Tim Cook to Speak at White House Cybersecurity Summit

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumors, Feb 9, 2015.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Apple CEO Tim Cook will speak at a White House cybersecurity summit on Friday at Stanford University, according to The Hill. The summit is another battleground in which tech companies and the government will discuss encryption.

    Cook and other technology executives have called for government surveillance reform, calling for limitations on government authority to collect users' information, oversight and accountability, transparency about demands and more.

    Meanwhile, the FBI has been in talks with companies like Google and Apple about their privacy features and have expressed concern that their encryption makes it difficult for investigators to infiltrate a kidnapper or terrorist's device for information that could prevent crimes or attacks. One Department of Justice official told Apple that investigators' inability to access their devices could lead to children dying.

    FBI Assistant Director Joe Demarest Jr. and Secret Service Deputy Director A.T. Smith are two of the government officials who will give remarks on Friday.

    Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

    Article Link: Tim Cook to Speak at White House Cybersecurity Summit
  2. 76ShovelHead macrumors 6502a


    May 30, 2010
    Think about the children! :rolleyes:

    Privacy is important in this ever-changing world. Just because there are sicko's, and there always will be, doesn't mean the average Joe should have to give up his privacy. There is no good that can come of it.
  3. goobot macrumors 603


    Jun 26, 2009
    long island NY
    The gov should be able to access it with a warrant, problem is they think that because it's on an iPhone now the 5th amendment no longer matters, so it forced companies like Apple to block it all together. Really it's there own fault for overstepping to begin with.
  4. Jimmy James macrumors 601

    Jimmy James

    Oct 26, 2008
  5. elmateo487 macrumors 6502a

    Jun 12, 2008
    Yeah. "with a warrant." Uh huh

    Let's go ask our friend Ed Snowden what he thinks.
  6. Zxxv macrumors 68040

    Nov 13, 2011
    does my digital self not have rights?

    if I can be pretty much recreated from my digital self then surely that digital self has a right to not have its privacy violated?

    unless a warrant is served
  7. Swift macrumors 68000


    Feb 18, 2003
    Los Angeles
    I think of it this way: the default should be private. But most of the Internet is public. One day the whole world will be on it. Some things, like shopping and banking, personal conversations, etc, are private. Other places, much less so.

    However, why don't Americans just read the Constitution? By default, your home, and your private life, is private. When police find information that you may be committing a crime-- not by surveillance, but in real life-- they can get a warrant for a search from a judge. So, why not the same for the Internet as for real life? A warrant can mean a search of your papers, your bedroom or your phone line.the Internet should be the same.

    A lot of people say you can't allow tapping a computer because that means an insecure back door. That's not true. It's another way into your account with the government having a public key as well, that would be illegal for them to use unless they got a warrant, based on them convincing a judge they had reasonable grounds to suspect you were committing a crime. I'm not talking about spy agencies, but state and federal law enforcement. Putting child porn or the records of a criminal enterprise in the cloud shouldn't make it safer than in real life. I can't figure out why it's different. There were thousands of hours of phone calls recorded to catch one Mafia boss. Should be able to get a warrant if the Mafia boss's hipper son joins the business.
  8. 2457282, Feb 10, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2015

    2457282 Suspended

    Dec 6, 2012
    Privacy is very important especially for children on-line that could be taken advantage of. The first problem is that WE in technology did a horrible job of developing the Internet, wifi, apps, etc with security and privacy in mind. Let's be honest, it's a complete mess and that's why hackers are able to infiltrate.

    The second problem is because of this mess authorities have come to believe that they can just look at anything or anybody at anytime without due process.

    The answer has to be in response to these two major issues. We need to build everything with security and privacy as a primary requirement in every system (I.e. Encrypt everything by default, tokenize everything by default, firewall the firewalls, sandbox the sandbox, close the ports, VPN, SSL, etc.) and the authorities need to go back to due process. When it was a landline, a warrant was required to tap into the line; and there is absolutely no valid reason to move away from that due process. If the authorities have the need to monitor someone's communication and can convince a judge that there is probable cause, then okay. Right now the bar is a bit low, but over time the bar will get raised just like it did for phone lines.
  9. kd5jos macrumors 6502


    Oct 28, 2007
    Denver, CO
    When you're wrong...

    And when they get this information by surveillance (as the PATRIOT act allows them to do) before they get a warrant, they then get a warrant, reverse engineer what they need (make sure their story fits the evidence) and circumvent the whole process. And there is nothing to stop it from happening. Not a conspiratorial rant, but a very real statement.

    Yes it is true. It is delusion to believe it is not.

    Yes, building a backdoor IN ANY SYSTEM makes it less secure. Period. You have to way the risks. And the risks of government abuse of power become astronomical.

    Skipjack and the clipper chip ring a bell?

    Turning state and federal law enforcement into spy agencies. First we militarize them, then we make them clandestine. What would be the difference between the U.S. you just described and the U.S.S.R. with the KGB?

    The problem is that the government could claim terrorist activities on anything at this point and invade your privacy any time they wanted...

    You are scaring the hell out of me. Do people REALLY believe this is a good idea?

Share This Page

8 February 9, 2015