It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.
I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'
You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.
But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.
The elephant in the room is Apple's ecosystem: it is rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the three aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.
?They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, insecure-by-design ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They probablyalso know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their networking gear manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing personal information, breaking into it should not be a big deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.
They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.
How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?
I completely agree with your assessment of the headaches that Apple may be giving the NSA (assuming that we are correct in believing that they do not have access). I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.
That's the great thing about conspiracies too - they are hard to disprove.
You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.
But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The elephant in the room is</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple's ecosystem</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">: it is</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the t</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">hree aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">?They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, </span>
insecure-by-design<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They </span>
probably<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> </span>
also<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their </span>
networking<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> gear </span>
manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing </span>
personal<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> information, breaking into it should not be a big </span>
deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.
They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.
How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?
I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.
Let's wait a bit and see how does this ends up. The picture will certainly be lot clearer in 6 months or so.
I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.
Let's wait a bit and see how does this ends up. The picture will certainly be lot clearer in 6 months or so.
Agreed. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.
Comments
It's very tempting, but logically untenable, to regard the recent information about NSA surveillance activities as direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy.
I'm always very wary of big conspiracy theories (they generally turn out, in hindsight, to be wrong), and have always agreed with Bernard Ingham when he said: 'Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.'
You may be right: I may well just be the DoJ and/or the judge having lost all common sense.
But my point would be this: by looking at the DoJ, the judge and their Grand Inquisitor we are looking in the wrong direction.
The elephant in the room is Apple's ecosystem: it is rock-solid, brand new and grows at an unprecedented pace. Any of these three aspects alone would be enough of a pain for the NSA, but they could cope with each separately, provided some extra time and a couple of more B$. The thing is, the three aspects combined together is a real threat (sic) for their mission.
?They are used to deal with old and, shall I say, insecure-by-design ecosystems, e.g. Windows and its zero-day attack that they get ahead of time -- They probably also know a couple of tricks to break into Macs. They are used to deal with large scale systems like the telcos and their networking gear manufacturers. This is old business going back all the way to the 60' and 70'. They are used to new ecosystems: if we are to believe the press about Android malware and apps stealing personal information, breaking into it should not be a big deal -- And at least they have (1) the source code (2) the proper connection with the telcos if needed. They are also used to strong ecosystem. I guess that they break into by bullying the provider. That is probably what happened to RIM a long time ago when they started to get traction in the market.
They get none of this with Apple's ecosystem. And to make matter worse: (1) it is the first ecosystem build at a time where everybody with a brain could see the surveillance state coming -- It's design is post-9/11; (2) Apple does care about their customers and their privacy; (3) Apple designs both HW and SW, which means they can really build strong security -- Just have a look at the state-of-the-art Touch ID architecture.
How could the three-letters agencies deal with this, if not by actual threatening and plain abuse?
I completely agree with your assessment of the headaches that Apple may be giving the NSA (assuming that we are correct in believing that they do not have access). I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.
That's the great thing about conspiracies too - they are hard to disprove.
Spying on us is obviously not so hard.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/
I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.
Let's wait a bit and see how does this ends up. The picture will certainly be lot clearer in 6 months or so.
Spying on us is obviously not so hard.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/
I wasn't talking about "spying on us," but about "breaking into Apple's ecosystem."
It's not quite the same thing, indeed.
I'm not convinced that the NSA (or whichever agencies may be involved) have either the authority (real or assumed) or the influence to go after such a powerful US company, especially during the continuing fallout from Snowden's tales. And, if they did manage to put together such a campaign, I would expect to see a better effort at keeping it believable and, at least superficially, above board. If, as seems likely, the legal challenges gain some traction, then I think that will support the incompetence theory, although it could still be a really incompetent conspiracy.
Let's wait a bit and see how does this ends up. The picture will certainly be lot clearer in 6 months or so.
Agreed. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.
Why break into the safe when the money is all over to be easily had?
Why break into the safe when the money is all over to be easily had?
Hah.
If Zuckerberg hadn't invented FaceBook the NSA would have.