|
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
So I guess this will be all over the Insider on Monday... 
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale).
For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure.
So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Another thought: If Apple cave in, what happens in six months time when China demand the tools to decrypt the iPhone from a captured CIA agent? 
Troy Hunt's blog post on the topic is a good read:
Troy Hunt: Everything you need to know about the Apple versus FBI case[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
from the blog:
"[...]What’s intriguing about this approach is that when it works well, encryption is transparent. This is not a feature like you’d see showcased in an Apple product launch[...]"
today, security and encryption are some of the main selling points of internet devices; no one care about CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD ... or even the OS as most apps are available on every OS and platforms.
It is not just an Apple vs. FBI issue; it will happen for every device and OS manufacturer out there.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: If Apple cave in, what happens in six months time when China demand the tools to decrypt the iPhone from a captured CIA agent?
Well that assumes China needs a captured agent to get the info. I am sure that they've got hackers/crackers whose sole purpose in life is to break phone security. 
|
|
|
|
|
That isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty. And consider that "even" Apple has to comply with the US-laws and cooperate with law enforcement. The question is, where are the borders between law and privacy.
Do you what the salaries at Apple are?
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty
[my emphasis]
What is the consequence of your statement?
Say you work with pacemakers to save peoples lives. Then you are ordered, by company boss Ronnald Trump, brother of President Donnald Trump, and to hack the pacemaker of the North Korean ruler to kill him. You are happy to do it. It's not even nasty. It's kinda cool.
Then they order you to provide a mod to hack any pacemaker. They don't say but, they might wanna use it on some other bad dictator [cool!], or drug-lord, or bank robber, or lefty journalist, or Hillary, or John Doe or your dad, or... you.
Is it still "irresponsible" to leave? Or are there different kinds of nasty? Some where it is responsible to leave. Who defines the degree of nasty where to draw the line. Is it Karsten K?
Or is it possible that some truly objective concept of "responsible" is not relevant?
Life is too shor
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: That isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty.
It's not a matter of nasty, it's a matter of personal ethics. If I was an Apple developer (disclosure: I'm not), and I was asked to write this tool/feature, I'd pack my things right in front of the manager requesting it and walk out. Heck, if my current employer asked me to write something that I felt did not fit with my personal ethics I'd walk out. I wouldn't even try to negotiate something like "Hey can you give it to someone else, I'm not comfortable... blah, blah, blah", I wouldn't even want to work for a company that produced such software to begin with. So I'd leave.
Now, having said all that, I do realize that not all devs will have the same personal ethical stance on this subject as I do. Perhaps there are folks who work at Apple who feel it would be unethical to not help the FBI. If they feel that way, then cool. Stay and write the thing. If not (and they feel strongly enough about it), then leave. It's not like an Apple developer is going to have a hard time finding work.
I was more interested in what would happen in the specific case where the devs all decide to walk. Almost in an non-unionized strike if you will.
|
|
|
|
|
Vark111 wrote: What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple...
I'm sure such a thing happens elsewhere, where the company and the employee(s) are going in opposite directions. The voids eventually get filled.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Vark111 wrote: Where does it leave the government?
At the mercy of John McAfee of course[^] 
One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this. The NSA has in it's employ some serious brainiacs that could likely perform the requested tasks totally under the radar.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
You do realize that the best way to take advantage of hacking your way into something starts with not telling anyone you can do it?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
It's quite likely that they don't need Apple, but they want it to go to trial anyway so they can set a legal precedent.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly - and its a precedent that will reach to nearly all countries. Which in turn is exactly why everyone who gives a damn about personal privacy should side with Apple in this case.
If not Apple today it will be Google or Microsoft tomorrow.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: If not Apple today it will be Google or Microsoft tomorrow.
Ah yes! Bastions of personal privacy . . .
. . . except all information they gather from you to sell to the highest bidders (and the not so high bidders).*
* For example, you do know gmail's terms of service, right?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
True - which makes it all the sadder that I still trust all 3 of them (to do the right thing) more than I trust my government these days. 
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
This is my own personal opinion, but I've been observing what has been a persistent anti-government propaganda war of great intensity for quite a few years. They also have an appropriate 'news' station to further their goals.
What goal? To remove government interference in people's lives. Rather - let's rephrase that to the truth behind the matter: they want the government interference moved to a more local level where they can trample civil rights far more easily. From my experience, it's clear that local governments are far better at pushing the wishes and beliefs of a few local influential up my a$$ than the federal government ever was or wants to be.
Consider this: the part that's most for "homeland security"'s overreach capabilities are the same ones who whine about government intrusion in private lives. If you read the bold faced print that's between the lines, it really comes down to re-enabling the robber-barons to abuse capitalism. Deregulation (first Reagan, then The Shrub) cost us two real-estate investment fiascoes (S&L's, then the monster we're only just getting out of)!
I've read Machiavelli's "The Prince" - and if taken as the tongue-in-cheek tome it was meant to be (hence keeping Machiavelli alive), you see the same crap's still successfully used. The difference being that many of the prince's now are the super-rich (Koch Bros., for example).
There's plenty wrong with government - and as a child of the Vietnam War era, I've protested more than a little - but beware the exploitative manipulation that would make you consider trusting a corporate entity with no scruples beyond the dollar sign. You really don't get many votes on how they do what they do.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree. Any further discussion is probably too political for the Lounge.
Good luck... comrade. 
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Be that as it may, it's certainly easier to move to a different company's ecosystem when you don't agree with their policies than it is to completely move countries.
Governments should be held to a much, much, much higher standard.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a naivety in thinking you can move from the 'ecosystem' as you call it.
For an outstanding example, consider that I've never agreed to Google's terms of service for anything - and never had a gmail account.
Yet - if I send email to someone with such an account my email is kept, scanned, archived, etc. Now, should I send an email to another gmail sucker, they get my information there, too - they've just started a profile on me. Any mail sent to me from gmail account? More of the same.
Soon, that ecosystem has invaded my privacy big-time - without so much as a warrant, agreement, warning, or anything else.
And to whom are they accountable?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd never considered that angle before. I'd always assumed that they didn't keep anything since you hadn't agreed to their terms of service. But you may well be right.
Seems like the two situations aren't quite as comparable as I thought. Google and GMail are practically everywhere; countries aren't. Unless you want to talk about global spying being done by certain nation-states, but that's another conversation entirely...
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
In order to prosecute a case in court, you have to have gotten your information/intel "legally". Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
That's not true at all.
Apple doesn't own the phone, nor did the terrorist. It was owned by his employer (a local government agency) and they've given the FBI the OK.
The only legal argument I can imagine (other than the obvious point that the FBI wants to set a precedent for the 100's of thousands of new cases where they'll want access) is that a jury may feel that an "official" Apple hack is less likely to corrupt data.
Imagine the police finding a safe in a criminal's house. They don't need to demand a master key from the manufacturer. They hire a damn locksmith. Same principle here.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure Apple could pull some obscure line out of their cavernous terms of service to exert ownership just like John Deere and GMC tried.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
