You're reading a leader – in print, this would traditionally be printed all on the same page, covering a couple of issues and stating the opinion of the newspaper.
It's certainly ubiquitous and familiar in the UK (I don't know about internationally) and it's not at all unusual.
Maybe no one wrote it. The Graun's stock in trade hit piece editorial is so thoroughly predictable by now they probably have a perl script to churn them out.
You can almost hear the Guardian's business leader writers rubbing their hands at the prospect. Which is as shameful and shortsighted as it is atypical for the Guardian. I would guess the team behind this article are acutely aware of the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon. Perhaps they're looking for a lifeboat with the Apple-despising Financial Times?
I'm missing what statement you're trying to make here – the point of the article is that the tech sector, which has traditionally be very unregulated, is starting to bump up against issues around wider social impact and state regulation.
That may or may not be true, but I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to what seems to be a quite valid view to take.
> the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year.
> Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing
> That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule.
> What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
> This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means.
People may be taking offensive to the author not outright denouncing the FBI. He also doesn't sound like a fan of the tech industry (which is certainly ok). But there's a definite tone conveyed in just a few paragraphs.
I don't think I am seeing the same tone as you. These quotes don't sound anti-tech, they are discussing difficulties and issues in the sector – that's quite distinct!
They are anti-tech. Anything anti-encryption is anti-tech: tech doesn't exist without encryption.
> the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year.
It isn't hard. The case is a right to privacy, which also happens to be a huge part of ANY tech company's business. The reason we use so much tech these days is because of the privacy controls. Also, Snowden and others pointed out the FBI probably has all useful the information it could retrieve about this terrorist anyway, so the work phone is relatively useless.
> Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing
Translation - "tech companies are creating problems in modern life akin to oil companies' oil spills"
> That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule.
- "Tech companies are in a weak position and will probably lose this battle"
> What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
"What if" sounds like the author is warning of impending doom on the tech sector. The suggested cases are not far-fetched, but yeah, tech doesn't traffic people, people traffic people.
> This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means.
I don't know how you can read that as anything but anti-tech. I believe tech business understands encryption deeply, and has even striven to understand the government's position and comply whenever possible. It is the government who needs to come to the table and sincerely listen and understand the implications of what it is asking, that a) their solution will hurt IT in the US and future innovation of humanity and b) their solution won't work since criminals will simply find another encryption app or device to use
I can't help but feel you are being extraordinarily uncharitable to what I think is anything but a slavish attack on the tech sector, and rather a fairly accurate description of some of the issues it is going to face. This article does not in anyway advocate against encryption, and instead point out – completely correctly – that the increasing influence of tech companies in day-to-day life is going to mean they start coming under pressure in ways they have traditionally avoided.
tech doesn't exist without encryption.
The Guardian is not arguing against encryption. It's pointing out, completely correctly, that in increased availability of strong encryption raises issues that we have no yet dealt with.
It isn't hard. The case is a right to privacy, which also happens to be a huge part of ANY tech company's business. The reason we use so much tech these days is because of the privacy controls. Also, Snowden and others pointed out the FBI probably has all useful the information it could retrieve about this terrorist anyway, so the work phone is relatively useless.
I don't agree – it is a difficult case to make. I happen to agree that access is not justified in this case, but it's hardly completely obvious that this is the case.
Translation - "tech companies are creating problems in modern life akin to oil companies' oil spills"
No – this states, again quite correctly, that increased presence and use of the products provided by tech companies means that the decisions they make have wider impact. It's a traditionally unregulated, not-really-seen-as-worthy-of-regulation sector, but as the decisions and events surrounding these companies gain more public awareness, there will be increased pressure to deal with the outcomes.
"Tech companies are in a weak position and will probably lose this battle"
Again, just no. This argument clearly points out that the FBI case has brought a simmering matter to a bit of a head, and that it's difficult to see a way in which Apple will come out of it looking good. Either they are "helping to shield terrorists" or they are "signing away customers' privacy".
"What if" sounds like the author is warning of impending doom on the tech sector.
That's not an anti-tech, though. It's a good point – what happens when something unambiguously bad happens in the future? The Guardian is not saying "we can't have encryption because this might happen" – it's saying "This might happen in the future, how will tech companies cope?"
This article ... point out ... that the increasing influence of tech companies in day-to-day life is going to mean they start coming under pressure in ways they have traditionally avoided.
It's also worth keeping in mind that this greater scrutiny of practices in the tech industry and how ethical and/or legal they are is probably no bad thing in general. In this particular case I expect most of us on HN would see the wider implications and side with Apple. However, the fact that Apple and other big tech firms are having to make these kinds of changes in the first place, to actively defend their customers' security and privacy and thus protect their own reputations as trusted suppliers, is itself a consequence of greater scrutiny in recent years and the tech industry no longer having carte blanche to make its own rules.
> the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon.
The Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian Media Group had about 1.1 billion pounds net assets, of which the vast majority are liquid, as of end of March 2015 (after they've over the last few years sold of shares in various regional newspapers and AutoTrader, shoring up their balance sheet massively).
The sole purpose of The Scott Trust is to secure The Guardian in perpetuity.
There may be layoffs at some point. There may not be. But losing money for years on end is in itself not a problem for The Guardian. They'll want to at some point trim the loss down a bit to not eat to much into the capital, but at current rates then have quite literally decades of runway.
See this FT article [1] (a admittedly biased competitor) from late last month. Their cash shrank from £840M to £740M in the last year, and they're planning to cut "costs" by 20%.
That's a tragedy at such a great newspaper, but it does color their analysis regarding the companies most responsible for their decline.
Well I can't expect HN to agree with this article, but let's face it, technologies pose new political questions.
