
Bill Gates calls for terror data debate - lentil_soup
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35639233
======
ycosynot
> Should governments be able to access information at all or should they be
> blind, that's essentially what we are talking about

Actually it is not what we're talking about, because they're not blind, they
can use usual means of inquiry, and the technology. How comes already there
are no firearm firing sound detectors, or remote-controlled drones with tasers
in major streets to react instantly, ect...? There are ways to act which don't
strip citizens from their power, as information nowadays is power.

A handful of people died because they lacked this power, and this will always
be the case that people will die because of their lack of power, no matter
what they have.

At the end of the day, there is 7 billions people, and only one world, one
humanity, one future, so protecting the people from the government is more
important than protecting the people from the people, at least as long as it
stays manageable.

Every month, the world gets more peaceful, and more educated, we just didn't
always have the internet flashlight. Making such a backdoor, it's another leak
to oligarchy, because security and corporations can ally and spy the rest into
uncompetitiveness. Ect... I will worry when I see blood on the street.

~~~
cturner
"protecting the people from the government is more important than protecting
the people from the people, at least as long as it stays manageable."

This is fundamental, and this point needs more airtime than it gets. Terrorism
is a real threat. It is a challenge that our institutions are struggling to
deal with. But the threat that it poses is tiny compared to the threat of
powerful government, a troll that goes back to the beginning of civilisation.
We must not let the focus on terrorism distract us into relinquishing defenses
against the greater threat of powerful government.

Advances in technology make privacy more important than it has ever been.
Without privacy, there is vast opportunity for government to reach deep into
our lives in the name of enforcement.

Government of the people has an obligation to find ways to combat terrorism
that are compatible with the controls we need on government. If we don't hold
the line on privacy, government will increasingly shift us towards serfdom.

~~~
danenania
I would add that much of the supposed non-government threat we face, at least
in the case of terrorism, was actually created and continues to be sustained
by government policies.

Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which
the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. If the
priority was really to keep the population safe, things would be handled very
differently.

~~~
mc32
It's not that simple. Terrorism or violence can happen anywhere and not be
precipitated by any externalities.

People can conspire, people can be crazy, or unhinged. Columbine, for example.
And even if we accept that terrorism is a reaction, they exist in many
countries and would inflict more harm if they could. Terrorism is not a thing
which only threatens the US, it exists in Europe, Africa, Asia, the middle
east, etc.

But yes people will have to come to terms with how to deal with the issue of
privacy (secrecy) vs openness (accessibility) How it's managed will change
over time, surely.

~~~
cm2187
Terrorism is dwarfed by gang violence and drug violence in the US in term of
casualties. Terrorism is like the buzz of a mosquito. The psychological impact
is disproportionate to the actual impact and law enforcement agencies are
exploiting this buzz. They are labeling any controversial law "anti-
terrorist", presenting any controversial case as an "anti-terrorist" case,
etc... We should not over-react the other way but we should simply tell them
"no". In a free country, two individuals should be able to have a private
conversation without the State listening and recording.

~~~
outlace
But gangs aren't trying to secure nuclear weapons.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You use that word, acquire. You mean steal. The idea that a terrorist
organization is going to _manufacture_ nuclear weapons is ridiculous.

But the solution to "someone might steal a nuclear weapon" is not "spy on
everybody in the world" \-- the solution is to secure the nuclear weapons.
Which is a thing governments do that nobody is objecting to and that has
nothing to do with mass surveillance.

~~~
outlace
Sorry, didn't mean to suggest tacit approval for carte blanche government
surveillance. I'm just implying that just because terrorism has a low death
toll now, doesn't mean that it will [since terrorists are seeking to exact as
much damage as possible]

------
mythz
> "They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a
> particular case."

Was hoping Gates would be less naive in thinking this legal precedent has
anything to do with this specific case which has close to 0% chance of
providing any real-world information and more to do with the fact that this
tragedy is used as political theatre and being exploited for maximum PR and
political influence.

