Twitter, eBay, Airbnb, Reddit and More Officially Supporting Apple in FBI Fight [Updated]

[dk001]

Is it unclear, or do people just not read it? Agreeing to T&C without reading it is commensurate with signing a contract without reading it...someone who does that has only themselves to blame.

That's a separate legal challenge; understanding the exact details in documents like a T&C.
I read 'em all and most have large swaths of untranslatable legalese in them.
Some have fairly clear portions and some of those are down right concerning.

 

[You are the One]

In the mean time in France....

French parliament votes to jail tech execs who refuse to decrypt data.

It must be a coincidence that this is going on in one western country after another...

Here is another interesting piece:

How the FBI will lose its iPhone fight, thanks to 'West Coast Law'

 

[FieldingMellish]

5 affected families side with the FBI; the entire world of technology side with Apple.

 

[rsdotscot]

5 affected families side with the FBI; the entire world of technology side with Apple.

While they have my sympathy, their emotionally charged position isn't likely to yield the most logical or well thought out proclamations.

 

[bradl]

5 affected families side with the FBI; the entire world of technology side with Apple.

Yet you forget about the family of the survivor who is siding with Apple.

BL.

 

[dk001]

Ask yourself this : Do you trust the government, and its agencies ?
For me, the answer is , in principle, yes; in reality sometimes more, sometimes less .

That's because, in principle, the government is by the people, for the people, and nothing else .
Checks and balances don't always work, hence the occassional doubts, but the US are no North Korea .

Now, do you trust private corporations and wealthy individuals, especially when they interfere with social or legal matters ?
Do you really want Apple, or any big company, have any say in law making ?

The biggest problem with trusting the government is whit part of the government. The government itself, and no else seems to either, the total number of departments and agencies that exist, who is in charge of them, and how they are really funded.
That's trustworthy? More like out of control. The creation of Homeland Security made it even muddier.
[doublepost=1457135898][/doublepost]

5 affected families side with the FBI; the entire world of technology side with Apple.

While they have my sympathy, their emotionally charged position isn't likely to yield the most logical or well thought out proclamations.

Yet you forget about the family of the survivor who is siding with Apple.

BL.

Irrespective of our feeling, they are entitled to theirs. I may not agree. I, however have served to preserve the right for them to do so.

Say YES to encryption and the preservation of our civic rights.

 

[Prince134]

Apple is (correctly) moving the marketing machine.... FBI just has not the same public impact
[doublepost=1457071846][/doublepost]
Adobe ? Lol... They are basically complying with FBI request: Flash is a permanent backdoor on any platform

This remind us why Steve Jobs refuse to support flash in the iOS....

 

[IHelpId10t5]

The only sensible way forward that I see is for companies like Apple to become key masters, something they, understandably, don't want to do. If they don't move in that direction, however, government will start to legislate and it will be a disaster. If Apple provides unbreakable encryption on their phone, they should store the key and be able to provide it when served with a legal search warrant. If they do this, they short-circuit the need for legislation. Otherwise we are guaranteed to see a day when every tech company, every online service, must log everything and somehow provide the government with access. And when that day comes, the burden will be far more onerous and loss of privacy far greater than if these companies got proactive now and came up with a reasonable solution.

You obviously understand the topic so well that you should write a letter explaining how the experts just don't understand the issue and that you have a simple solution instead. Here is the list of all of the technology companies, security experts, privacy experts, legal experts, and cryptography experts that you are obviously smarter than:

https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/03/03Amicus-Briefs-in-Support-of-Apple.html#labnol

 

[MacBH928]

How are Facebook, Whatsapp, and Google are on this too? I thought those companies make money by selling your information in the first place.

 

[Max(IT)]

How are Facebook, Whatsapp, and Google are on this too? I thought those companies make money by selling your information in the first place.

Yep, the magic word is SELLING.
Here we are speaking about give it for free to various governative agencies ....

 

[Tech198]

No, the equivalent would be: FBI wants a webcam installed in every home that they can turn on anytime that they want to. With homes, they can break down the door. With today's strong encryption, the technology does not yet exist to break it, so they want law written that gives them a "digital doorway". It's an abuse of power.

