
Apple Gets Tech Industry Backing in iPhone Dispute, Despite Misgivings - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/tech-rallies-to-apples-defense-but-not-without-some-hand-wringing.html
======
wil421
Did anyone else catch part of the congressional hearing on CSPAN?

I was appalled that some of the representatives want Apple to provide
legislation that will make them unlock the phone under certain conditions.

The 1st and 5th amendment are what apples general counsel are arguing here.
Code is protected speech so Apple is being compelled to speak by the Govt.
They also argue the 5th amendment is being infringed because the FBI is using
an All Writs Act which subverts due process.

It's really unfortunate Congress will most likely pass legislation requiring
Apple to do this in the future (most likely for San Bernadino type cases but
not the drug case mentioned in the acticle). It's gonna be up to the courts to
determine whether or not it violates the constitution.

~~~
marcoperaza
I doubt the "code is speech" argument will hold up when the only speaking is
to a device that the government has the court-granted right to access. Apple
isn't being asked to publish the modified iOS version at-large. Also,
commercial speech has substantially less protection than political speech.

~~~
bad_user
You misunderstand the notion. Happens often because I think " _speech_ " in
this case is a misnomer, as it makes people believe that it's about having a
monologue or a dialog. That's not the case. This freedom is about expression
in all its forms. Which for example includes art, which is the act of creating
artifacts to be primarily appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. Art
is not necessarily about the author wanting to speak.

Going back to software, the freedom of expression is important, because
software, functioning like an extension of us, of our intellect, probably more
than any other human occupation except for art, happens to be very
opinionated, to expose _values_ and to incite both hope and despair for our
future. It's not without reason that software development gets compared with
making art.

It's not a wonder that Apple is taking a stand now. Any company worth its salt
has values declared long ago and breaking those values is betraying your
customers, not to mention that it can also hurt your bottom line. And the
people at such companies are more than just cogs in the machine. Many of them
work for their paychecks, sure, but many also have gotten in this industry to
make a difference and now they risk being coerced in doing something they
probably don't believe in.

Take Apple. They promised security and privacy to their customers and I'm sure
many people at Apple worked hard to deliver that. How would you feel if you
considered this to be your life's work, only to be forced later to aid in
doing the exact opposite? Now that's an issue of freedom of expression ;-)

~~~
marcoperaza
You're stretching the definition of free speech so far that any government
regulation of industry would become a First Amendment violation. Not even
during the Lochner era was such an expansive reading of rights accepted by the
courts.

All of these large tech companies have massive government compliance programs.
They regularly comply with government subpoenas for account information that
they _can_ access. They most certainly have developed custom software and
workflows to make their compliance easier. I don't see how this request is a
greater burden than that.

> _How would you feel if you considered this to be your life 's work, only to
> be forced later to aid in doing the exact opposite? Now that's an issue of
> freedom of expression ;-)_

I'd feel pretty silly for thinking that I couldn't be compelled by the
government to produce secrets I possess. If want to protect my customers from
the government, I have to protect them from myself as well. You'd need some
kind of multi-party trust system that allows people to require multiple third-
party signatures before any code is loaded by the device. Free expression
doesn't mean that the government has to refrain from exercise its legitimate
authority, just avoid raining reality onto your premature parade.

~~~
bad_user
But this isn't about being compelled by the government to produce secrets.
This is about the government wanting you to produce malicious code that you're
going to give your customers, signed with your keys. So those customers will
receive that code from you, signed in your name.

~~~
marcoperaza
> _This is about the government wanting you to produce malicious code that you
> 're going to give your customers, signed with your keys. So those customers
> will receive that code from you, signed in your name._

That's just not true. The government is not asking Apple to release this to
anyone.

------
girkyturkey
I find this to be really inspiring that despite how much Apple is rivals with
other tech giants, they can still band together and back up their competition.
Microsoft and others could have turned the other cheek and talked about how
selfish Apple was, but then didn't. They banded together and stood behind
Apple's decision. Really powerful message.