I think the argument about the iPhone backdoor software is a slippery slope one. As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. This is what Snowden is about.
We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise, so I would be careful when defending Apple here.
Now I'm not a lawyer nor a political scientist, but I want to side with the FBI on this one. I'm sure Apple is playing their popularity card here. There are things that are more important and go beyond gadgets built in the silicon valley. It doesn't necessarily have something to do with Snowden.
I expect people to disagree with me here, and it's fine.
> As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain.
I completely agree that the State can compel anyone to do anything he is able to do. That's why it's so vitally important to build systems which don't allow anyone but the owner to authorise changes.
Apple shouldn't be able to install an app or update OS code without an iPhone owner okaying the change. Google shouldn't be able to read my WiFi password. Mirosoft shouldn't be able to read my OneDrive files.
If it's not possible for someone to do something, then he can't be compelled to do it.
In this particular case, the actual owner (the county) should have maintained an ability to access the phone at any time, but they didn't.
I am indeed careful or even hesitant about defending Apple because I abhor most of their business practices, but they are 100% right in fighting back against involuntary servitude here. The FBI and judges can't just march around and force people to write software for them.
Yes they can. And that's how it should be in my opinion. Every time a company is demanded to hand over documents or information about an investigation, that is what happened. A company was ordered to do involuntary work. And it's fine as long as we make sure to keep the warrants in check and not rubber stamped.
Drawing the line at software is arbitrary and does a disservice. It's that same narrow minded view of software (as being somehow different than the physical world) that leads to idiotic things like treating email inboxes different than physical inboxes.
I would have drawn the line much sooner, and yes it has to be drawn. If the FBI needs more employees, they should hire some from a pool of voluntary applicants.
Well I'm not afraid myself, but you should talk to people who work at the FBI, homeland security, and the CIA, to see how they view things. Security does matter. When you have large scale events like what is happening in Syria, it becomes an issue of national defense, would you like it or not.
I know that a difference must be made, and not let security have an influence on freedom.
Unlike most comments here, I liked the Arcticle: a good summary of problems the big tech companies are having.
Personally I have huge sympathy for Apple in this case. I have less sympathy for Google and Facebook. Apple, admittedly for business reasons, has come out strongly supporting privacy and I think they should be awarded for that.
It's hard being on the wrong side of prevailing sentiments, and when all this pans out I think people will be a little shocked at how the tech sector's enormous financial advantages will have carried less weight than anyone expected.
You can't win politics with money alone. You need a narrative that appeals to peoples' values. Privacy is not a winner in this regard, nor is unrestricted markets (note the leading republican candidate today is pushing an anti-free-trade message). People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc).
> People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc).
Correct me if I'm wrong it sounds like you are saying encryption is undermining security? It might be you have that backwards?
Like he said, it's all about the narrative. Let me demonstrate. Pretend you're an average voter who has never heard of "Hacker" News.
"Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text messages, San Bernardino would not have happened".
Pretend I'm the token IT guy in your friend network,
"The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own."
It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.
The scary part is that doesn't appear to be enough anymore. People are fundamentally irrational and are willing to believe the media narrative without attempting to think about the consequences critically.
It's too soon to get a feel for the media narrative, but, what do you think that will be? Doesn't Apple buy ads?
Our media isn't always pro-government, thankfully, so let's see what comes out. So far I see reports of Cook's statement, the Apple Q&A, and Comey's letter. Some are opinionated but most are just telling the story.
> It's too soon to get a feel for the media narrative, but, what do you think that will be? Doesn't Apple buy ads?
Apple buys Ads but Apple "cares" only because of the PR value of encrypting things and the fact enough of Apple's younger crowd would ditch them that it would eat into their quarterly profits. However, if its in the corner of losing 5% of their customers vs. a major legal war with the US Government, I'm not sure they'll choose to fight much [if at all].
Apple buys Ads, yes, but so do 29103423904092334902 other companies. If Apple stops, they can get their money elsewhere. I've already heard tons of people insisting Apple shouldn't be allowed to encrypt phones, so I'd say the media narrative is already playing out to Apple's detriment.
> Our media isn't always pro-government, thankfully, so let's see what comes out. So far I see reports of Cook's statement, the Apple Q&A, and Comey's letter. Some are opinionated but most are just telling the story.
The vast majority of people IRL think I'm paranoid for believing:
1) Our law enforcement agencies are engaging in unreasonable levels of domestic mass surveillance.
2) Terrorists are less dangerous than medical errors and other problems. The emphasis on their existence and the threat they pose appears to be intentionally propagandized to enable #1.
3) I believe a large part of why people believe I'm paranoid is they largely operate in a soundbite environment when it comes to the news [largely by watching news from news networks, etc] rather than bothering to read it. The surveillance related issues seem to be largely only reported in written form and have relatively low circulation outside of media coverage of Snowden. People have already mostly forgotten / stopped caring.
You're thinking about too many things and lumping them all under the same narrative, that people are apathetic.
Plenty of people still care about things, and the fact that you can come up with this list shows you do too.
Sometimes people just need to hear something said in a different way, and sometimes you just can't reach them. It's okay if some people don't hear you. If any people do become more informed because of your message then you have succeeded.
How many people have a token IT guy in their friend network? and how much do they respect what he/she says when it contradicts their familiar narrative? Why have those IT guys not been able to stop their friends from downloading/installing stupid stuff and so on?
Just pointing out that the IT guy may not have much sway over the general population.
I'm sure it varies, but it wasn't hard for me to convince my friends, and that's not because they respect me, it's because it's an easily explainable thing.
If we're talking about character-based influence though, then we should also consider how people perceive Apple and the government. People love Apple products, and law enforcement overreach videos and stories have been circulating a lot lately.
