
Apple’s Privacy Fight Tests Relationship with White House - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/technology/apples-privacy-fight-tests-relationship-with-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
======
studentrob
Disagreement doesn't mean a relationship must turn sour.

The government's decision to begin the AWA filing without notifying Apple,
instead leaving Apple to find out about it from the press, probably did not
help the relationship.

There's not much I see from the government's side attempting to further
relations with Apple. The upcoming encryption bill due out in March is another
example. How much do you want to bet Apple has not been asked for their input
while drafting it?

~~~
rayiner
This is a really weird situation where HN is calling for the government to
ignore public opinion and seek the input of a giant corporation in crafting
legislation: [http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-
just...](http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/more-support-for-justice-
department-than-for-apple-in-dispute-over-unlocking-iphone.\[1\])

[1] People have been trying to discount this survey asserting that those
polled just don't get it. But support for the FBI's position holds across age
groups (even folks 18-29), extends to highly educated people (those with post-
grad educations), and is similar whether or not people have heard a lot or a
little about the issue.

~~~
facetube
That poll asked respondents if "Apple should unlock the iPhone", failing to
mention that doing so requires that Apple write new software it does not
currently possess. Follow-up questions assessing respondents' knowledge of the
factual steps required to comply would have brought a lot more clarity IMO.

~~~
afarrell
Sure, but conflicts between public opinion and a corporation's favored policy
often involve the public being underinformed about the technical details
involved. The irony stands.

~~~
hugi
I see nothing ironic about me not wanting government backdoors built into my
phone. I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion and I don't care about
"public opinion". Especially in this case since I find the public opinion
somewhat ridicilous and in extreme conflict with my view of the world.

You should never base your opinion on _who_ says stuff, that's childish. It's
the content of the message that matters.

~~~
mindslight
Sure, but a similar argument is made about the revolving door between the SEC
and Wall St.

It's worth chewing on the juxtaposition, just to examine your own assumptions.

~~~
hugi
Please explain, I don't understand what you are talking about. What does SEC
and Wall Street have to do with me not wanting my phone hacked?

~~~
mindslight
A common public complaint about the SEC is that it is essentially filled with
Wall Street insiders, so Wall Street is effectively only regulated by itself.
The counterpoint is that experience is necessary to comprehend the technical
details, and that outsiders lack that insight.

If the polling is taken at face value [0], the public would like to control
Apple, whereas people who know tech are against such regulation.

Both situations are similar - industry autonomy versus unwashed public
opinion. All lobbing has this same tension - the entities that stand to profit
from something inevitable are the ones who understand it best. Feeling
differently about each instance isn't hypocritical, it just means you should
ponder the nuances for why.

[0] Modulo leading questions, framing, etc. I, for one, don't have a hard time
believing the polls are roughly accurate. Groups of people are hysterical ugly
creatures, led simply by scaremongering media.

------
notthegov
This is highly inappropriate. The argument should be based in principles and
philosophies, not in political machinations motivated by a diplomat with a
history degree.

Denis McDonough is not qualified or educated to understand what he is arguing
against. He is a man standing for the wave of Establishment thinking without
ever having offered an original thought of his own.

The idea that the White House could unduly influence Apple on this issue is
frightening. The Chief of Staff should not be doing this. He yields ridiculous
power; what if the next Tim Cook is weaker or the next Denis McDonough is even
more authoritarian.

We should argue from principles and philosophies. This is a dangerous world we
are creating. One where individual personalities dominate us and determine our
freedom, instead of philosophies derived from reason and analytical thinking.

Truth should be defended with honor, while power blinds those from knowing
there was ever such a thing as truth. What is right is not relative, there is
only one correct answer here.

~~~
studentrob
I think that's overdramatic. We have a voice in this and if we are loud
enough, if we educate people enough, we can make this an election issue. Don't
underestimate the power of your voice and vote.

~~~
sandworm101
Nobody here should want this to be an election issue. A large block of voters
are against apple, are pro-backdoors. If this became an election issue anyone
seeking to win (all of them) will adopt a middle ground stance. That middle
ground will be something like "backdoors, but only if X Y and Z".

Except trump. He won't be middle ground. He'll probably personally unlock the
phone using a gold-plated hammer.

~~~
studentrob
The only way we will have a chance at making change on this issue is by
electing representatives who understand technology. One way we can elect them
is of the public understands technology. And, one way to educate the public is
via making this an election issue and by repeatedly suggesting that if we
outlaw encryption, then only two parties will have it- government and
criminals. Civilians will be the ones who suffer most.

------
revelation
It's the hallmark of corrupt, broken governments when the biggest companies
are forced to have _amicable relationships_ , or have their principals sent to
Siberia in chains.

