Apple, other tech companies ask Obama to reject proposals for software backdoors

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    So, who's done a great job on that? (Please don't say Reagan).

    He's the current occupant of the White House, so if he wants all the credit, he also gets all the blame.
  • Reply 22 of 32
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    He's the current occupant of the White House, so if he wants all the credit, he also gets all the blame.

    I was responding to your point about "2016 can't come fast enough". You're obviously implying that a new President might be different/better on this front.

     

    I am simply saying history suggests that your hope is misplaced.

  • Reply 23 of 32
    blah64blah64 Posts: 993member
    How are there no comments on this. it is incredible what the gov't would do to get our information. God forbid we have privacy especially on our mobile devices. I got nothing to hide, but the sheer fact that nothing can be private is atrocious. Trying to state that the privacy of our devices will cause the death of a child is ridiculous. If a sadistic nut job wants to cause harm, they will find a way.

    Totally agree, and one thing you'll find is that privacy issues in general often don't have as many people's attention as we might think or hope. So many people have fallen into the traps of convenience, cool gadgets and lack of understanding of what's really happening in the back end of all the services they use, that they've lost the ability to even think about what privacy means anymore. This is especially true for many parents who don't even seem to care or understand how deeply their children are being datamined, but that's another story.

    I applaud all the tech companies for fighting for our privacy.

    Here's where you should really re-think your stance.

    The tech companies are NOT fighting for our privacy. They want you to believe that. But the reality is that tech companies are fighting for their right to own your data. ALL your data. Everything from where you go, what you eat, what you buy, who your friends are, what you talk about with them, everything. They know no bounds, and are held to even lower standards of than our government about what they can and cannot do with that data, because there are essentially no limits to what they can do with it!

    There are those who believe that government spying is more worrisome because they have the power to incarcerate. Fair enough to be concerned about that, but at least in theory (and indeed in most cases), our government works to protect and serve us and we do have at least some protections in our legal system to keep these powers in check -- as long as we know what's happening. With commercial interests we don't even have that. Companies like Facebook and Google have by far more detailed psychological profiles of most of their users than any government agency. Orders of magnitude more than the Stasi or any previous-generation organizations.

    Don't ever be fooled into thinking that commercial companies with "free" services are actually looking to protect your rights. They're protecting their own interests and revenue streams, most of which depend on people providing a constant stream of their lives in order to get stuff like "free" email.
  • Reply 24 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,178member
    blah64 wrote: »

    Don't ever be fooled into thinking that commercial companies with "free" services are actually looking to protect your rights. They're protecting their own interests and revenue streams, most of which depend on people providing a constant stream of their lives...
  • Reply 25 of 32
    blah64blah64 Posts: 993member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    with "free" services

    I was wondering if you'd step in to comment.

    The obvious point being that ALL companies act with their own self interests in mind, and that's certainly true to a great extent. However, there are many companies in this world that still make money "the old fashioned way", by selling a product or service in exchange for a simple payment. Without all the behind-the-scenes data mining bullshit. In fact, I'd argue that across the world, most companies are still like that, though sadly even that is changing.

    There are also, of course, companies like Amazon, that aren't satisfied with either/or, and do both. Is this even worse? Perhaps. But it is possible to buy things on Amazon anonymously, without being data mined. They get paid, customer gets product, win-win-win. It's just more effort than most people are willing to put forth.

    At the end of the day, the most dangerous services are those that are "free" (not really), become invisible to their users, "impossible" to live without, know who their users are InRealLife, and data mine 24/7 behind the scenes without users really understanding what's happening. I leave it to the reading audience to imagine which companies fall into that category. Clearly not just your favorite, google, but others fall into this category as well. Google is just an easy target because they excel at what they do, and arguably have deeper access into people's psyche than any of the rest, due to both breadth and depth of data. Facebook is probably not far behind, but they are far easier to avoid.
  • Reply 26 of 32
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    I was responding to your point about "2016 can't come fast enough". You're obviously implying that a new President might be different/better on this front.

     

    I am simply saying history suggests that your hope is misplaced.




    You are probably right about that. Our presidents have an established pattern of acting outside the bounds of the Constitution and answer to industry, not the American people. Nothing has really changed in that regard.

