5 ms·

My take away from this is quite different. Or at least tangential. I expect Apple and any other company to have to comply with local laws in various countries

My take away from this is quite different. Or at least tangential. I expect Apple and any other company to have to comply with local laws in various countries. It's unavoidable. What else could they do? Refuse and loose access to that population? But right now, as regards device encryption and back doors, there is a sort of mutually assured destruction. A MAD that the US law enforcement (e.g. FBI et al) are constantly trying to undermine. Right now Apple claims the iPhone is designed such that they cannot unencrypt it. The FBI wants to force them to create a method. Regardless of the technique used that then will make every similar device world wide subject to the whims of local law as regards allow that country access. What would stop any country from then demanding blanket access to devices? But at the moment this doesn't seem happen because there's an unspoken detente among adversarial countries to not demand such back-doors. This situation reminds me of that. Since it is possible for Apple and others to block things on their app stores, countries demand it. It's a cautionary tale of why it's important for companies to design certain things from the bottom up to prevent bad behavior.

mattferderer 9y ago
Microsoft's current CEO discusses this in a chapter of his new book "Refresh". Listening to him, I think the big companies are going to fight hard & have popular opinion on their side when it comes to securing data. I believe Erlang creator Joe Armstrong has proposed some sort of split security. Something along the lines of securing the most important data from everyone & allowing government access to limited data that could help them catch bad guys. He wasn't very convincing in the podcast I listened to but maybe in written form he could provide a better argument.
- mtgx 9y ago
  > Listening to him, I think the big companies are going to fight hard & have popular opinion on their side when it comes to securing data. I'm glad they are thinking this way. But over the past few years, Silicon Valley companies have also made themselves more hated and less trusted by the general public. This won't bode well for the "final fight" between them and the government, because they may be surprised to find out that people won't show up to support them anymore. So tech companies, don't be Uber, is basically what I'm saying. Stop being so non-transparent with your data collection and your aggressive and shameless tracking, while also making it very hard for users to either know what you're doing or to disable your tracking. If all companies would revert back to a "first, do no evil" mantra by default, I think they would find it much easier to have the support of the general public when it comes to big government fights.
- Frondo 9y ago
  I like that idea, Joe Armstrong's split security idea a lot. Can you link the podcast? I'd like to hear what he said. I'm a strong believer in privacy, in not trying to legislate backdoors into encryption, but I'm also a proponent of the idea that everything in society is a balancing act between the individual and society (and we see this play out in every aspect of life, so it's not a radical new idea); the question is finding the right balance. Interesting, very interesting. Please, if you can, link that podcast.
  - mattferderer 9y ago
    Sorry for the late reply.. Here's the link - https://soundcloud.com/elixirfountain/episode-058-actors-and-the-internet-of-things-with-carl-hewitt https://soundcloud.com/elixirfountain/episode-058-actors-and... It was actually Carl Hewitt & not Joe Armstrong. Though the Joe Armstrong episode after this one is also interesting.
cryptonector 9y ago
China doesn't need the FBI to get its way in order for China to get its way.
- ickwabe 9y ago
  Right. But there is an apparent balance at the moment where because no government has demanded and received back doors, no country mandates it. It's a precarious spot to be sure. But it would be bad for the US to step off the line first.
  - cryptonector 9y ago
    It's only a matter of time before China feels they can do it. They will, if they haven't yet. Not defending U.S. politicos and bureaucrats who also want it. Just saying that the U.S. asking or not asking for backdoors will soon make no difference.
    - ickwabe 9y ago
      Perhaps but at that point the US (or whoever) can counter with their own rules/laws. Might lead to manufacturing balkanization but I'd prefer the US not the one to step over the line first in the same way I'd prefer the US not be the first to use nukes (although I guess that's a bit hyperbolic).
duozerk 9y ago
> What else could they do? Refuse and loose access to that population? ... yes ? that would require putting human rights above profits, though.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  What does that achieve? May be it's ethically better, but what does it actually do that is a net positive to the consumer?
- jMyles 9y ago
  ...or even just an assessment that the long-term profits are greater in a world where human rights are absolute.
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    But then they would have to be able to prove that in a court of law. What people don't understand here is that the principle of fiduciary duty binds the hands of a lot of these companies. If you don't hold the controlling voting interest in the company... you really have very limited room to maneuver legally speaking. Now if Apple could count on its shareholders not to sue them... THEN they could operate in the fashion that you postulate.
    - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
      Tim Cook has shown that Apple has no problem telling people to ditch their shares when the interests truly don't align. [0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook...
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      Ugh, this is most definitely not true at all. Apple has repeatedly refused to bend to shareholder's demands, and has suggested that shareholders unhappy with Apple's focus on environmental conservation (at the expense of greater short-term profits) should buy a different stock.
jMyles 9y ago
> What else could they do? Refuse and loose access to that population? Yes! And go even further: actively assist in aiding dissent and revolution in nations whose disrespect for human rights is so flagrant as to threaten their business model. I don't understand why the state is held in such regard as to casually gloss over the possibility that private entities, especially those as massive as Apple, might help to smash it. Apple is an incredibly powerful entity in the world today. There is no reason for them to sit on the sidelines rather than to aid in bringing China down. It's inevitable; the only question is whether it takes 60 years and happens on the backs of the poor and nameless or whether giants like Apple flex their muscle to help.
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  No offense intended here... but I think you, at once, overestimate the power of Apple... and underestimate the power of "nations... [that]... disrespect... human rights". (The US, China etc etc I suppose).