I think even the token IT guy is wondering how the FBI's request to break specific iPhones in their possession is going to undermine iPhone security for everybody.
> I think even the token IT guy is wondering how the FBI's request to break specific iPhones in their possession is going to undermine iPhone security for everybody.
Could you elaborate on how the precedent of signing a custom IOS release for a specific target IPhone is distinctly different and cannot be interpolated to further and broader requests? For example a request for custom IOS version which the FBI can install on other target phones themselves?
The other point to consider is that if the US government can compel companies to create and sign custom binaries there are other governments (China) that I'm sure would love to play at the same game. From a security standpoint it would be best for everyone if what the FBI is currently asking was entirely impossible in the first place.
Hmm if his only source of IT news is The Guardian then I'd agree with you, but most of us go a little deeper than surface level. That's how we came to be in IT in the first place.
I'm actually wondering this, too. Is there a technological reason why Apple fulfilling this request makes their (not subject-to-warrant) customers less secure? Why isn't their private code-signing key the linchpin?
I fully buy that there are legal, cultural, and diplomatic reasons that this could make Apple's customers less secure in the long run by setting a precedent, etc.
I guess one argument is that whatever code they write to tie the "weaponized" iOS update to a particular device could have bugs.
Access to a single device. Access to other device would (if the "weaponized" iOS is written correctly in this regard) be impossible without Apple's private key to authenticate a modified version of the software.
It won't make phones less secure in any technological sense. Defeating the 5C's passcode counter is a capability Apple has today, and DOJ is willing to allow Apple to bypass it on Apple's own premises rather than providing DOJ with an image that does it.
The kind of insecurity people are talking about is a policy concern; people will feel less secure if Apple can be compelled to exploit their capability this way.
That's a valid concern, but it's not a concern that really touches on how much more the "token IT person" knows than a layperson with little technical knowledge.
It annoys me a lot when people in technology deploy special- pleading logic like this.
I think it has to do with a kind of black and white thinking that is common with people in technology. 2+2=4. 2+2!=5. Your code either compiles or it doesn't. A function is either correct or incorrect.
It is either acceptable for Apple to bypass a security feature or it is unacceptable. Tech people seem to have a real hard time with the idea that:
A) It might be acceptable some of time time but not others
B) There are competing values at play here and even if we decide it's (un)acceptable there are some downsides to either choice.
You're drawing a false dichotomy when you talk about technology and policy as separate issues. If you are unable to overhear my encrypted messages, were you stopped by the technology of the Salsa20 algorithm or my policy of not giving you the keys? Or were you stopped by the government's policy of not compelling their production for you? Maybe you were stopped by your own policy of not beating people with rubber hoses?
In the hypothetical that Apple did not have the capability to defeat the 5C's passcode counter, is the FBI thwarted because of a technically secure cryptosystem or because it is the policy in the United States to allow such cryptosystems to be marketed and sold?
Policy and technology do not exist in a vacuum. Apple is obviously going to close the custom image loophole in response to this "debate"; so clearly the boundary between technology and policy is fluid. But merely taping a policy out for silicon, as Apple is going to do in the next chip, does not address any of the underlying issues. Sure, in the instant case Apple "technically can" unlock the iPhone, but that is always true: we could create a law such that all phones must be backdoored for example. Assuming Apple loses here, mark your calendar, because we'll have that battle next year when a terrorist uses the new silicon.
There is a line somewhere for what is reasonable to compel. Reasonable people can disagree about where that line is, but let's not paint "people in technology" with a broad patronizing brush of "it's not technology, it's policy, therefore your rules don't apply". Technology is merely policy that's machine-readible.
Specifically, my comment addressed these parts of your comment:
> It won't make phones less secure in any technological sense... The kind of insecurity people are talking about is a policy concern;
(My comment alleges there is no such thing as a "technological sense" as distinct from a "policy concern".)
> It annoys me a lot when people in technology deploy special- pleading logic like this.
(My comment alleges that the logic isn't special-pleading.)
I didn't intend to be read as confrontationally as perhaps I sounded. You have a minority position in this kind of environment; I take minority positions sometimes, I understand it is not always pleasant to prosecute them. If you don't want to prosecute them, I won't make you. I'm just explaining that I really did offer a good-faith rebuttal of what I understood to be your position. There may be something wrong with it, but I don't think it's off-topic.
I think the token IT guy is not even wondering, he's pretty certain the FBI request is perfectly reasonable.
Most corporate sysadmins are BOFHs, relishing the power they wield and convinced they can do no wrong. They have nothing against electronic surveillance -- they practice it daily with gusto, they just think they're smart enough to avoid someone else doing it to them.
Hell, the whole "root" model is fundamentally authoritarian in principle, no matter how hard we try not to say it. It might have been born out of engineering necessity, but it has long generated its own cultural artefacts. It might have been balanced somewhat by historical accident (i.e. west-coast liberal culture, phreaking etc), but this balance has been eroded when the IT job market exploded and all sorts of people were onboarded.
Modern sysadmins would find nothing strange with the FBI request. They special-case their way out of ethics on a regular basis already.
Sysadmins understand encryption well enough to know there are plenty of different tools to use to encrypt data.
Allowing a backdoor to one tool does not grant access to every criminal communication.
Therefore, the request is pointless, it does nothing to make us more secure, and every IT guy knows it. The sysadmin may not care about protecting others' privacy, but he knows this isn't a good way to catch criminals because it won't work. The criminals will just use something else that the US government, or perhaps any government, cannot compel to add a backdoor.
Wire taps and other methods of law enforcement snooping on otherwise private conversations are routinely used to convict people of crimes. In a world of pervasive encryption this will no longer be possible.
