
Apple CEO Tim Cook challenges Obama with impassioned stand on privacy - mikek
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/13/apple-ceo-tim-cook-challenges-obama-privacy
======
dandare
I don't get it. Why is everyone (including Snowden) talking about personal
moments, privacy, intimacy etc when the problem is clearly about tyranny,
dictatorship and misuse of power? We have very specific and numerous evidence
that in the past the state used its powers to spy, threaten and discredit
ideological opponents and activists, from M. L. King to all anti-war movements
since Vietnam. Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest
threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. We need to
stay safe from our own state, that is why we must not give up our privacy, not
because of some silly naked pictures on your phone.

~~~
bsbechtel
For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned
through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of
knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R,
D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently
in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize
the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's
power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could
potentially betray you.

If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you
because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel?
Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that
could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents'
trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State.

The difference between your parents and the State though, is that different
individuals of varying trustworthiness move into and out of power. As this
happens, eventually some bad actors will gain power, and those who depend on
that established trust will be badly hurt.

~~~
d23
> For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned
> through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of
> knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an
> R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those
> currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack
> or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially
> abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one
> could potentially betray you.

This is cringeworthy. I knew HN had a Ron Paul bent, but has it been
completely overtaken by 15 year olds?

Go ask ANYONE, your cashier, your hairdresser, or the random joe working on
your car -- the standard line of thinking isn't that the government is some
nice friend and protector. The standard line of thinking is that government is
dysfunctional and politicians are corrupt. You people pick up a copy of 1984
and suddenly you're all mini-orwells running around spewing your "insights" to
whoever will stand around long enough to pretend they care.

> If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you
> because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you
> feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say
> that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their
> parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State.

Oh, wise sage, please enlighten us with more of your wisdom. Tell us the story
of the bunny going to the store to buy milk this time!

~~~
woodman
> The standard line of thinking is that government is dysfunctional and
> politicians are corrupt.

That may be the standard response you get, but doesn't mean that is what they
think. I'm sure that if you asked them how their day was going, you'd get a
"fine" \- which doesn't mean anything either. It makes more sense to look at
actions than words: people still call the police if they get shorted a chicken
nugget. Mothers still call the police to scare their rebellious teenagers
straight. People still vote. So it is more likely that people are unhappy with
the present government, but if they could just get their guy in office - then
everything would be great. Give us a kindly king :)

~~~
philwelch
Calling upon government services and voting isn't a show of faith in the
government, it's just a matter of practicality. Do I fundamentally have faith
in the police to protect people's safety instead of jeopardizing it? No,
because they murder people all the time and get away with it. But I'm still
going to file a police report when my laptop gets stolen because that's the
only way I can make an insurance claim for it.

As for voting, I'm to the point where I just vote on ballot measures and leave
the actual races for elected positions blank, unless there's a socialist
running in which case I vote against them.

~~~
woodman
> Calling upon government services and voting isn't a show of faith in the
> government, it's just a matter of practicality.

Intelligent people can disagree on the ideal way to transition from our
present system to a more preferable solution - but your statement isn't
absolutely true. Voting does demonstrate a faith in the government. That faith
may only be that the present system allows for a transition through the
mechanism of majority rule, but it is faith none the less. As far as police
interactions, I chose my examples carefully - they demonstrate a belief in the
state beyond practical needs such as insurance claims.

------
shiggerino
I'm not sure what the US government is complaining about. If the baseband has
direct memory access, they should be able to grab any cryptographic key off
the phones without Apple or the user ever noticing, that is unless Apple has
been getting stroppy lately about who gets to talk on their PCI bus.

As for Apple doing the right thing, even if they manage to keep the government
out of people's business today, they still hold the key to the universal back
door and might give it away tomorrow. Apple certainly has the resources to
develop a completely liberated phone, but NeXT and post-merger Apple has
always been incredibly hostile to software freedom, and this speech doesn't
change any of that.

I don't think they are afraid that they won't be able to spy on people, but
they are worried about maintaining the public opinion that privacy is for
creeps and terrorists. But another interesting effect of closing every back
door but the baseband is that there will likely be a power struggle within the
intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Only the highest ranking officers
will be able to push malicious firmware updates, regular police will have no
choice but to stick with traditional police work.

