Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gustomaximus | Hacker News Reader

In the same way Apple shifts global tax to Ireland, could they shift the encryption ownership (sorry - there's surely a better technical term I could use) to an overseas holding company where this is likely to be quickly dismissed? Essentially make it like suing Apple in an attempt to control Google search results type thing... its simply a different entity.

View on HN

Microsoft does something similar with its cloud services in Germany: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-microsoft-to-offer-cloud-se...

It is worth keeping a close eye on the ongoing Microsoft Ireland suit. No matter the outcome of the current appeal the case is likely to go in front of the superme court. Should the SCOTUS rule in favour of the government request this will have grave implications for the tech sector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Unite...

Huh... That may be possible! It would require Apple not being able to control that entity, however. They would effectively have to outsource security (seems like a dangerous plan). Also, the gov't could then simply outlaw the outsourcing of security functions for device manufacturers.

> the gov't could then simply outlaw..

If this was about the gov't simply making new laws we wouldn't be having this discussion right? Fortunately we live in a country where the gov't can't simply outlaw things.

Actually they can. I see nothing unconstitutional about restricting companies from circumventing a court ruling on existing law. Even if unconstitutional (which it's not) that does not necessarily prevent a bill from becoming a law.

The entire discussion here is not about Apple circumventing a court ruling. They are appealing the ruling, and until the appeal is complete they don't have to perform any action.

Right now, it would be very unconstitutional (a denial of due process) to prevent Apple from appealing the ruling.

It has been said that Congress, who can legislate all kinds of stuff, is the DOJ's end-game here. So, stay tuned.

They could use multiple signing keys. One in America, one in Hong Kong, one in Germany, etc. If a firmware update is not signed in all (or N of M) jurisdictions, the secure enclave simply rejects it.

This is an excellent solution. A bit like Ripple's concept of trusting a set of validators are unlikely to collude against you, without having to trust any single one of them: https://wiki.ripple.com/Consensus#Not_colluding

Of course it doesn't stop any particular government from making it illegal to sell unbackdoorable phones in their country.

Or even better a single signing key for each phone so they don't get carte blanche access from a single request.

Here's another possibility. Let's say DOJ wins, or a new law is passed requiring Apple to sign malware version of iOS. Apple risks losing huge market share overseas, where people will stop buying iPhones. Apple spins off affiliate companies in these other countries, distributing controlling share of the affiliate stock to current Apple shareholders. Then apple just licenses its tech to the spin-off affiliates. No control over their ops. (Obviously would be more convoluted, much more -- but that's the basic idea.)

This sounds like a good case for a threshold signature scheme[1] where no one member has all of a complete key and can partially sign without revealing their piece of the key to anyone.

[1] http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070209-new....

You don't actually need any new clever algorithms at all. At least on Windows, you can simply sign code with multiple certificates.

Aren't all algorithms "clever" at some level? I assume you are implying non-mainstream - that always carries risks, but there are some advantages:

1. The software that verifies the certificate doesn't need to be changed - which is quite an advantage if it has already been shipped, or if you need to change the signing rules at a later date.

2. The verification logic is exactly the same as if checking a regular, single signature certificate. Nice and simple, no bugs related to whether all criteria have been met by multiple certificates.

Sure, move everything and leave just a shell behind. Or nothing. But where would they go? Russia? China? Build an island somewhere? And what about defense?

  Build an island somewhere?

Sure, why not? Put that $200B cash reserve to use.

An independent corporate state with AI etc might have downsides ;)

You're jumping the gun. This case is not lost.

And we can still argue, quite reasonably I think, that attempting to put back doors into all encrypted communication methods is a game of Whack-a-mole that we cannot win.

I still think that Internet and technology is much safer in USA. Hey Americans actually care about privacy. In UK or other countries people are ready with lube when government asks them to bend over.

Because the USA did so well when it came time to pass the USA PATRIOT ACT, its extensions etc etc

I disagree. I think this distinction results from Europeans being more humble and not from us being more concerned. I'm not convinced that our arrogance serves the freedom of technology or the internet. American's are eager to see themselves as citizens of the country that invented freedom. We assume our capacity for self-determination is absolute and unwavering. We like to see America, which is often great, as a reflection of ourselves. But ultimately this inclination is a double-edged sword. It forces us to accept personal responsibility for our country's flaws. You might think that this causes us to "actually care". I don't. While it is conceivable that a single person can shape their entire country the reality is immensely challenging and uncertain. Anecdotes to the contrary, though numerous and extraordinary, are curated by survival bias. We know this intuitively but can't express it without contradicting our idealism. When faced with a new social problem we essentially have 3 choices:

1. Abandon the pleasant safety of arrogance. Accept the non-totality of your control. Be practical. Do what you can. Risk the indignant judgement of someone that chose #2.

2. Abandon the intuition of humility. Be the solution. Assume you're the next Great Thinker in social progress. The MLK for problem x. Change the world. Care. Inspire people. Avoid narcissism.

3. Capitulate to the most primitive defense: denial/apathy. The government isn't spying on us. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. Are you a conspiracy theorist?

The best choice is #1. It's the unconscious choice of most Europeans. They simply lack the arrogance necessary to perceive our little problem with problems. American's are frequently stuck between #2/#3. While these people may appear to care more they are merely sublimating the intense anxiety of their self-imposed challenge. Their choice to meet insecurity with arrogance undermines the optimization of their unlikely success. They struggle to understand their relationship to the autonomous beast that opposes them. Of course, that is only if they choose not to deny the problem exists at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com