You're perfectly welcome to argue that pervasive encryption is coming whether the government wants it or not, so it might as well get used to it.
You're also perfectly welcome that the benefits of pervasive encryption outweigh the costs.
Interesting you say this, need a narrative. Oddly one person I have heard making an issue of this is Rush. He is so solidly on the side of Apple it is amazing. I am curious if this will translate into the primaries if not general election.
I would love to get the transcript to today's show, it has been very enlightening to hear it and one thing to note, probably ten to twenty million people will have heard it too
I'm not so sure that Apple wasn't aware and perhaps even looking for a battle with the {FBI,NSA,CIA,...} when they added encryption. You don't start designing a system that makes you incapable of fulfilling a warrant without expecting and indeed preparing for those battles in the future.
In a way with things like NSL's and Secret warrants and courts the US had backed companies like Apple and Google into a wall. Post Snowden everyone knows that the Government can get information about you from them without your knowledge and you will have no recourse. It's a PR battle those companies can't win. So they did an end run. Go ahead and get your secret warrants and send those NSL's it's physically impossible for us to get you the information you want.
It forced this whole thing out into open. I can't help but think this sort of legal battle is both expected and in some cases desired by the likes of Apple and Google. They finally get to fight these battles out in the open and any loss of privacy can be blamed on the government rather than the company. It's a kind of PR win whether they win the court case or not.
Of course there is still the problem of not looking pro-terrorist in the process which is another risk to factor in. But at least it's a public debate rather than a private one now.
You're way off base on a bunch of your points, but here's one I'll address:
> The "All Writs Act" doesn't apply here because...
The All Writs Act appears to be somewhat frequently used to compel assistance with things like bypassing phone lock screens. It's not at all clear to this amateur law nerd -and appears to be not entirely clear in the professional law wonk community- that the attempt to use the AWA to compel Apple to break their own crypto scheme is inappropriate.
I get that you're mad about things. Bad argument motivated by anger rarely changes anything.
I wasn't angry. I find the need to smear me like that an excellent example of the anti-intellectualism that is rife on this site.
Fine, I've deleted my contribution. I don't waste time attempting to explain science to christians, I shouldn't waste time trying to teach you lot logic. For the same reason.
I suspect there's an emotional angle to this that people may not be aware of, either.
There are quite a few people active in software engineering today at major companies who grew up with the sci-fi ecosystem of dystopia stories that were relatively prevalent in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Add into the mix their observations and experiences watching the dotcom boom and bust, the first major cases of the FBI chasing down hackers and trying to deal with the inadequacies of the law to handle that class of crime by redlining all the punishments the law allowed, and the utter ridiculousness that was the war between file sharing systems / communities and the RIAA / MPAA, and you end up with a culture primed to see themselves as the smart guardians of the common person against abuse by authority. Even though they are the establishment now, they still see themselves as anti-establishment, taking a stand for little people against Big Brother. That's not necessarily a true reflection of the world (in many cases, the large software companies can themselves stand accused of being Big Brother), but it's the myth they grew up with.
And along comes clear and indisputable evidence that their governments have not only the theoretical capacity to mass-harvest data and mass-survey people, they are actually doing it and have actively breached the security infrastructure at the companies these people work for to make it happen. So people in the tech sector are mad. Seething, in fact. We talk of governments metaphorically breaking into people's houses, but it's not a metaphor for the people whose day-job it is to physically secure their houses---the people the governments have actually physically wiretapped, using Cold War-era techniques, without permission.
So if the governments want a war about who owns information, the people who work in the tech sector are excited to give them one.
Why does it matter if party A or party B is "the establishment?"
Personally I think nobody should be able to mass-surveil the entire population. And I don't trust the tech giants at all (especially on matters of privacy) but in the words of Henry Kissinger: "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."
It speaks to the disconnect that governments should have predicted but didn't: from one point of view, governments and big tech multinationals should be in the same boat (keeping the "users" safe and secure in their daily activities, able to go about their day without worrying about externalities that they've trusted big organizations to protect them from). But tech company employees don't generally see themselves as part of the same establishment ecosystem as the governments who want them to work together.
This is I think very true. The government underestimated I think the anger that had been and has been growing in the tech sector around these issues. I try myself to be objective and still find myself having an initial reaction of anger.
It can be very difficult sometimes to distinguish between your purely emotional reaction and the objective risk factors involved that you need to balance. There is very much an us against them mentality that frankly seems to have caught the Government off guard a bit.
> Go ahead and get your secret warrants and send those NSL's it's physically impossible for us to get you the information you want.
I would agree with you except for this bit right here. Apple has already acknowledged that they can break this. They just don't want to. If they government pushes hard enough, they won't have a choice. My cynical side this is probably all Apple was hoping for. Look like the good guys, but don't do anything that would increase their liability.
Even if they designed something they couldn't break now, they control the update mechanism. Adding the ability to do so in the next update is, from my understanding of Apple products, possible. I do agree that it has forced this whole thing out into the open, but they could have done so much more here to make it actually impossible to break if they truly wanted to make a stand. Of course, they'd be giving up their hold on your device if they did that.
> Apple has been excoriated by presidential candidates, and backed into the tightest of corners by the FBI: the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year.
I can't believe The Guardian is sounding so hostile to Apple in this context. Don't they understand the consequences?!
A lot of people have been jealously watching on as 'fat cat' 'tech bros' eat into their industries. Now there are signs that the market will correct and that technology companies will not continue to get free passes with which to ignore government. In short, they want to see blood and will settle to see it whichever way they can.
Tech on the whole needs to wise up politically. It cannot continue to accept the negative characterisations of its members, nor can it continue to do whatever it wants without any political ramifications. Even if we believe we're doing the right thing, we'll need to redeem ourselves in the public eye and critically evaluate solutions to social problems we've been implicated in (whether or not we are the sole cause of them.)