> "Should governments be able to access information at all or should they be
> blind, that's essentially what we are talking about"

That's one way to frame the debate, the other is "Do We Have a Right to
Security?" [https://securosis.com/blog/do-we-have-a-right-to-
security](https://securosis.com/blog/do-we-have-a-right-to-security)

Given the US Govt is coming from a position of no trust who've shown a
willingness to over reach and break the law whilst continuing to deceive and
mislead the public - US citizens have every right to privacy that's insulated
from the Government: [http://blog.easydns.org/2016/02/22/the-us-government-
has-no-...](http://blog.easydns.org/2016/02/22/the-us-government-has-no-
credibility-to-compel-anybody-to-weaken-security/)

~~~
exw
<<Was hoping Gates would be less naive in thinking this legal precedent has
anything to do with this specific case which has close to 0% chance of
providing any real-world information and more to do with the fact that this
tragedy is used as political theatre and being exploited for maximum PR and
political influence.>>

Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that
you are calling BillG naive. You really think that somehow you have more
insight into the situation than BillG, who has access to pretty much any
resource and source of information?

~~~
mythz
> Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that
> you are calling BillG naive.

Actions speak louder than words, I don't care who you are. In this case his
words are adding to the dangerous narrative the US Govt wants this debate to
be framed on: exploiting a tragic case of terrorism to unlock the legal
precedent with 175 other phones waiting in the wings:

[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-
access-175-iphones-...](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-
access-175-iphones-criminal-cases-due/story?id=37029693)

With the FBI having court orders out for 13 similar cases:

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-
similar...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar-
encryption-cases-court-documents)

If he's not naive, he's been actively complicit as part of the "Old Microsoft"
(before security of user data affected their global Azure business model) who
was more than happy to provide what ever access they could to the NSA which
saw "Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch" and "Skype
worked to enable Prism collection of video calls":

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-
nsa-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-
collaboration-user-data)

~~~
davidw
To play the devil's advocate, LE can get a court order to search your house,
your car, your file folder, tap your phone, and so on, and that's viewed as
fair by most people, since there are some checks and balances: they have to
convince a judge (we're not talking about the secret NSA court stuff), and
have to stick to some rules when they do it.

Why should they not be able to search phones on a case by case basis, with a
court order?

That's something reasonable people are going to ask.

Edit: This is a pretty good analysis of why turning over a tool to the FBI is
a terrible idea:
[http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645)
\- but the FBI is saying they don't want that. The guy in the blog disagrees.

Let's say they meant what they said and everything stays inside Apple. Why
shouldn't a court be able to order a search?

~~~
mythz
> Let's say they meant what they said and everything stays inside Apple. Why
> shouldn't a court be able to order a search?

It should be more than clear by now they're not asking for a single iPhone's
data - (the iPhone data in this case is useless). They're asking for Apple to
create a new version of iOS (i.e. that doesn't yet exist) that weakens their
own security protections to provide a backdoor allowing the FBI to hack into
the iPhone themselves, which a) sets a legal precedent, b) allows them to keep
going back to Apple crack new phones c) gives them access to software with a
back door they can study and reverse engineer.

The FBI have carefully chosen this case to go public on (specifically denying
Apple's request to have the case sealed) precisely because out of all its
pending court orders to unlock iPhone's, this is the one that stands the best
chance to gain political and public influence necessary to set the legal
precedent.

Once set, it will compel Technology companies to create tools to weaken their
own security, using their own resources against them, forcing them to include
themselves as an Adversary who they need to protect their customers data from.
Not to mention if Apple is forced to concede to the US Govt, it will be forced
to concede to other governments as well. China have previously demanded to
have a master key for all electronics sold in China which they had to back
down from due to political and public pressure, if Apple concedes to the US
Govt other governments will undoubtedly be demanding the same.

~~~
davidw
From that link: [http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/bul...](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/bullshit.jpg)

He says it's BS, but it's kind of his word against theirs. Presumably, if the
FBI says one thing and then asks for another, Apple could get the court to put
a stop to it.

Like others have mentioned, Apple already have a way to get into any phone,
and so far have kept it safe.

------
stegosaurus
The frustrating thing about all of this is the blatant misuse of terminology
by the media.

London resident. 7/7 killed 50 people and injured 700. Ten years have passed.
The Troubles were worse.

'Terror' isn't a thing. It doesn't exist. 'Terrorism', does not exist. The
real terrorists are the media companies and politicians that attempt to
instill terror in the populace.

They try to craft this image of a world to be feared, with danger lying around
every corner. Look around you. It's more dangerous for me to eat a Mars bar
than it is for me to ride the London Underground, for fuck's sake.