~~~
comboy
> they still hold the key to the universal back door and might give it away
> tomorrow

Care to elaborate? Do you mean assumption that they can have it if they want
to, or is there some information about it?

~~~
meric
Your encrypted iMessages is one iOS update from being non-encrypted. As far as
I can tell.

~~~
epistasis
And one iOS update from a TLS implementation with low entropy in key
generation, allowing the NSA to decrypt all traffic with minimal computational
effort.

As is Windows, Linux, all open source projects, and all proprietary projects.

All software is one update away from completely changing it's purpose, so I
think your point is far more general than just Apple's messaging app.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
It would be nice if the updates came from a source that wasn't directly under
the thumb of the US government as all commercial businesses are, and wasn't
amoral and beholden to profit motive. Not having to worry about intentional
subterfuge would free up my time to worry about implementation flaws.

------
MarcScott
I recently taught a small module on cryptography to some 13 year olds.

In one lesson, I asked them to write down what they thought of companies being
forced to weaken encryption.

This was a very typical response from the group.

"I think that encryption should still be allowed because I should have some
privacy in my life and everyone else can. No one wants to be watched, stalked,
etc. just because a couple of criminals may be able to start a (rare)
terrorist attack, there should be other ways to stop them apart from making
everyone elses life uncomfortable. You might aswell have no passwords for any
website, it's basically the same thing."

If kids get it, I fail to see why politicians don't.

~~~
mc32
The problem with that is that when asking kids you get sunshine. I mean, I
have an opinion on this, but that's beside the point.

You ask kids, what do we do about global warming --stop polluting the
atmosphere!

Yes obvious, it's just that things aren't as simple as that.

~~~
mch82
Actually, things are exactly that simple.

Look at how the WWII generation responded to the need for behavior change in
order to supply raw materials and labor for the war effort. If our generation
cared about the environment as much as they cared about winning WWII then we
could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a little extra
for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable, and be well
on the way to reversing damage to our environment.

~~~
Sir_Substance
>then we could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a
little extra for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable

I haven't done the study, but I'd wager that those small price hikes would
push the five most marginal percent currently able to afford rent into
homelessness.

Things are never that simple. A person who presents anything as black and
white either hasn't thought about it or is lying to you.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
So... design your policy such that they don't affect the most poor (fund
things by raising taxes on the wealthy, etc). It in fact is that simple, yet
we lack the political will to make policy that disproportionately affects the
wealthy.

That isn't because we can't, it's because our ideology ensures we won't.

~~~
aragot
Why should global warming taxes be also an instrument to rebalance wealth?
That's exactly what discredits them when I push for them as a debate: The
middle class feel very insecure about "redistribution".

~~~
quonn
The OP has responded to the problem of "push[ing] the five most marginal
percent [..] into homelessness". Your blowing his modest proposal out of
proportion when talking about rebalancing wealth. He only suggested to design
the policy in a way that prevents the poorest to become homeless.

------
jackgavigan
It's worth remembering that Apple have stated that "conversations which take
place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no
one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt
that data."[1]

I suspect that Cook is anticipating legislation that would require that Apple
re-engineer its services to support "lawful" interception of the content of
messages/conversations, but is hoping that adopting a aggressive stance now
will result in a compromise end state whereby interception must happen
proactively and by exception (and within a clear legal framework - e.g.
authorised by a warrant or court order) as opposed to a mass surveillance
regime where everything is hoovered up (i.e. intercepted and stored).

1: [https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-
privacy/](https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/)