I stand by Apple on this.

This supersede "valuable" physical items?

Ironically (or as expected) the only defense siding with the FBI are actually the victims, suggesting "what other evidence could be stored in the phone to prove?"

Yep, the magic word is SELLING.
Here we are speaking about give it for free to various governative agencies ....

or it could just be they side with Apple because those companies also care for privacy/security as well

 

[Makosuke]

So, in updated summary, between consortiums and direct support, on one side of this issue we have literally the entire technology industry. All of it.

Every OS developer, every major webhost, every major search engine, every major English-language social network, every major English-language community site, every major US online retailer, several network providers, every major network hardware manufacturer, and a broad range of smaller niche providers.

Quite literally, if it happens on the internet in the US (or much of the rest of the world), the companies that told you where to find the data, made the OS the data was served from, served the data, built the hardware that moved the data around, provided security, made the OS the data was read on, and probably sold you the device you read it on, too, are in agreement on this.

On the other side of the issue, organization-wise, we have the FBI. Pretty much period.

Yeah, I think when it comes to deciding what's a good idea on a global scale from a technology security standpoint, I'll go with the entire technology industry. I honestly didn't think you could get that many major companies to agree on anything.

 

[asiga]

Update: As expected, another consortium of technology companies that includes Google, Amazon, Box, Cisco, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nest, Pinterest, Slack, Snapchat, Whatsapp, and Yahoo has submitted an amicus brief in support of Apple.

Additional amicus briefs have been filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology, The Media Institute, Privacy International and Human Rights Watch, a group of 32 law professors, and a consortium including AVG Technologies, Data Foundry, Golden Frog, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Internet Association, and the Internet Infrastructure Coalition.

You forgot to mention LGBT lobbies, Greenpeace, the Communist Party, marijuana fans, and everyone in Tim's ideological bandwagon.

 

[dk001]

So, in updated summary, between consortiums and direct support, on one side of this issue we have literally the entire technology industry. All of it.

Every OS developer, every major webhost, every major search engine, every major English-language social network, every major English-language community site, every major US online retailer, several network providers, every major network hardware manufacturer, and a broad range of smaller niche providers.

Quite literally, if it happens on the internet in the US (or much of the rest of the world), the companies that told you where to find the data, made the OS the data was served from, served the data, built the hardware that moved the data around, provided security, made the OS the data was read on, and probably sold you the device you read it on, too, are in agreement on this.

On the other side of the issue, organization-wise, we have the FBI. Pretty much period.

Yeah, I think when it comes to deciding what's a good idea on a global scale from a technology security standpoint, I'll go with the entire technology industry. I honestly didn't think you could get that many major companies to agree on anything.

Seeing all those, in one point in time, technically agreeing on a stance is... enlightening.
Just goes to show how far beyond "one phone" this is.

 

[nt5672]

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Now that is downright scary.

 

[Arndroid]

I have very mixed feelings on this issue. I don't think Apple should be forced to write software for the government. I'm more bothered by that than I am by the idea of decrypting the phone. No doubt this is one of the main reasons so many companies are supporting Apple. Once the government can demand that Apple write code for them, they can demand it of anyone.

That said, the idea that we, as a society, should accept that phones, computers, and other digital devices protected by strong encryption are 100% private zones is like saying we should allow rooms the government may never, under any circumstance, access in a home. We're essentially saying that the individual's right to privacy trumps EVERYTHING. I was listening to Sam Harris the other day and he calls the obsession with privacy a new religion, one he deems just as dangerous as existing God-based ones. I can see his point.

If the FBI knows that X is a pedophile and has shoeboxes full of kiddie porn pictures in a room at his house, should they not be allowed to serve a warrant and search the home? Should X have the right to an unsearchable room in his home? What if X is found dead and the only way to bust the child porn ring is by searching that room? I think most sensible people would find it absurd not to search the room. But, instead, X has all of his child porn on his encrypted phone and there's no way to access it, even though the need is completely legitimate. I find this very troubling.