~~~
kdcjdoekd
So if government took a hands off approach to terrorism, opened our borders,
let anyone fly on our planes, there wouldn't be an increase in terrorism? Is
that what you're saying?

~~~
stegosaurus
I'm saying that if the UK had open borders, we would be a better country.

I'm saying that if we could get on planes without spending hours in security,
we'd be a better country.

I'm saying that your 'terrorism' is a farce. I don't believe in your
'terrorism'. Your 'terrorism' is an excuse to block good in the world, and to
further evil, and I've had enough of it.

I'm saying that your actions, under the guise of preventing 'terrorism', have
caused more terror. Your warnings to citizens to watch out - terror. Your pat
downs at airports - terror. Your encryption laws - terror.

~~~
unethical_ban
I am anti-empire, and anti-security theater as they come. But to say that all
borders should be open, with absolutely no intelligence gathering and no
consideration of massive migrant flows... this is one of the most blatantly
child-like thoughts I've seen expressed here. There is a big gap between "Stop
taking off shoes at the airport; stop launching drone strikes on weddings" and
"No problems would arise from completely free movement between the vastly
different cultures of east and west".

------
S_A_P
This response really disappoints me. That seemed like he completely deflected
the question and didn't answer. Im sure he measured his words carefully so
that he wouldn't have to answer the inevitable, "will microsoft provide the
same kinds of privacy protection as apple?"

Come on Bill G

~~~
wfo
I was under the impression Bill Gates does not speak for MS anymore. He
doesn't work there and it would be horribly unprofessional to make promises on
behalf of the current CEO.

~~~
kyberias
Bill Gates is still a member of the Microsoft board:
[http://news.microsoft.com/microsoft-board-of-
directors/](http://news.microsoft.com/microsoft-board-of-directors/)

------
phkahler
>> Mr Gates said the case was similar to the requests regularly made to phone
companies and banks for information.

No. This is a request to _create_ something to gain access. If it were simply
an information request I doubt Apple would complain much. AFAICT Apple got
tired of secret requests to provide access to user information, so made things
so they can not comply. To be clear, the authorities can still get a court
order to gain access to your phone. They just need to compel the _user_ to
provide the access. That's hard in this case because the user is dead, but
none of that is really whats at play here and I think Bill G should know
better.

~~~
joezydeco
I kind of wonder if billg doesn't want the FBI bringing up all the previous
work that Microsoft has done installing backdoors in their products for the US
Government:

[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/microsoft-
programmed-...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/microsoft-programmed-
in-nsa-backdoor-in-windows-by-1999.html)

~~~
murjinsee
This is how it sounds to me. I think it is naive to assume Mr. Gates'
character is so one-dimensional. He is a critical thinker; I'm sure he
realizes the dichotomy he presents is BS. He wants to protect his legacy.

Mr. Cook, on the other hand, I truly feel is using this issue for a little
free (minus legal fees) publicity, and to tell the FBI not to make such a big,
public stink if they want cooperation. Like a contract negotiation.

It's easy to believe in someone who says what we want to hear, but necessary
to question their motivations.

Honne and tatemae, pure and simple.

------
qrendel
The debate has been ongoing since the Snowden leak, and even before that among
people who were aware of the disclosures by William Binney, Thomas Drake, et
al. Unfortunately, the general public has shown that they really don't care at
all.

Tech and government people tend to have strong opinions one way or the other,
but the "debate" has mostly failed since the broader public couldn't care
less, except maybe defaults to "(do|don't) trust your President," depending on
whether their chosen political tribe is currently in office.

~~~
nxzero
My impression is not that people don't understand or care, but are afraid and
feel powerless to do anything.

~~~
reacweb
I think many people do not understand. What seems obvious for us may be
difficult to grasp even for programmers. Almost 20 years ago, I have received
the virus "I love you" in my mail box. For me, it was obvious it was a virus
and that it was "safe" to save it on disk and open it using notepad as long as
I did not double click on it. I was very surprised that for most of my
colleagues, it was far from obvious. I am not against giving powers to police,
but for me, giving a backdoor is completely unacceptable.

~~~
nxzero
People understand they're being spied on and feel powerless to do anything
about it. Huge source them feeling powerless about it is that they do not
understand how to respond to the matter using technology. That said, not
understanding how something works does not mean they don't understand what is
going on. If history is any measure of the future, they are right to be afraid
and wary of saying anything.

------
trequartista
[http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098592/bill-gates-fbi-
ap...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098592/bill-gates-fbi-apple-
comments) \- Bill Gates says he was 'disappointed' by reports he backs FBI in
Apple fight

But he doesn't fully support Apple, either

~~~
nacs
> "Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said, ‘Don't
> make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times.'"

