do what they want done, since it's not clear that Apple could update the OS as requested on an already locked device.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It just shows they don't mean a bit of it when they say how they hate Big Government. They just want Big Government on their own terms.
And you think this is different than any other politician? You seem to imply that with your wording, but if you think this is a 'republican' thing or 'right wing' thing, you're blind as a bat on the surface of the sun.
Re:Rulers of corporations... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not, but since the Republicans on the Right are crowing about how they're the party of "small government", the hypocrisy is especially galling with them.
If someone comes out and says that they want bigger government, and mean it, I can deal with that and make an informed decision. If someone comes out and claims to want to have government small enough to drown in a bathtub and at the same time approves of ubiquitous surveillance, infinite military spending, militarized police departments, laws covering women's reproductive organs, the death penalty and the prison-industrial complex, then they're not only complicit in evil but they're bullshitting about it.
Now, have we cleared that up?