The only sensible way forward that I see is for companies like Apple to become key masters, something they, understandably, don't want to do. If they don't move in that direction, however, government will start to legislate and it will be a disaster. If Apple provides unbreakable encryption on their phone, they should store the key and be able to provide it when served with a legal search warrant. If they do this, they short-circuit the need for legislation. Otherwise we are guaranteed to see a day when every tech company, every online service, must log everything and somehow provide the government with access. And when that day comes, the burden will be far more onerous and loss of privacy far greater than if these companies got proactive now and came up with a reasonable solution.

If Sam Harris said privacy is a new religion, he is an idiot.

We are way far away from where we are supposed to be in the United States as it relates to privacy. We will probably never get back to where we are supposed to be. People are just trying to stop the continued erosion of privacy rights.

If one could build a room in their house that law enforcement could not break into, then yes it would be protected. I am not sure where people got the idea that a person must unlock things so they can be searched. That is not a thing. Of course the government can threaten to essentially destroy the container to coerce assistance but nobody is required to open anything. That is law enforcements job every time.

People having a place where they can store sensitive information that nobody else can access is a good thing for everyone, not a criminal conspiracy. That such a place did not previously exist changes nothing.

An individual's privacy has never been more exposed or vulnerable than it is today. This makes it all the more necessary for us to be able to protect our privacy. Sam Harris can get bent.
[doublepost=1457212041][/doublepost]

I'm not particularly interested in the current situation. I side with Apple and don't think the government should be able to force Apple to develop a software master key for them. There's no way to guarantee that code wouldn't escape. It almost certainly would.

That said, when we consider this issue moving forward, the position that strong encryption is somehow a right and no one (i.e.: law enforcement) should ever, under any circumstances, be able to access an encrypted digital device is absurd. More and more of who we are is being stored digitally. I don't want the government spying on my business. But if they collect enough evidence that someone is committing a crime, it's very dangerous to say that law enforcement shouldn't be able to access electronic devices that store data. Not only is it dangerous, but it is an untenable position.

The way I see it, tech companies can either devise a way to secure our devices but provide - via them, not in the form of a master key to the government - access when a legitimate warrant is served...or government will enact legislation that is far more damaging to the individual's privacy. Apple and other tech companies have put themselves in this position. They should devise a more balanced solution moving forward. Or government will step in and force one upon them. If tech companies are going to provide these kind of services and capabilities, they shouldn't be able to wash their hands of all responsibility when it comes to assisting law enforcement.

Except legislators aren't going to do that. The FBI and the rest of law enforcement have been trying to get that done for years and the legislature is getting further and further away.

Add in the fact that pretty much all legislators view the use of the AWA as a breach of the responsibility of the legislative branch and it's not going to happen.

Let them continue to try and get laws made that is how the system is supposed to work. The executive branch (the FBI) is not supposed to collude with the judicial branch and just cut the legislative branch out of the equation.

 

[Makosuke]

Seeing all those, in one point in time, technically agreeing on a stance is... enlightening.
Just goes to show how far beyond "one phone" this is.

What's particularly telling/impressive about this is that, from a PR perspective, backing Apple makes a company look terrible to most people who don't really understand the issue. You're basically implying (again, from an uneducated PR standpoint, but that applies to much of the nontechnical population of the planet) that you're siding with the privacy of terrorists instead of the FBI.

So not only did that many technology companies all agree on a stance, but they publicly said so in spite of that being a borderline PR nightmare and--so long as everybody gets hit equally--the apparent financial hit to any of them individually being quite low. So they not only agree on this, they think it's important enough to be willing to voluntarily take a pretty serious PR hit instead of letting Apple take all the flack (let alone trying to twist it to their advantage).

I honestly can't think of any situation in my lifetime that's brought that many direct competitors and loosely-related industrial participants together to that degree on a matter of principle.

 

[Mac2me]

Yet you forget about the family of the survivor who is siding with Apple.

BL.

I remember reading about another lady who's son was killed in the attack. She sided early on with Apple in this, shortly after the FBI filed their Motion to Compel. She didn't file a brief, and doubt That Apple sent out an attorney to the victims' families or survivors to ask them to, unlike the FBI.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ap...-of-one-of-san-bernardino-survivor-2016-03-01

 

[Ironduke]

I thought Tim liked abit of Back door