What a horrible analogy he tried to draw there. Shows a tremendous amount of
ignorance when it comes to the encryption and security in use here.

~~~
frandroid
Bill Gates is a very smart person. This is misdirection, not ignorance.

~~~
systems
just because someone was smart, doesnt mean he is always smart or is still
smart

people change and loose skills, yes people can become less smart .. or people
who are smart in one field are not necessarily smart in all fields

people who are smart in math, can have very dumb ideas about politics ... and
vice versa

~~~
frandroid
You should read his blog.

~~~
bpchaps
What about it? I just went there and saw mostly fluff pieces.

------
codeulike
Bill is no fool so he must be taking this side of the debate for tactical
reasons - e.g. Microsofts huge contracts with the government, or perhaps
something to do with his Foundation and keeping the govt sweet, or perhaps to
do with Microsofts installation of back doors in the past. I suspect he has
been leaned on to enter the debate. Not defending him, just trying to figure
out whats going on here.

~~~
frandroid
After a number of years using the same tactics, your tactics become you. Gates
has been so thoroughly embedded for so long that being on the side of
government and capital is not a tactic, it's just what he does.

------
creshal
"Terror data"? Hail newspeak.

~~~
arprocter
The way the piece oddly calls the shooter a "murderer" and not a terrorist
reminded me of this [http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/weve-always-been-at-
war-wi...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/weve-always-been-at-war-with-
eastasia.html)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Isn't the difference, whether they knew their victims? If you target certain
people, its murder. If you target innocent (unrelated to the murderer) victims
or don't target at all, that's terrorism?

~~~
arprocter
IMO it's the motivation - if someone kills a stranger it doesn't mean they're
a terrorist

I suspect the BBC's wordplay is due to the on-going European immigration drama

------
drdaeman
Can someone who really knows it, please explain one thing for me? I've heard
different statements and don't know which one is correct.

Can Apple - in theory - unlock that phone?

Is it

a) Unless there's a defect in HSM module (Secure Enclave) that allows the key
extraction (like SEM data forensics or whatever), Apple just can't unlock the
phone, because it's outside of their control.

I mean, I can readily imagine a system where encryption key is completely
unknown to the OS, OS doesn't have any access (or has a write-only access
using public key encryption) to the user data while the phone is locked, and
encryption is performed by a tamper-resistant hardware, that won't do anything
without a correct secret (passphrase) and HSM will irreparably erase key
material after 10 failures (which is the behavior hard-coded into silicon).

or

b) Apple technically can unlock the phone by doing an OS update with a
specially crafted insecure OS, but doesn't wants to do so, because it would
create a bad precedent. I.e. the HSM isn't absolute and can be forced to
disclose the key (or accept brute-force attacks) by the OS.

To put it simply: in theory, can Apple defeat their own security - if they
would really want to - or not?

 _Edit:_ s/TPM/HSM/g

~~~
interpol_p
It's (b) but they can't unlock the phone. They can make it easier to perform a
brute force passcode attack against the device. The method to do this would be
to restore the phone with a modified (and obviously signed) version of iOS
that bypasses the passcode failsafes: such as wiping the data after 10 failed
retries, and the exponentially increasing password retry delay.

