
FBI Cannot Make Apple Rewrite Its OS - rdudekul
https://backchannel.com/the-law-is-clear-the-fbi-cannot-make-apple-rewrite-its-os-9ae60c3bbc7b
======
jacobolus
Yesterday’s discussion of this link,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11305065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11305065)

------
nickbauman
To me the issue is simple: If a criminal you weren't suspicious of shreds
incriminating documents before he commits a crime, you don't make paper
shredder companies redesign their paper shredders so that it's easier for law
enforcement to reconstruct what's shredded. It's a paper shredder, after all.
The same way a person's phone storage is _supposed_ to be really hard to get
at: that's it's job.

~~~
kordless
Moreover, it's simpler to blame someone else for the result of your own
actions. The perception breaking encryption will solve all their "problems"
and allow them to get back to reducing suffering to zero is a fallacy. Our
government's historic actions have had just as much part to play in this drama
as anything. You reap what you sow.

The real fallacy here is the idea that the government is 100% responsible for
"keeping us safe". In reality, it's me that keeps me safe most of the time. I
expect them to deal with larger threats, such as North Korea. I expect all of
us to deal with smaller threats, and understand shit happens sometimes that we
wish hadn't.

~~~
DonHopkins
And even larger threats than terrorists, like toddlers with guns. [1]

[1] [http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-
terrorists/](http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

~~~
bargl
I want to go on record saying I agree with the idea that more control of guns
is necessary, and I use this statistic to beat into my father's thick skull
that guns are a problem in the USA. But I think a better intro into the
problem is Vox. [http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-
sta...](http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-
america)

There are a LOT of decent arguments people in the US use to keep guns in the
hands of their citizens. The most compelling one for me is that if you want to
take my guns then lets have a plan in place to severely reduce the number of
guns police have. That resonates with me on a personal level but I'm not
expecting the police to give up all guns until results are shown on both
sides. I can only think of Swatting in the USA. If I can prank call the police
and they swat my neighbors house how can we say that citizens are the only
problem here. [http://time.com/2916554/aclu-police-militarized-report-
swat-...](http://time.com/2916554/aclu-police-militarized-report-swat-war-
comes-home/)

I use swat teams as an example of the paramilitarization of police that
bothers me and is another side of the gun problem in the USA. If they broken
into houses with battons and stun guns this would be bad but a different
story.

------
exelius
Obama is right - it _is_ an increasingly terrifying world. But I'm more
terrified of hugely powerful centralized governments with the ability to get
to any person, anywhere in the world than I am a group of poorly organized,
illiterate goat herders 4000 miles away.

Just remember the US government is directly responsible for the deaths of more
US citizens every year than all terror groups in the world combined over the
last decade. Which is a more realistic threat to the average American - being
killed by a police officer or being killed by a terrorist?

~~~
chrismcb
Is it though? Is it increasingly terrifying, or does the media just portray it
that way?

~~~
exelius
It is; if only for the fact that the very small number of violent radicals can
organize more effectively than ever while also having access to better murder
techniques than ever before.

I'm personally terrified of the day someone decides to strap a claymore to the
bottom of a drone and detonate it ~100 feet above a large crowd. That's the
day that outdoor public gatherings become unsafe for the remainder of human
history.

~~~
ganeumann
Well, it's not. Not unless you live in one of a very few countries
(Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Nigeria, or Iraq, [http://qz.com/552334/more-
people-died-from-terrorism-last-ye...](http://qz.com/552334/more-people-died-
from-terrorism-last-year-than-ever-before-and-mostly-in-these-five-
countries/)).

People forget that there has always been terrorism and that it has
historically been much worse than it is now. Scroll down a bit to the chart of
international terror attacks on the US in this report:
[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/terror-
tren...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/terror-
trends-40-years-data-on-international-and-domestic-terrorism) (You can also
run your own custom report here:
[http://smapp.rand.org/rwtid/search_form.php](http://smapp.rand.org/rwtid/search_form.php))

The 1970s and 1980s were much more dangerous in the US and Western Europe than
the 1990s and 2000s. The idea that we are now fighting terrorists and weren't
before is ahistorical nonsense. The idea that terrorism is more dangerous in
the US today than it has been is purely a result of politically motivated
fear-mongering. In the US at least, there is always a war on something. If
it's not the cold war, it's the war on drugs, or the war on terror. It's just
another system of control.

------
halis
It's definitely an over-reach. If they can force a company to change a product
for this, then what's to say they can't slowly extend this precedent to all
sorts of abuses of power.

~~~
dogma1138
They can draft "Apple" into the military and order it to do it then, there are
precedences for this.

~~~
adrianN
And then court-martial and execute Apple for not complying?

~~~
dogma1138
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying there are far more extreme options that
could be used some of which were used before like drafting doctors and union
workers.

~~~
Zigurd
Before that happens we might actually get a court test of whether the
Executive's interpretation of the terms of whatever vague use-of-force
resolutions we are waging a borderless, endless war actually constitute a
wartime condition.

------
ucaetano
This is when German comes in handy:

\- Können sie? (are they able to?): yes

\- Darfen sie? (are they allowed to?): some say yes, some say no

~~~
CocaKoala
In English, that distinction can be made with "Can the FBI do this?" and "May
the FBI do this"; yes, they can (they have the ability), no, they may not (the
law does not allow them to).

This lesson is taught to children thus: "Mother, can I have a cookie?" "I
don't know, child of mine. Can you?" "Mother, MAY I have a cookie?" "Yes,
child of mine. You may."

Of course, in English the term "may" is semantically overloaded with a "will
they/won't they" sort of question, so it's still unclear depending on how you
parse it. But it's unclear for a different reason!

~~~
ucaetano
"Of course, in English the term "may" is semantically overloaded with a "will
they/won't they" sort of question, so it's still unclear depending on how you
parse it. But it's unclear for a different reason!"

Actually that's the original meaning of "may" in english, similar, and derived
from the same root, to the modal verb mögen in German, expressing a
possibility of something happening.

In other words: \- Can (können) = to really be able to \- May (mögen) =
expresses the possibility, but not the permission \- ??? (dürfen) = to be
authorized to

The past of "may" is "might", which helps understand it.

------
Shivetya
Well I think this statement needs to be qualified with the word "currently".
The basis for the argument is that there is a law the protects Apple and by
that same statement it means a law can require it.

Let alone I am quite sure the Administration knows the law but as they also
know, ignorance is something that has value and can be spent and that
ignorance translates into many of the American populace that will simply nod
when he states something as true having to be true. The is the capital that
politicians spend all the time and sadly it tends to work, maybe not in the
end but long enough to get what they want

------
nerdponx
I really appreciate how the author went out of their way to empathize with and
humanize the president

------
Zigurd
Just became not theoretical:
[http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/17/apple-
emplo...](http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/17/apple-employees-
threaten-to-quit-if-forced-to-build-govtos-report-says)

------
dostick
What if there was a catastrophic event, like asteroid heading for earth
estimated to destroy all life on the planet. and one NASA scientist figured
out how to stop it for sure using math formula. But he died suddenly of heart
attack. Saved the formula in the Notes app on his iPhone. And now NASA asks
Apple to break encryption, so they can access the formula and stop the event
that will destroy the planet. Will Apple comply in this case? (I think they
will)

What if asteroid is estimated to take out only one country ?(they probably
will comply)

One city? Small village? Just one person?

Not trolling, I'm all for privacy and support Apple.

~~~
Zigurd
That's worse than the never-ever-actually-happened "ticking time bomb." There
is no need to address this hypothetical because the odds of this happening are
far lower than the odds of getting wiped out by an asteroid.