~~~
walshemj
id suspect that is the case pity that the other invited tech leaders didn't go
- but Tim always struck me that he understands politics in a way Larry Sergei,
Eric and Zuckerberg just don't get

~~~
slasaus
The business model of Facebook and Google is about getting to know as much as
possible about you. Apple makes most money without your data.

------
beloch
This is likely a jab at Obama, since Tim Cook is probably sick of all the NSA
and FBI spooks plugging black boxes into his servers, not to mention how it's
illegal for him to even complain about it publicly. The scary thing is that
I'm no longer a bonafide paranoiac for expressing an opinion like this. I'm
probably right.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
This is certainly a jab at Obama, who came to Silicon Valley today to tell us
all that the government can "keep us safe" if we just let them take our
personal data from private companies. Obama has been pushing a plan for
"cybersecurity" that involves expanding the NSA spying program and making
legal many of the things Edward Snowden revealed them to be doing apparently
illegally.

I'm politically liberal and voted for Obama twice but the man is fucking lying
to us about cyber security. The real solutions to security involve encryption
and what Obama is suggesting is that they can protect us by monitoring more.

Tim Cook is calling him out as a liar without expressly saying it. I wish he
would. We need more prominent people to call attention to how much we are
being lied to, because too many people buy the BS as truth.

~~~
parasubvert
I would be careful about calling policy disagreements "lies".

Keep in mind Bill Clinton and his admin did plenty of horrible stuff as well
(communications decency act, DMCA, the clipper and v-chip shenanigans, high
strength crypto as a munition, the hounding of Phil Zimmerman and PGP,
operation sundevil, etc.

My point is that digital privacy is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue,
it's a new concern that seems to have adherents across the political spectrum.
Both democrats and republicans have been strong supporters of government
surveillance and stomping on digital privacy rights. There is no mainstream
political party taking up the privacy mantra yet en large because the people
of the USA apparently don't want it.

It's our job to change that, but that requires changing people's minds that
their privacy is worth risking a successful terrorist attack (which is how
everyone in the mainstream US perceives the trade off).

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Thanks for those examples from Clinton Era, I was 15 when he left office so I
know only a little of his legacy.

I am hard on Obama on cybersecurity because, after watching Citizen Four and
countless CCC talks with Jacob Appelbaum et al, I just don't believe he is
unaware of the damage to security his proposals will make. I suppose he could
genuinely believe that more state intervention in our digital lives is
ultimately the right call for our security, but I feel like the president
would be informed enough to know better. But perhaps he is just in a bubble
that makes it hard to see how harmful their security measures are.

Either way I agree that the issue is a citizen's issue and not a liberal or
conservative one. Both parties have been failing to look our for their
constituents and I feel like a true people's progressive party would be an
important force to disrupt that pattern.

I guess I should be careful about accusing people of lying however, as it
could derail my message when the specifics of lie vs bad idea are really not
at issue. Thanks for the comment.

------
ps4fanboy
Tim Cook just earned a lot of respect today.

~~~
venomsnake
How? Apple does not care about privacy. If they did, they would not possess
the keys to decrypt anything, even stuff stored on their servers.

I am sure apple cares about privacy from government, but they don't seem to
care about privacy of their users from them.

~~~
anko
even Schneier thinks they do a decent job:
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/apples_imessa...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/apples_imessage.html)

~~~
minthd
If you read the details of schneier's post , he basically says "we don't
know".

~~~
jakobegger
Jesus Christ, unless you etch your own chips and build a computer from
scratch, the answer is always "we don't know".

There might be a backdoor in the cpu you buy, or in the baseband, or in a
driver, or in an open source component that you didn't audit, or in your
compiler, or even in your USB stick. You always need to trust somebody.

~~~
towelguy
Pragmatism tells me it's easier to trust my cpu than it is to trust someone's
server in the other side of the planet.

------
TheBiv
>> "The Apple boss, who last year publicly acknowledged he is gay, added that
“history has shown us that sacrificing our right to privacy can have dire
consequences”

Why would this detail possibly be relevant to the point Tim Cook was making?

~~~
mpweiher
In the (democratic) Weimar Republic, the authorities collected "pink lists"
naming homosexuals. Homosexuality was technically illegal, but not prosecuted,
and in fact, the Weimar Republic was known for its tolerance.

When the Nazis came to power, they used those previously obtained lists to
round up the homosexuals and send them to death camps. A lesson that privacy
matters even if you think your current government and/or its use of data is
benign.