I don't mean to discount the anti-censorship narrative. I'm merely pointing to another narrative that also exists and is gaining mindshare - demographic issues in tech, inequality caused by tech, tech ignoring government, people in tech being arrogant, etc.
pro-Snowden... but openly anti-Assange, and moving to the right of the political discourse at increasing speed (they dropped UK Labour in 2010, campaigned against the current Labour leader, and are keen to appease the US market).
The Guardian is trying to grow in the U.S. market, not appease it. If the Guardian does nothing, it's not under any kind of threat other than being ignored. You appease someone who threatens you.
They are appeasing the (mostly US-based) online market that is making them obsolete. See what happened to The Independent? That will happen to The Guardian as well, unless they can become a real player in the US and hence globally. I could have used "begging" as well but it would have been a bit degrading.
Well, technically they are moving to the right, but to left of centre from the far left. They used to be insufferable, I actually far prefered the independant in print.
They used to have this tiresome war reporter who would write these highly biased and inflammatory pieces which weren't news but propaganda. And the opinion pieces, ugh. I used to rotate papers (telegraph, indie and Guardian), I personally thought the Guardian was terrible at unbiasedly reporting the actual news.
As the Guardian has become the main left wing news due to the independant sucking on the web, I'm glad they've chilled out a bit.
Frankly, yes on second reading I agree with your assessment. However the whole tone of the article, especially during "scan reading", seems to attempt to tilt the reader's judgement against Apple.
The article is doing an analysis of the current situation, not declaring its support for one side of the other. Like others have pointed out, there are other articles supporting Apple's position, but one must still see the threats for what they are.
The article is arguing that tech companies used to operate with impunity and are now facing tougher times.
Which company operated without consequences? Microsoft had to decouple IE years ago, and other monopolies have been forced to break apart or sell off pieces. Software patents have caused plenty of headaches and force us to walk on egg shells, hire expensive defense attorneys, or lobby congress for more reasonable laws that promote innovation.
This article is all over the place. Leader or not, it's too unfocused to make sense. It's clear whoever compiled and published it does not really understand tech.
As i understand the situation, the FBI only wanted Apple to create a operating system that lives in the devices ram that removes the wipe after 10 tries. This would not comprimise Apple's encryption since the operating system would still contain Apple's private key (and the FBI added one time use provisions, also that this could happen in an Apple Facility).
Hence the question is, Does Apple have to make a different OS (so that the FBI could brute force) to see what is contained on the particular device?
I think they will be forced to, and i don't know that i have a problem with it.
I am of a few minds about this. Firstly, I do not want to create a political environment where the government can tell people how their phones can be made (w.r.t. security, particularly). Thus, I want there to be clear limits on what federal agencies are able to do.
But secondly, I am skeptical about the way giant corporations wield their power against the government. Apple surely has its own priorities and goals, which are often at odds with mine and, separately, those of the government that represents me. While I have a small bit of influence on how my government operates I have even less influence on how such corporations operate, even though their decisions greatly affect my life. When their position re:privacy reflects mine, I am glad for it, but what happens when the issue is taxation or trade policy? My government might not be pursuing great solutions on these issues, but I don't really trust giant self-interested corporations to have a better solution.
Thirdly, though, I am personally concerned about how this debate cements Apple's power to lock down their devices even, in many ways against their users. The particulars of their security design seem to preclude users from writing their own operating systems for the phone or creating/using software that isn't directly sanctioned by the company. The same applies, to a great extent, to other hardware and software vendors (in particular, Google/Microsoft/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/etc.). I suspect this battle will end up giving us more locked-down devices in the name of security.
90 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadIt's certainly ubiquitous and familiar in the UK (I don't know about internationally) and it's not at all unusual.
That may or may not be true, but I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to what seems to be a quite valid view to take.
> Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing
> That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule.
> What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
> This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means.
People may be taking offensive to the author not outright denouncing the FBI. He also doesn't sound like a fan of the tech industry (which is certainly ok). But there's a definite tone conveyed in just a few paragraphs.
> the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year.
It isn't hard. The case is a right to privacy, which also happens to be a huge part of ANY tech company's business. The reason we use so much tech these days is because of the privacy controls. Also, Snowden and others pointed out the FBI probably has all useful the information it could retrieve about this terrorist anyway, so the work phone is relatively useless.
> Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing
Translation - "tech companies are creating problems in modern life akin to oil companies' oil spills"
> That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule.
- "Tech companies are in a weak position and will probably lose this battle"
> What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”
"What if" sounds like the author is warning of impending doom on the tech sector. The suggested cases are not far-fetched, but yeah, tech doesn't traffic people, people traffic people.
> This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means.
I don't know how you can read that as anything but anti-tech. I believe tech business understands encryption deeply, and has even striven to understand the government's position and comply whenever possible. It is the government who needs to come to the table and sincerely listen and understand the implications of what it is asking, that a) their solution will hurt IT in the US and future innovation of humanity and b) their solution won't work since criminals will simply find another encryption app or device to use
tech doesn't exist without encryption.
The Guardian is not arguing against encryption. It's pointing out, completely correctly, that in increased availability of strong encryption raises issues that we have no yet dealt with.
It isn't hard. The case is a right to privacy, which also happens to be a huge part of ANY tech company's business. The reason we use so much tech these days is because of the privacy controls. Also, Snowden and others pointed out the FBI probably has all useful the information it could retrieve about this terrorist anyway, so the work phone is relatively useless.
I don't agree – it is a difficult case to make. I happen to agree that access is not justified in this case, but it's hardly completely obvious that this is the case.