------
hanief
On doing so, Apple probably gains respect from other countries except the USA.

~~~
johansch
Myself, from another country is amused that Apple has managed to manipulate
95% of tech community into thinking that they can't do what the FBI wants
because that would create a backdoor.

To anyone whose mind is not clouded by ideology it should be clear that the
backdoor already exists and that what Apple is resisting is creating an
_exploit_ for it.

~~~
dclowd9901
For the billionth time, a backdoor exists in an outdated hardware
infrastructure. It's not clear if this would even be possible on current
generation iPhones, but one surefire way to get Apple to create one is by
setting a precedent of law enforcement dictating the actions of phone
manufacturers.

Stop muddying the issue; we need focus right now to keep this from happening.

~~~
teacup50
The backdoor exists on new hardware, too; the firmware of the secure enclave
can be updated in place by Apple without expunging key material.

Even if you close this one backdoor, others exist; the fact is you can only
pick two of:

\- Platform DRM.

\- Implicit Trust of Vendor-Signed Software & Entitlements.

\- Robust Security Ecosystem.

As long as Apple can push applications with arbitrary entitlements to devices,
or encrypted OS updates unreadable by 3rd-parties, and no mechanisms exists to
verify that it's only ever used responsibility, there are serious, dangerous
backdoors.

On the other hand, law enforcement's "backdoor" requires judicial review in
the light of day.

I'd take the DoJ's precedent _in this case_ over Apple's any day of the week.

If the DoJ/FBI then tries to shove pre-emptive crypto backdoors from congress,
that's a different battle, and one I'm happy to fight. However, siding with
Apple now muddies the real issues at stake and may undermine our negotiating
position when it comes to the general crypto debate.

~~~
rand1012
The real issue is that I have a fucking right to have my device be secure
against the government. It's funny how you can only make sense of your
argument when you get down in the weeds and lose sight of the big picture.

~~~
sangnoir
I'm not OP, but the gist of his argument is you cannot be secure against the
government if you cannot be secure against Apple first. If Apple continues to
_force_ people to trust it, the government will subvert this trust via legal
means.

I find the argument quite congent. It's not getting lost in the weeeds, but
generalizing the problem; instead of just fixing this bug, why not go ahead
and fix the whole class of possible bugs?

------
yalogin
That is what campaign donations are for. I don't think the White House cares
that much. The leadership at the CIA, DoD on the other hand care. That is who
will be sour.

~~~
studentrob
Of course the white house cares. Public safety is a top priority. The DOD is
telling them that putting back doors on encrypted devices is the only way to
keep the public safe when nothing could be further from the truth. It will
make us _less_ safe by making sure criminals always have an avenue to our
digital data along with the government.

------
chillaxtian
"This was evident at the meeting in January in Silicon Valley."

which meeting?

~~~
sigmar
This nytimes article mentions the talks too but doesn't give details:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-
timothy-c...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-
fbi-san-bernardino.html)

------
brisance
Seems like the fix is in for Apple.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-
lose...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/apple-loses-appeal-
in-119-6-million-samsung-patent-case)

------
venomsnake
Can we stop pretending that apple are taking a privacy stand? They are taking
walled garden and vendor locking stand. If they lose this - they must create
device that even they cannot compromise. After all any device that is secure
from apple is not easy to be forced to stay in the apple ecosystem.

Sony cares more about my privacy by not caring about what happens with their
device after sale - I can unlock my bootloader, put clean AOSP, put firewall
and only use F-Droid apps that I have installed.

Apple fight is about - we want to have total control over our users, but we
don't want to share it with USG. Well - that is not how it works.

~~~
zepto
This is false at face value. Anyone who would rather maintain the security of
their own device after purchase can do so by choosing a suitable android phone
as you have done. There is nothing Apple can do to force users to stay in
their ecosystem. Their fight is about maintaining the privacy of people who
_choose_ to be their customers.

~~~
venomsnake
The "we only allow software signed by us" on iphones is forcing people quite a
bit when bought iphones. There are no legal ways for a person to load their OS
on the apple devices. Or alternate app stores.

~~~
zepto
Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone, and the fact that apps must be approved by
Apple is not only public, but is a selling point that Apple advertises.

Where is Apple forcing anyone to do anything?

~~~
venomsnake
If you buy apple ios hardware you are forced to use apple software. You cannot
install lets say Debian. Not because it could not be reversed engineered
enough to be built for it, but because apple has the walled garden's keys.

Compare that to macbooks and x86 pc-s in which you could load anything you
like. So apple are forcing you to use their software to be able to utilize
their iDevices at all.

~~~
zepto
How do they force you to buy their hardware?