[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261](http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261)

~~~
simonh
This is a really key point. Obama and Cameron are telling us that it's ok to
let them snoop on all our private communications because we can trust them and
they can protect us. Even if we can trust them, they can't protect us. Also,
who knows about the next president of the USA, or the next UK Prime Minister?
What if we get another Nixon or worse? These things have happened and will
happen again.

Beyond that, by saying it's ok for governments to snoop on private
communications, it's normalising that same behaviour by China, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, etc, etc. It's not good enough to say that it's alright for the West
to do it because they are good guys and not ok for despotic regimes to do it
because they are bad guys. It's a matter of principle that it's wrong for
everyone to do it.

That is the only way to set a standard and hold every government to it. We
should figure out what line in terms of privacy and respect for personal
rights we would like China, Russia, etc to abide by. It's only ok for our
governments to do things that we would accept as being legitimate for those
governments to do. That is the only way to normalise respect for the
individual and protect our personal freedoms in the long term.

------
Iv
"We should not share the control we have over our consumers with the NSA!"

~~~
morgante
Apple, unlike other major tech companies, has a business model which is
completely compatible with privacy. If anything, I suspect they would prefer a
world where consumers demanded strict privacy and fewer online services.

~~~
Logmix
Bullshit. iOS devices have only one way to do wireless backups, and that's
with the Apple cloud. Apple could decide that it only does wireless backups
with a little home server that you put into your own home, but they decided
against that.

Apple also could allow users to secure their cloud backups against anybody.
But they decided they include mandatory key escrow by Apple itself. The mud
puddle test proves that Apple and the NSA can access all your backup data.

How is that a business model "completely compatible with privacy"?

~~~
ff10
iOS lets you do backups wirelessly and wired with iTunes, the former while you
are within reach of your own network. Their business model can potentially be
compatible with privacy since it does not rely on personal data gathering.
Their profit is generated by actually selling devices and digital goods.

~~~
Logmix
I should have been a bit clearer. Your iOS devices are mobile - you may not be
at home for days. iOS does indeed offer wireless backups, but only if you're
at home.

And by the way, I find that downmodding that hit me appaling and a sign of
unhealthy group-think.

------
arh68
I think it would be convenient if Apple just 'bent over' and started selling
NSAPhones, but nothing will kill foreign customers who value privacy [1] more
than to know the KGB, or MI6, etc (or Madagascar Intel, it doesn't matter who,
just not _their_ country) runs their phone. I mean, what American would buy a
KGBPhone? Apple's just defending a now largely foreign customer base, it seems
to me. I'm sure they'll comply with requests, but they can't be a pushover.

[1] [http://www.cnet.com/news/china-likely-to-top-us-for-apple-
ip...](http://www.cnet.com/news/china-likely-to-top-us-for-apple-iphone-
sales/)

------
m12k
That little "namaste" gesture that he ended it with - I wonder if he picked up
that habit from Jobs?

------
luke-stanley
Doesn't the latest OS X share to Apple what people are searching for on their
own computer? (By default).

~~~
po
Yes, they send your queries out to their servers (not to be confused with
sending information about files on your machine out) but the 'session key'
they use is apparently not tied to your identity by them or third parties they
work with. In their words:

 _You can always opt out of Suggestions and continue to use Spotlight solely
for local search on your device. You are also free to opt out of having
Spotlight use Location Services any time you want. If you opt out, Spotlight
will still use your IP address to determine a general location to make your
searches more relevant. Unlike our competitors, we don’t use a persistent
personal identifier to tie your searches to you in order to build a profile
based on your search history. We also place restrictions on our partners so
they don’t create a long-term trail of identifiable searches by you or from
your device._

[https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-built-
in/](https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-built-in/)

------
k-mcgrady
Much better response imo than just not going to the event like some other tech
CEO's.

------
jchomali
Definitely

------
fspacef
clickbait title tho

------
Throwaway1224
Yea so apple doesn't store and use my information and do creepy shit with
stuff i never explicitly gave them my permission to use. Dont fucking insult
me, cook.

~~~
tunap
He's not insulting you, he's protecting their back-end from exposure &
scrutiny. NSA has become a problem, but Apple, et al, corps' data collections
have been eroding & infringing our privacy all along... in the name of
monetization/profit, which is quite a bit more nefarious than security, IMO.

------
juancastro
This mean if can continue using my iPhone without risk! Lol

~~~
jchomali
Yeah!