Translation - "tech companies are creating problems in modern life akin to oil companies' oil spills"
No – this states, again quite correctly, that increased presence and use of the products provided by tech companies means that the decisions they make have wider impact. It's a traditionally unregulated, not-really-seen-as-worthy-of-regulation sector, but as the decisions and events surrounding these companies gain more public awareness, there will be increased pressure to deal with the outcomes.
"Tech companies are in a weak position and will probably lose this battle"
Again, just no. This argument clearly points out that the FBI case has brought a simmering matter to a bit of a head, and that it's difficult to see a way in which Apple will come out of it looking good. Either they are "helping to shield terrorists" or they are "signing away customers' privacy".
"What if" sounds like the author is warning of impending doom on the tech sector.
That's not an anti-tech, though. It's a good point – what happens when something unambiguously bad happens in the future? The Guardian is not saying "we can't have encryption because this might happen" – it's saying "This might happen in the future, how will tech companies cope?"
I was just trying to help you see how it could be perceived as anti-tech. You seemed eager to learn why others felt that way.
It's also worth keeping in mind that this greater scrutiny of practices in the tech industry and how ethical and/or legal they are is probably no bad thing in general. In this particular case I expect most of us on HN would see the wider implications and side with Apple. However, the fact that Apple and other big tech firms are having to make these kinds of changes in the first place, to actively defend their customers' security and privacy and thus protect their own reputations as trusted suppliers, is itself a consequence of greater scrutiny in recent years and the tech industry no longer having carte blanche to make its own rules.
The Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian Media Group had about 1.1 billion pounds net assets, of which the vast majority are liquid, as of end of March 2015 (after they've over the last few years sold of shares in various regional newspapers and AutoTrader, shoring up their balance sheet massively).
The sole purpose of The Scott Trust is to secure The Guardian in perpetuity.
There may be layoffs at some point. There may not be. But losing money for years on end is in itself not a problem for The Guardian. They'll want to at some point trim the loss down a bit to not eat to much into the capital, but at current rates then have quite literally decades of runway.
That's a tragedy at such a great newspaper, but it does color their analysis regarding the companies most responsible for their decline.
[1] http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/25/guardian-to-cut-costs-by...
Just for fun, the old Apple advertisement.
1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial (HD)
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
I think the argument about the iPhone backdoor software is a slippery slope one. As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. This is what Snowden is about.
We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise, so I would be careful when defending Apple here.
Now I'm not a lawyer nor a political scientist, but I want to side with the FBI on this one. I'm sure Apple is playing their popularity card here. There are things that are more important and go beyond gadgets built in the silicon valley. It doesn't necessarily have something to do with Snowden.
I expect people to disagree with me here, and it's fine.
I completely agree that the State can compel anyone to do anything he is able to do. That's why it's so vitally important to build systems which don't allow anyone but the owner to authorise changes.
Apple shouldn't be able to install an app or update OS code without an iPhone owner okaying the change. Google shouldn't be able to read my WiFi password. Mirosoft shouldn't be able to read my OneDrive files.
If it's not possible for someone to do something, then he can't be compelled to do it.
In this particular case, the actual owner (the county) should have maintained an ability to access the phone at any time, but they didn't.
Drawing the line at software is arbitrary and does a disservice. It's that same narrow minded view of software (as being somehow different than the physical world) that leads to idiotic things like treating email inboxes different than physical inboxes.
I can taste your sweet fear from here.
I know that a difference must be made, and not let security have an influence on freedom.
Personally I have huge sympathy for Apple in this case. I have less sympathy for Google and Facebook. Apple, admittedly for business reasons, has come out strongly supporting privacy and I think they should be awarded for that.
You can't win politics with money alone. You need a narrative that appeals to peoples' values. Privacy is not a winner in this regard, nor is unrestricted markets (note the leading republican candidate today is pushing an anti-free-trade message). People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc).
Correct me if I'm wrong it sounds like you are saying encryption is undermining security? It might be you have that backwards?
"Encryption is used by terrorists and evil-doers to hide their nefarious plans to harm Americans and American values. Innocent and hard-working Americans have nothing to hide. Only those who wish to harm us do. Had Apple allowed the FBI to listen on emails and conversations and text messages, San Bernardino would not have happened".
"The FBI request to unlock Apple phones will not make you more safe. Criminals will use an alternative encryption device or app to communicate, or create their own."
It shouldn't take long to disprove the government's claim.
Our media isn't always pro-government, thankfully, so let's see what comes out. So far I see reports of Cook's statement, the Apple Q&A, and Comey's letter. Some are opinionated but most are just telling the story.
Apple buys Ads but Apple "cares" only because of the PR value of encrypting things and the fact enough of Apple's younger crowd would ditch them that it would eat into their quarterly profits. However, if its in the corner of losing 5% of their customers vs. a major legal war with the US Government, I'm not sure they'll choose to fight much [if at all].
Apple buys Ads, yes, but so do 29103423904092334902 other companies. If Apple stops, they can get their money elsewhere. I've already heard tons of people insisting Apple shouldn't be allowed to encrypt phones, so I'd say the media narrative is already playing out to Apple's detriment.
> Our media isn't always pro-government, thankfully, so let's see what comes out. So far I see reports of Cook's statement, the Apple Q&A, and Comey's letter. Some are opinionated but most are just telling the story.
The vast majority of people IRL think I'm paranoid for believing:
1) Our law enforcement agencies are engaging in unreasonable levels of domestic mass surveillance.
http://abc7.com/news/anaheim-police-eavesdropping-on-persona...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anaheim-cops-spy-program...
http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/top-stories/lapd-has-had-s...
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2930731/security0/surve...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/heres...