mattferderer 9y ago

Microsoft's current CEO discusses this in a chapter of his new book "Refresh". Listening to him, I think the big companies are going to fight hard & have popular opinion on their side when it comes to securing data. I believe Erlang creator Joe Armstrong has proposed some sort of split security. Something along the lines of securing the most important data from everyone & allowing government access to limited data that could help them catch bad guys. He wasn't very convincing in the podcast I listened to but maybe in written form he could provide a better argument.

mtgx 9y ago
> Listening to him, I think the big companies are going to fight hard & have popular opinion on their side when it comes to securing data. I'm glad they are thinking this way. But over the past few years, Silicon Valley companies have also made themselves more hated and less trusted by the general public. This won't bode well for the "final fight" between them and the government, because they may be surprised to find out that people won't show up to support them anymore. So tech companies, don't be Uber, is basically what I'm saying. Stop being so non-transparent with your data collection and your aggressive and shameless tracking, while also making it very hard for users to either know what you're doing or to disable your tracking. If all companies would revert back to a "first, do no evil" mantra by default, I think they would find it much easier to have the support of the general public when it comes to big government fights.
Frondo 9y ago
I like that idea, Joe Armstrong's split security idea a lot. Can you link the podcast? I'd like to hear what he said. I'm a strong believer in privacy, in not trying to legislate backdoors into encryption, but I'm also a proponent of the idea that everything in society is a balancing act between the individual and society (and we see this play out in every aspect of life, so it's not a radical new idea); the question is finding the right balance. Interesting, very interesting. Please, if you can, link that podcast.
- mattferderer 9y ago
  Sorry for the late reply.. Here's the link - https://soundcloud.com/elixirfountain/episode-058-actors-and-the-internet-of-things-with-carl-hewitt https://soundcloud.com/elixirfountain/episode-058-actors-and... It was actually Carl Hewitt & not Joe Armstrong. Though the Joe Armstrong episode after this one is also interesting.

cryptonector 9y ago

China doesn't need the FBI to get its way in order for China to get its way.

ickwabe 9y ago
Right. But there is an apparent balance at the moment where because no government has demanded and received back doors, no country mandates it. It's a precarious spot to be sure. But it would be bad for the US to step off the line first.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  It's only a matter of time before China feels they can do it. They will, if they haven't yet. Not defending U.S. politicos and bureaucrats who also want it. Just saying that the U.S. asking or not asking for backdoors will soon make no difference.
  - ickwabe 9y ago
    Perhaps but at that point the US (or whoever) can counter with their own rules/laws. Might lead to manufacturing balkanization but I'd prefer the US not the one to step over the line first in the same way I'd prefer the US not be the first to use nukes (although I guess that's a bit hyperbolic).

duozerk 9y ago

> What else could they do? Refuse and loose access to that population? ... yes ? that would require putting human rights above profits, though.

scrollaway 9y ago
What does that achieve? May be it's ethically better, but what does it actually do that is a net positive to the consumer?
jMyles 9y ago
...or even just an assessment that the long-term profits are greater in a world where human rights are absolute.
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  But then they would have to be able to prove that in a court of law. What people don't understand here is that the principle of fiduciary duty binds the hands of a lot of these companies. If you don't hold the controlling voting interest in the company... you really have very limited room to maneuver legally speaking. Now if Apple could count on its shareholders not to sue them... THEN they could operate in the fashion that you postulate.
  - DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
    Tim Cook has shown that Apple has no problem telling people to ditch their shares when the interests truly don't align. [0] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook-climate-change-sceptics-ditch-apple-shares https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook...
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    Ugh, this is most definitely not true at all. Apple has repeatedly refused to bend to shareholder's demands, and has suggested that shareholders unhappy with Apple's focus on environmental conservation (at the expense of greater short-term profits) should buy a different stock.

jMyles 9y ago

> What else could they do? Refuse and loose access to that population? Yes! And go even further: actively assist in aiding dissent and revolution in nations whose disrespect for human rights is so flagrant as to threaten their business model. I don't understand why the state is held in such regard as to casually gloss over the possibility that private entities, especially those as massive as Apple, might help to smash it. Apple is an incredibly powerful entity in the world today. There is no reason for them to sit on the sidelines rather than to aid in bringing China down. It's inevitable; the only question is whether it takes 60 years and happens on the backs of the poor and nameless or whether giants like Apple flex their muscle to help.

bilbo0s 9y ago
No offense intended here... but I think you, at once, overestimate the power of Apple... and underestimate the power of "nations... [that]... disrespect... human rights". (The US, China etc etc I suppose).