The hardware imposes a limit of ~80ms on password attempts due to the nature
of the hashing computations. So a four digit passcode could be brute forced in
a maximum of 15 minutes if Apple were to install a purposefully hindered
version of iOS on the device.

~~~
gavinpc
The failsafes as I understand it (from recent reading here) also include the
inability to programmatically attempt login. As shipped, they will only accept
such attempts from user input (keypad UI or fingerprint scanner).

------
mmrezaie
I wonder if his talk is just because of competition they have with apple or
not. In my opinion he could just look at the problem more realistically and
saying the monitoring should be in control of some judicial system that is
different than current (return true) by default.

Also it is laughable that some people were saying these monitorings are going
to be limited to terror act law.

------
salimmadjd
Remember Government vs. MS case, where MS ultimately got what many people
called a "slap on the wrist" [1]

I have nothing but a conjectures here, however, I always believed MS made a
deal with the Government to give them a backdoor in exchange for far lesser
settlement [2]

So I'm not surprised for Gates position here. It's mainly to justify his and
MS earlier decision to give into the government's requests.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement)

[2] [http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-
microsoft.en.html](http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html)

------
deepnet
What if the secret the spies don't want anyone to know is that they are
incompetent and that mass surveillance doesn't make us safer ?

\-- egregiously stolen from Adam Curtis's 'Bugger'
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-3149-963f-47bea720b460)

The real danger will be the actual coming threat. Instead of their much
trumpeted 'manufactured' stooge plots, our incompetent spies seem to be unable
to effectively stop real battle hardened death zealots - despite near total
surveillance.

Jails are surveilled in a panopticon way but rife with drugs and crime - so
mass surveillance is demonstrably ineffective there.

The other worry is the nagging doubt that the fears of government are their
political opponents rather than enemies of the state - our fears are not
aligned with theirs.

That our political and surveillance classes are interested in power not our
safety is continually evidenced by the horrifying way they use they blood of
their own citizens to try to justify more political power.

Q.V. the recent attempt to link the crypto debate with the Paris atrocities or
the invasion of Iraq.

So much of this conflict is manufactured by seeming negligence, the
conveniently blind eye.

For instance: locking up a young disaffected drug dealer with the number 2
recruiter for Al Quaeda at the time (in France). Locked in the same jail cell
together, a few years later the young recruit, recruits others and shoots a
cartoonist.

In Bitter lake, Adam Curtis posits that Daesh/ ISIS was the product of a super
jail in Iraq and much of the ground support of the conflict is from the local
who initally supported their liberators but lost due to endless Whitehall red
tape about compensation for farmers.
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-
bi...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake)

------
StreamBright
I could take his stance on this one a bit more seriously if he was making it
available how much revenue of MS comes from federal government.

~~~
sangnoir
I don't know if I can take Apple's stance seriously either since I don't know
how much revenue they (Apple) make off the federal government /s.

------
mattnewton
At least this article gets that his position is a bit more nuanced, everywhere
else in American news I'm reading "Bill Gates backs FBI!!!"
[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-gates-sides-with-feds-in-
ip...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-gates-sides-with-feds-in-iphone-hack-
battle/)

------
inglor
I wonder what he would have said if he were still at the helm in Microsoft.

------
ccvannorman
This coming from the same guy who advocates for cashless third world economies
and a one world government[1].

[1] [http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-calls-for-global-
governme...](http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-calls-for-global-government/)

------
jimmytucson
This is always framed as a conflict between the government and "the people"
but it's every bit as much a conflict between the government and a handful of
hundred-billion-dollar megacorporations. Some of these entities are going to
benefit from having enormous quantities of data at their disposal, it's just a
question of which ones.

Zuckerberg's sort of aloof reaction to Apple's plight is telling. If it were
really about citizens' rights then he would be every bit as outraged as when
the FBI orders Facebook to hand data over.

------
fukusa
Bill Gates is an influential person and his opinion matters to many people.
Some media outlets seem to claim he sided with the FBI. He denies this. It
seems to me that he is trying to say that there is a way for Apple to decrypt
the phone without providing a backdoor. What's interesting in my opinion is
how these so-called independent media outlets are (deliberately?)
misinterpreting his words to use the authority of Bill Gates to influence
public opinion. I am not saying this is a move by the FBI, but ...

------
Shivetya
The real issue is that they are after more than one phone. The DOJ is after
twelve others according to the WSJ and the NY DA has 175 phones he needs
unlocked.

It is just the tip of the iceberg and it won't be long before someone pushes
legislation through Congress mandating a back door or and end to encrypted
devices being allowed on US cellular networks

Better yet, they are beginning to the story that the next terror attack will
be on Cook's shoulders.

------
whazor
I propose to have a smart solution with encryption. For example you could give
half of the access key to the local government (maybe 1/4 to courts and 1/4 to
police force), other half to Apple. If both parties believe on the case, they
unlock the phone. Maybe we can also include the international court.

------
coldcode
Bill is the world's richest person. If he wants the government to backdoor us
all in the name of terrorism I want the one to his wealth. It's not just the
government access that's at stake but all the other people (i.e. criminals,
other govs) who will use that access to take whatever they want.

------
mrmondo
Just as gates is trumping on about how it's an isolated special request for
data from his competitor Apple the FBI just requested data unlocking from
another 6 phones...

------
pasbesoin
Here's a simple, troubling aspect. The U.S. Government and state governments
(and, I'm sure, foreign governments) increasingly seek to purchase private
data for mining, and to sell their data for revenue.

The former is used particularly to make an end-run around legal restrictions
placed on their own data gathering. And to create a firewall against
oversight, with the activities of concern taking place in private entities not
subject to public oversight.

