Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcurve | Hacker News Reader

This is an interesting tug of war. Considering 50% of Americans are taking the opposite stance, the SV elites are in the minority. (35%) Yet no pro-government business executive has emerged. I guess it's a risky position to take.

I have a feeling the government will eventually figure out a way to get its way without our realizing.

View on HN

I consider the "50% of Americans" stat to be useless. This is a complicated topic for technologists to grasp. To expect the general public to understand the implications of what they're being asked in order to provide an informed answer is a stretch.

especially when the answer is loaded (the think of the terrorist/children/drugs trick)

It is a complicated topic but we can't just ignore general public that takes on position without realizing its implications. For decades, general public had opposed marijuana, even when half of them have used them before.

Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands.

We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level.

Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance of keeping good security practices in place in our tech.

> but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands.

Where can I sign up for that Congress? Is that opt-in? Because that sounds great.

Probably wouldn't have the effect you are looking for. Corporations are constituents, too, being legally a person. Even if not, the owners are certainly constituents, and most large public companies have a large number of shareholders. 55% of Americans own stock (down from 62% in 2008) [1] So if that 55% constituency demands laws that you don't want, the result is that you are outvoted.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-a...

The way you can make your voice - and everyone else's - heard is in votes. Organize a coalition against a politician you think is bad. Get donations. Run ads.

Not saying it's easy, but when it comes to election day, that politician truly does hinge on the majority of people filling in the bubble by one name. If you can make that not happen a real threat in the candidate's mind, they'll listen to your desires.

A condescending attitude won't go far though.

Not everyone will agree with you, even if you use itty bitty words they can understand. I understand the issue, even when explained in grown up words. And I don't agree.

In this case, Apple already was not "keeping good security practices in place" because they made a weak system. If they had actually made a phone that kept good security practices in place, it wouldn't be possible for them to help the FBI.

They should comply with this and then fix their crap. Then you can worry about explaining the importance of fighting any law that would undermine strong security.

Do you really think that constituent demands are what drives law creation?

To a degree, yes. But even if you take a more pessimistic stance and assume that lawmakers have an agenda that is entirely divorced from that of their constituents, they still need to manufacture consent[1]. Which means that if you get enough voters to be strongly opposed to something, it does have an effect beyond what a small group of highly informed critics can have. The political system is neither perfect, nor useless, is somewhere in between, and I say so as someone who comes from a country with political process that leans way more towards 'broken' than the U.S. one does.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

This is exactly why tech/internet companies should have been spending the last year educating people about why encryption is important and just how much of their lives relies on crypto.

The FBI has been running their own propaganda campaign, but when James Comey talks about the supposed "need" for backdoors, the common response by the people that understand crypto is to talk about how stupid Comey's suggestion was, sometimes with suggestions that he must not understand how crypto works. Meanwhile, the intended audience doesn't hear how backdoors aren't possible, and now have to unlearn the lesson that is "bad".

edit:

A suggestion on how to educate people about encryption: remember why[1] Philip Zimmermann wrote pgp - to provide an envelope for network communication.

[1] https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html

You have to dumb down some of the technical aspects but this isn't a particularly complicated topic.

Think about something like climate change or vaccinations. You probably have no actual idea how it all works. But with some explanations you can understand the gist of the technical sides of those issues.

The main disconnect between the tech crowd and the general public isn't technical knowledge but values. A lot of people in the tech community put a lot value on absolute privacy or secrecy. The general public doesn't. Especially in a case where the privacy or secret information is to a 100% certainty related to an actual mass murdering terrorist.

I'd bet if anything, the general public would overestimate the privacy risk the apple crack would cause. They don't know about signed updates, for example.

Despite nearly a year of campaigning, 6 months of extensive political coverage, non-stop advertising, and series of debates with large audiences when push came to shove a third of New Hampshire primary voters decided in the last few days before election.

Perhaps it's a bit premature to treat people's responses to a quickie poll as evidence that people are "taking an opposite stance" as opposed to giving their immediate impression.

It seems likely that Apple, Google and Facebook could make a case that would persuade people, especially with the support of the EFF, ACLU, and Amnesty International.

That 50% stat is made up stat. 50% Americans probably cant spell "encryption" properly.

It is very easy to make people bend over and grease up by threatening them that some bad people are planning to kill them.

Defending liberty does not need 50%. You need few extremely vocal people willing to fight the good battle and help the discourse.

I would be absolutely shocked if the government didn't have numerous ways to get into any information on any commercial phone. What they don't have is a simple device that average joe agent has access to at the local office, and of course his civilian police force compatriot.

Just a suspicion but I imagine the narrative that FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS or any federal agency is frustrated that the NSA won't share its toys with them has some truth to it. Of course, it makes sense. Complying to very single request would leave NSA as mere peons.

It was just a couple years ago that the FBI was lamenting the fact that it was having trouble hiring hackers because they all smoke pot. I only cite that as it asserts that the FBI does in fact employ teams of digital hackers. The NSA surely has better/more, but if the FBI needs into an iPhone I'm sure they could do it on their own.

I don't know anything about the FBI or the NSA but I doubt the FBI would have remotely the same budget for zero day bugs. (:

50% of Americans can only take the opposite stance if they know what stance they are taking. The reporting on the poll doesn't reveal any screening questions to determine whether the respondents understand the issues at stake. If they don't understand the issue, then the 50% is answering a question about something else.

If they asked the question "Should Apple make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access information on American phones", I suspect less than 50% would say yes.

Complying with the FBI's request does not make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access data on American phones. This is a case where having a little bit of knowledge leads to a wildly inaccurate conclusion, similar to Greenwald's original PRISM reporting.

> Complying with the FBI's request does not make it easier for terrorists and foreign hackers to access data on American phones.

You're disagreeing with every cyber security researcher I know, as well as the EFF, with no sources at all. At least google the subject.

It sure does if that signed malicious firmware ever got out. And it will eventually since once it's written it will be requested by every police department and federal agency for ever increasing trivial cases. Every government in the world will want access to that piece of code.

If Apple really can tie the firmware to a specific piece of hardware with no possibility of it being modified I would be impressed but even still a little cautious.

The FBI has given Apple the option of brute-forcing the phone for them. In that case, the build never leaves Apple, just like the build that Apple has previously used to extract unencrypted data from iPhones.

Making the build not-modifiable is easy. That's what's stopping the FBI from modifying the existing build to remove the wipe rule.

Where do you get the idea Apple made a special build to extract unencrypted data?

Because the standard build does not have the capability to bypass the lock screen and extract data.

I can't find any statements indicating this required a special build, just normal access to the storage. If you have some citation for this I'd appreciate it.

On the standard build, normal access to storage only works if you've unlocked the phone.

What makes you think such a build has been used before?

That Apple has said so in their transparency reports.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com