Hacker News Reader

Comment by jokoon | Hacker News Reader

Well I can't expect HN to agree with this article, but let's face it, technologies pose new political questions.

I think the argument about the iPhone backdoor software is a slippery slope one. As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. This is what Snowden is about.

We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise, so I would be careful when defending Apple here.

Now I'm not a lawyer nor a political scientist, but I want to side with the FBI on this one. I'm sure Apple is playing their popularity card here. There are things that are more important and go beyond gadgets built in the silicon valley. It doesn't necessarily have something to do with Snowden.

I expect people to disagree with me here, and it's fine.

View on HN

> As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain.

I completely agree that the State can compel anyone to do anything he is able to do. That's why it's so vitally important to build systems which don't allow anyone but the owner to authorise changes.

Apple shouldn't be able to install an app or update OS code without an iPhone owner okaying the change. Google shouldn't be able to read my WiFi password. Mirosoft shouldn't be able to read my OneDrive files.

If it's not possible for someone to do something, then he can't be compelled to do it.

In this particular case, the actual owner (the county) should have maintained an ability to access the phone at any time, but they didn't.

If we define ownership as "having the ultimate control" - the actual owner of every iPhone ever sold is apple.

Not super true in newer versions of iOS where the update backdoor has been removed by requiring PIN code entry for OS updates.

I am indeed careful or even hesitant about defending Apple because I abhor most of their business practices, but they are 100% right in fighting back against involuntary servitude here. The FBI and judges can't just march around and force people to write software for them.

Yes they can. And that's how it should be in my opinion. Every time a company is demanded to hand over documents or information about an investigation, that is what happened. A company was ordered to do involuntary work. And it's fine as long as we make sure to keep the warrants in check and not rubber stamped.

Drawing the line at software is arbitrary and does a disservice. It's that same narrow minded view of software (as being somehow different than the physical world) that leads to idiotic things like treating email inboxes different than physical inboxes.

I would have drawn the line much sooner, and yes it has to be drawn. If the FBI needs more employees, they should hire some from a pool of voluntary applicants.

>We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise

I can taste your sweet fear from here.

Well I'm not afraid myself, but you should talk to people who work at the FBI, homeland security, and the CIA, to see how they view things. Security does matter. When you have large scale events like what is happening in Syria, it becomes an issue of national defense, would you like it or not.

I know that a difference must be made, and not let security have an influence on freedom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com