2) Terrorists are less dangerous than medical errors and other problems. The emphasis on their existence and the threat they pose appears to be intentionally propagandized to enable #1.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-g...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/2...
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mista...
3) I believe a large part of why people believe I'm paranoid is they largely operate in a soundbite environment when it comes to the news [largely by watching news from news networks, etc] rather than bothering to read it. The surveillance related issues seem to be largely only reported in written form and have relatively low circulation outside of media coverage of Snowden. People have already mostly forgotten / stopped caring.
Plenty of people still care about things, and the fact that you can come up with this list shows you do too.
Sometimes people just need to hear something said in a different way, and sometimes you just can't reach them. It's okay if some people don't hear you. If any people do become more informed because of your message then you have succeeded.
Just pointing out that the IT guy may not have much sway over the general population.
If we're talking about character-based influence though, then we should also consider how people perceive Apple and the government. People love Apple products, and law enforcement overreach videos and stories have been circulating a lot lately.
Could you elaborate on how the precedent of signing a custom IOS release for a specific target IPhone is distinctly different and cannot be interpolated to further and broader requests? For example a request for custom IOS version which the FBI can install on other target phones themselves?
The other point to consider is that if the US government can compel companies to create and sign custom binaries there are other governments (China) that I'm sure would love to play at the same game. From a security standpoint it would be best for everyone if what the FBI is currently asking was entirely impossible in the first place.
I fully buy that there are legal, cultural, and diplomatic reasons that this could make Apple's customers less secure in the long run by setting a precedent, etc.
I guess one argument is that whatever code they write to tie the "weaponized" iOS update to a particular device could have bugs.
That will have a significant impact on the future of the US tech industry, world innovation, and the advancement of the human race.
The kind of insecurity people are talking about is a policy concern; people will feel less secure if Apple can be compelled to exploit their capability this way.
That's a valid concern, but it's not a concern that really touches on how much more the "token IT person" knows than a layperson with little technical knowledge.
It annoys me a lot when people in technology deploy special- pleading logic like this.
It is either acceptable for Apple to bypass a security feature or it is unacceptable. Tech people seem to have a real hard time with the idea that:
A) It might be acceptable some of time time but not others
B) There are competing values at play here and even if we decide it's (un)acceptable there are some downsides to either choice.
In the hypothetical that Apple did not have the capability to defeat the 5C's passcode counter, is the FBI thwarted because of a technically secure cryptosystem or because it is the policy in the United States to allow such cryptosystems to be marketed and sold?
Policy and technology do not exist in a vacuum. Apple is obviously going to close the custom image loophole in response to this "debate"; so clearly the boundary between technology and policy is fluid. But merely taping a policy out for silicon, as Apple is going to do in the next chip, does not address any of the underlying issues. Sure, in the instant case Apple "technically can" unlock the iPhone, but that is always true: we could create a law such that all phones must be backdoored for example. Assuming Apple loses here, mark your calendar, because we'll have that battle next year when a terrorist uses the new silicon.
There is a line somewhere for what is reasonable to compel. Reasonable people can disagree about where that line is, but let's not paint "people in technology" with a broad patronizing brush of "it's not technology, it's policy, therefore your rules don't apply". Technology is merely policy that's machine-readible.
> It won't make phones less secure in any technological sense... The kind of insecurity people are talking about is a policy concern;
(My comment alleges there is no such thing as a "technological sense" as distinct from a "policy concern".)
> It annoys me a lot when people in technology deploy special- pleading logic like this.
(My comment alleges that the logic isn't special-pleading.)
I didn't intend to be read as confrontationally as perhaps I sounded. You have a minority position in this kind of environment; I take minority positions sometimes, I understand it is not always pleasant to prosecute them. If you don't want to prosecute them, I won't make you. I'm just explaining that I really did offer a good-faith rebuttal of what I understood to be your position. There may be something wrong with it, but I don't think it's off-topic.
Most corporate sysadmins are BOFHs, relishing the power they wield and convinced they can do no wrong. They have nothing against electronic surveillance -- they practice it daily with gusto, they just think they're smart enough to avoid someone else doing it to them.
Hell, the whole "root" model is fundamentally authoritarian in principle, no matter how hard we try not to say it. It might have been born out of engineering necessity, but it has long generated its own cultural artefacts. It might have been balanced somewhat by historical accident (i.e. west-coast liberal culture, phreaking etc), but this balance has been eroded when the IT job market exploded and all sorts of people were onboarded.
Modern sysadmins would find nothing strange with the FBI request. They special-case their way out of ethics on a regular basis already.
Allowing a backdoor to one tool does not grant access to every criminal communication.
Therefore, the request is pointless, it does nothing to make us more secure, and every IT guy knows it. The sysadmin may not care about protecting others' privacy, but he knows this isn't a good way to catch criminals because it won't work. The criminals will just use something else that the US government, or perhaps any government, cannot compel to add a backdoor.
You're perfectly welcome to argue that pervasive encryption is coming whether the government wants it or not, so it might as well get used to it.
You're also perfectly welcome that the benefits of pervasive encryption outweigh the costs.
I might even agree with you on both points.
But to deny the costs is to deny reality.
I would love to get the transcript to today's show, it has been very enlightening to hear it and one thing to note, probably ten to twenty million people will have heard it too
In a way with things like NSL's and Secret warrants and courts the US had backed companies like Apple and Google into a wall. Post Snowden everyone knows that the Government can get information about you from them without your knowledge and you will have no recourse. It's a PR battle those companies can't win. So they did an end run. Go ahead and get your secret warrants and send those NSL's it's physically impossible for us to get you the information you want.