The latter is... well, many things, but it is particularly a political
expedience; when you face opposition raising revenue directly, instead sell
off some portion of the public good, as quietly as possible. (Remember, for
example, state departments of motor vehicles (DMV) trying to launch plans to
sell drivers' data, including photos, a few years back?)

And, with the "revolving door" and ongoing sweetheart relationships between
private and public positions and power brokers, there is also a large
incentive of private and personal profit now driving this, as well.

So. Government data collection is no longer really nor just government data
collection. It is increasingly -- or, increasingly dominant and pervasive -- a
collusion between extant powers for their own purposes.

I don't want to be locked out of insurance, a job, etc. because my "profile"
doesn't score high enough, or I friended the "wrong" person on Facebook. Nor
do I want this to happen to others.

In biology, advanced species exhibit increasing levels of autonomy from "the
herd." Our species and culture needs to keep that in mind and the foster it;
there is strength in diversity. And that is predicated on some autonomy and
privacy. The ability and freedom to differentiate and to find new modes, new
optimizations. And to find the simple happiness that fosters greater
productivity, not to mention a better personal life.

As an analogy, no one feels particularly comfortable with someone "staring
over their shoulder" constantly -- particularly with a critical or
condescending attitude.

A happy life does not involve Big Brother guiding, constraining, and
homogenizing your every step.

------
ck2
Here's another thought Bill.

Can a government order a corporation to make a new product using considerable
resources for the governments use.

What if an African government didn't like you giving out mosquito nets and
said: no - you go to your factory and make us 10,000 nets and give the nets to
the government, so we can give give it to our politicans and then if they so
desire they can give it to the people so the government looks like a hero.
Here's a court order making it so.

~~~
tailgate
Generally they would just take the factory: "nationalization". You try getting
a businessperson to work for free.

~~~
ck2
That's an interesting thought.

I wonder how safe the internal apple devs are that could build what the FBI is
demanding. If the FBI can identify them, they might "disappear" if the FBI
doesn't get their way from Apple.

But nah, our government would never do that, right? Only China and Russia,
etc. Wish I really believed that.

------
nxzero
Gates isn't calling for a debate, said that the FBI is right, Apple is wrong,
and there's no way the FBI would use this as a backdoor for all phones.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158210](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11158210)

~~~
josefresco
“I hope that we have that debate so that the safeguards are built and so
people do not opt — and this will be country by country — [to say] it is
better that the government does not have access to any information,” he said.

[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html#axzz40zUs7M2E)

~~~
alanwatts
I haven't watched Bill enough to know for sure but he seemed quite evasive in
the interview.

"Nobody is talking about a back door, so that's not the right question"

~~~
nxzero
My impression of Gates is that he's lived most of his life in a bubble, has
conflicting interests, but in the end, understands what's going on.

------
Kinnard
Did anyone really need another reason not to use Windows?

------
mtgx
"Debate" = just let the government have what it wants.

------
castell
Bill Gates Says Apple Should Unlock the iPhone (techcrunch.com) 5 hours ago
(92 comments) got down-voted (285.):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11157328](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11157328)

------
2close4comfort
WOW now this explains why Windows is so easy exploit and fatal security flaws
were built in so that Bill could help his county. Seriously, this is a
terrible justification it is a shame that he actually feels this is an
appropriate response. Too bad he is that out of touch now.

------
phatbyte
I'm just going to be a little cynic here:

Bill Gates is still too attached to MS, of course, he build it. If Apple did
what the feds asked it, this would back-fire Apple consumers.

1\. People would just no longer trust Apple, which translates into less
devices bought.

2\. This won't prevent terrorist or whatever their excuse is. If terrorist
know Apple does this, they will just use other devices.

At end, only us, the normal consumer loose with this.

This would just help MS and other companies to gain more market by screwing up
Apple. Until the feds come after these other companies that is...

~~~
qrendel
Or MS already has custom-made backdoors for governments, and forcing Apple to
put them in too would take away Apple's superior positioning when it
inevitably gets leaked that MS has been doing this for a long time.

No evidence for it, just another possibility

------
mark_l_watson
Wow, Bill Gates has an enormous financial incentive to diss on Apple over
privacy in order to deflect privacy concerns away from Windows 10.

I found it disturbing that the corporate media covers this story with
mentioning Gate's conflict of interest. We had General Electric (GE) News
Network (also known as MSNBC) on all morning, they covered this story a lot,
and never mentioned the conflict of interest.