~~~
ygjb-dupe
This is less an issue of banding together behind Apple's decision, and more
about retaining moral and intellectual control of their software.

If the government can get a warrant to force you to ship a patch, regardless
of the scope, you are giving the government control over every aspect of how
you write code, and the next logical step is a CALEA style requirements that
ensures that your build process has lawful code injection capabilities.

I can't even begin to say how awful that would be for the entire industry.

~~~
merpnderp
How would that even work? What if I use a raspberry pi that I've added GSM and
put in a phone like case, but am running Debian? I'm guessing only a very tiny
number of people would be happy with this once the ramifications became clear.

------
imglorp
DOJ will be be appealing, naturally. They are after a supreme court ruling
setting precedent, not a phone.

------
julie1
[http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-
chinese-...](http://qz.com/332059/apple-is-reportedly-giving-the-chinese-
government-access-to-its-devices-for-a-security-assessment/)

Lucky for USA citizens they are not Chinese.

Why does Apple find privacy okay in USA and not okay in China? I don't quite
get the consistency in the position.

~~~
ygjb-dupe
Since people seem to think this is an easy set of points to win, consider:

* Apple has virtually no ability to shape policy in China (at least, in comparison to western democracies) * China (the government, not the people) is not subject to the same limitations as the US government * Apple depends on China for a great deal of things, including manufacturing, and a market for products * If Apple can't manufacture and market it's products in China, it's products become more expensive and less available all over the world. * China passed laws and regulations that demand access to source code

Apple choosing to fight this battle is undoubtedly motivated by the potential
business impact of supplying the software that the US government has demanded,
and there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a better long term move for
Apple, then it's leadership team would concede, and ship the code they were
asked for (see: [http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-
securi...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-
security/hacked-memo-leaked--apple--nokia--rim-supply-backdoors-for-gov-t-
intercept-.html) among other instances).

Apple is using the polarizing nature of the technical details at hand in light
of modern concerns about the surveillance state to frame it's argument against
what would be a very bad legal precedent that would be disastrous for Apple,
and for the tech sector in general.

I don't quite understand where your perceived lack of consistency is - are you
implying that Apple didn't try to use every tool at it's disposal to do the
best thing for it's investors?

~~~
julie1
Oh no, I do think they think in their investor's bests interests. I am not
sure the investors' interests are in sync with more freedom for any citizens
on earth.

I am just accepting the fact the Apple has a very variable concern about
freedom of speech and privacy when their business is concerned.

Like when workers are prevented from exercising their freedom to choose a new
job and make competition works their way and Apple take part into a no
poaching agreement.

Then I look at IT's budget, their contribution to the world taxes and I
clearly think that they do not really care about the laws of the common
people.

And then I am concerned by companies that are richer than most governments in
the world and how they behave when they have enough power.

Should we accept that big power without control and just hope for the better?

Remember UK and France used to have bad experiences with such huge companies
and that it did not ended well for anyone.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company)

------
angli
To be honest I expected a bit more. If not more endorsement of Apple, some
more, well, _opinion_. This read like a news piece with the word
"persuasively" as the only bit of subjectivity. It's an odd piece overall.

~~~
Archio
Not sure if you're unaware, but the NYT editorial board formally endorsed
Apple on February 18th: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-
is-right...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right-to-
challenge-an-order-to-help-the-fbi.html)

I don't see any reason for them to mix additional opinion into their news
coverage.

~~~
morgante
If it's merely meant to be news coverage, it shouldn't be in the opinion
section.

~~~
matt4077
This must be the first time someone complains about the NYT newsroom invading
the editorial section :)

I believe expectations of what constitutes an opinion piece have changed with
the advent of blogs/talk radio etc. At the Times, that style is reserved for
columnists while the opinion pieces that express the opinion of the
institution itself are more measured. In this case, they're just basically
endorsing the judge's position.

------
gchokov
I wish I could say the same thing about your Android phone. p.s. Let the
downvoting begin now!

------
ape4
Locked Phone = can not change carrier.