It forced this whole thing out into open. I can't help but think this sort of legal battle is both expected and in some cases desired by the likes of Apple and Google. They finally get to fight these battles out in the open and any loss of privacy can be blamed on the government rather than the company. It's a kind of PR win whether they win the court case or not.
Of course there is still the problem of not looking pro-terrorist in the process which is another risk to factor in. But at least it's a public debate rather than a private one now.
> The "All Writs Act" doesn't apply here because...
The All Writs Act appears to be somewhat frequently used to compel assistance with things like bypassing phone lock screens. It's not at all clear to this amateur law nerd -and appears to be not entirely clear in the professional law wonk community- that the attempt to use the AWA to compel Apple to break their own crypto scheme is inappropriate.
I get that you're mad about things. Bad argument motivated by anger rarely changes anything.
Fine, I've deleted my contribution. I don't waste time attempting to explain science to christians, I shouldn't waste time trying to teach you lot logic. For the same reason.
There are quite a few people active in software engineering today at major companies who grew up with the sci-fi ecosystem of dystopia stories that were relatively prevalent in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Add into the mix their observations and experiences watching the dotcom boom and bust, the first major cases of the FBI chasing down hackers and trying to deal with the inadequacies of the law to handle that class of crime by redlining all the punishments the law allowed, and the utter ridiculousness that was the war between file sharing systems / communities and the RIAA / MPAA, and you end up with a culture primed to see themselves as the smart guardians of the common person against abuse by authority. Even though they are the establishment now, they still see themselves as anti-establishment, taking a stand for little people against Big Brother. That's not necessarily a true reflection of the world (in many cases, the large software companies can themselves stand accused of being Big Brother), but it's the myth they grew up with.
And along comes clear and indisputable evidence that their governments have not only the theoretical capacity to mass-harvest data and mass-survey people, they are actually doing it and have actively breached the security infrastructure at the companies these people work for to make it happen. So people in the tech sector are mad. Seething, in fact. We talk of governments metaphorically breaking into people's houses, but it's not a metaphor for the people whose day-job it is to physically secure their houses---the people the governments have actually physically wiretapped, using Cold War-era techniques, without permission.
So if the governments want a war about who owns information, the people who work in the tech sector are excited to give them one.
Personally I think nobody should be able to mass-surveil the entire population. And I don't trust the tech giants at all (especially on matters of privacy) but in the words of Henry Kissinger: "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."
It can be very difficult sometimes to distinguish between your purely emotional reaction and the objective risk factors involved that you need to balance. There is very much an us against them mentality that frankly seems to have caught the Government off guard a bit.
I would agree with you except for this bit right here. Apple has already acknowledged that they can break this. They just don't want to. If they government pushes hard enough, they won't have a choice. My cynical side this is probably all Apple was hoping for. Look like the good guys, but don't do anything that would increase their liability.
Even if they designed something they couldn't break now, they control the update mechanism. Adding the ability to do so in the next update is, from my understanding of Apple products, possible. I do agree that it has forced this whole thing out into the open, but they could have done so much more here to make it actually impossible to break if they truly wanted to make a stand. Of course, they'd be giving up their hold on your device if they did that.
I can't believe The Guardian is sounding so hostile to Apple in this context. Don't they understand the consequences?!
A lot of people have been jealously watching on as 'fat cat' 'tech bros' eat into their industries. Now there are signs that the market will correct and that technology companies will not continue to get free passes with which to ignore government. In short, they want to see blood and will settle to see it whichever way they can.
Tech on the whole needs to wise up politically. It cannot continue to accept the negative characterisations of its members, nor can it continue to do whatever it wants without any political ramifications. Even if we believe we're doing the right thing, we'll need to redeem ourselves in the public eye and critically evaluate solutions to social problems we've been implicated in (whether or not we are the sole cause of them.)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/apple-s...
If you look through the other articles it's all been fairly pro-Apple:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/apple
It's a bit strange that a business writer has been allowed to fairly anonymously attack Apple, in what has been a pro-Snowdon/privacy paper.
/nitpick
They used to have this tiresome war reporter who would write these highly biased and inflammatory pieces which weren't news but propaganda. And the opinion pieces, ugh. I used to rotate papers (telegraph, indie and Guardian), I personally thought the Guardian was terrible at unbiasedly reporting the actual news.
As the Guardian has become the main left wing news due to the independant sucking on the web, I'm glad they've chilled out a bit.
Which company operated without consequences? Microsoft had to decouple IE years ago, and other monopolies have been forced to break apart or sell off pieces. Software patents have caused plenty of headaches and force us to walk on egg shells, hire expensive defense attorneys, or lobby congress for more reasonable laws that promote innovation.
This article is all over the place. Leader or not, it's too unfocused to make sense. It's clear whoever compiled and published it does not really understand tech.
Hence the question is, Does Apple have to make a different OS (so that the FBI could brute force) to see what is contained on the particular device?
I think they will be forced to, and i don't know that i have a problem with it.
But secondly, I am skeptical about the way giant corporations wield their power against the government. Apple surely has its own priorities and goals, which are often at odds with mine and, separately, those of the government that represents me. While I have a small bit of influence on how my government operates I have even less influence on how such corporations operate, even though their decisions greatly affect my life. When their position re:privacy reflects mine, I am glad for it, but what happens when the issue is taxation or trade policy? My government might not be pursuing great solutions on these issues, but I don't really trust giant self-interested corporations to have a better solution.
Thirdly, though, I am personally concerned about how this debate cements Apple's power to lock down their devices even, in many ways against their users. The particulars of their security design seem to preclude users from writing their own operating systems for the phone or creating/using software that isn't directly sanctioned by the company. The same applies, to a great extent, to other hardware and software vendors (in particular, Google/Microsoft/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/etc.). I suspect this battle will end up giving us more locked-down devices in the name of security.