  • Reply 27 of 32
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    You are probably right about that. Our presidents have an established pattern of acting outside the bounds of the Constitution and answer to industry, not the American people. Nothing has really changed in that regard.




    Though to his credit, President John Adams, our second one, went against "industry" interests when he signed an imposition of that $0.20 per month tax per sailor on merchant vessel owners to pay for his healthcare system for them. Given the state of medicine back then that had to have been much more to protect the overall citizenry from foreign diseases than anything to particularly aid the sailors afflicted.  Though far better than just quarantining them on a "Yellow Fever Island" to die.

    "

    Act for the Relief of Sick & DisabledSeamen, July 1798

    Ratings:  (0)|Views: 43,010|Likes: 32


    Published by Zach Vaughn


    In 1798, Congress passed legislation which essentially levied a tax from the wages of sailors to pay for the care of seamen in hospitals."


     

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798#scribd

  • Reply 28 of 32
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Simple: Apple should relocate away from the US of A; problem solved. After all, most customers come from outside that area already.
  • Reply 29 of 32
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    For the interested few Kara Swisher interviewed Obama on this topic a few weeks ago. In essence he says he's a strong proponent of privacy and encryption but at the same time notes there's instances where it's essential for law enforcement to access user data in cases of terrorism and/or national threats. More to read here:
    http://recode.net/2015/02/15/white-house-red-chair-obama-meets-swisher/

    In other words, he said absolutely nothing relevant - just an "on the fence" nonsense to keep things afloat.
  • Reply 30 of 32
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post





    Google is just an easy target because they excel at what they do, and arguably have deeper access into people's psyche than any of the rest, due to both breadth and depth of data. Facebook is probably not far behind, but they are far easier to avoid.

    In terms of breadth and depth of data, Facebook among all companies is probably the most capable of giving Google a run for its money. They have a captive audience of billions of users, many of whom think Facebook is the whole internet, especially in developing countries getting online for the first time (http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/). And Facebook with its internet.org push is aiming to introduce the internet to the next billion users on its own terms.

  • Reply 31 of 32
    kiltedgreenkiltedgreen Posts: 598member
    All this desire for the authorities to see all our private data is supposed to be in the service of the greater good - either preventing crime or terrorism, the twin nightmares of our time. So they say. However, they may like to look elsewhere first: http://bsnews.info/youre-55-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-a-terrorist/
  • Reply 32 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,178member
    blah64 wrote: »
    .

    At the end of the day, the most dangerous services are those that are "free" (not really), become invisible to their users, "impossible" to live without, know who their users are InRealLife, and data mine 24/7 behind the scenes without users really understanding what's happening. I leave it to the reading audience to imagine which companies fall into that category. Clearly not just your favorite, google, but others fall into this category as well. Google is just an easy target because they excel at what they do, and arguably have deeper access into people's psyche than any of the rest, due to both breadth and depth of data. Facebook is probably not far behind, but they are far easier to avoid.
    A question for you you to ponder....

    I'm siting here visiting my favorite sites, signed in to my Chrome-browser on my Chromebook. Can't get any more Googley than that. My son asks to borrow the Chromebook for a few minutes and looks at who knows what. Noticed his girlfriend took it for a couple minutes to play a particular video she wanted him to see. Then my wife looks up a med issue one of her clients is experiencing so as to be more familiar with it. Now I get the Chromebook back.

    What did Google just learn about the real me? Everyone that just used it was me. If you stopped by for a visit and borrowed it for a moment you'd be me too. Seems they don't know as much as you think they do at last in my case. They're not even close to guessing something as simple as how old I am and I use Google services every day.

    Now let me give you something that surprised the heck out of me. I was searching for a new auto policy for my wife's car. Applied on-line for a quote. The insurer asked a couple of initial questions to establish who 'I" was and then gave notice that it would try to fill in the blanks to speed up the application process. On the next couple of pages it showed who else lived in our home for me to confirm. It posted up the car that they thought I was wanting to insure. They knew her employer. They knew her credit rating. I didn't need to supply any of it. The insurer sure wasn't going to supply a "free" policy but the insurance industry darn sure is data-mining. Free has little to do with whether you're being tracked and identified. That's a red herring IMHO.
Sign In or Register to comment.