jessi wrote: »
Google execs are MIA, as usual,
slickdealer wrote: »
Google doesn't want end-to-end encryption. Google is the middle-man and profits by selling that data.
gatorguy wrote: »
Google execs don't have the press hanging on every word like Apple's Cook does. That's why you wouldn't know what their view is without looking it up. Google is generally on the same page as Apple when it comes to government surveillance powers.
Most of the tech companies are opposed to government surveillance expansion, not just Apple. Going against the grain tho are companies like Verizon and AT&T.
radarthekat wrote: »
I've got CNBC on here in the background. Just heard out of one ear some guy (I think from the justice department) outlining a broad cybercrime spree the FBI just broke up. It was so far reaching that even the investigators were being hacked to allow the criminals to stay one step ahead of them. Could help but recall Tim Cook's admonition that if anyone is given a back door, everyone will have that same back door, including the bad guys. No sooner said than a perfect example presents itself.
...and paedophiles, they always throw a "think of the children" into the mix along with piracy, the implication being that if you are against these laws you support organised crime, terrorism, paedophilia and piracy.
Pure bullshit spin.
applesauce007 wrote: »
Close all shops in the UK and move them to Germany and France.
Let the brits travel abroad if they want iOS devices.
Kind of a missed opportunity for a headline like:
"Tim Cook Slams UK Backdoor"
I don't get it, why would that be a funny/interesting headline?
I don't think anybody got this.
If the UK government did pass this ridiculous bill, Apple would just have to turn off iMessage from the factory (but make it easy to activate with a simple hack).
How could anyone not get that? As puns go, it's a really simple one.
Some posters could be 10 years old.
That's the thing about the Internet, you could be talking to a 64 year old grandmother masquerading as an 11 year old boy, or any other combination. Or a Chinese 13 year old who doesn't quite grasp english slang.
I was thinking they could get around it is to have Messages be a user installable app. Default encryption of storage probably is ok as that is user opt out? Certainly should be ok if it is user opt-in.
Difficult but not impossible. Throw enough computing power at it and it can be discovered using brute force.
gatorguy wrote: »
IMHO the chances of this law passing went up substantially in the past 72 hours, a result of the Paris terrorism. I personally think passage is almost certain now. A few days back I would have guessed no.
Yes, there will those who won't stint at exploiting this terrible incident for their own agenda. Perhaps someone could ask them whether the attacks in Paris involved any encrypted communications - or any other terrorist attacks for that matter. I have never seen any report that a terrorist incident occurred and could have been prevented had the authorities been able to decrypt something.
Terrorism is the ultimate stalking horse for government officials who want access to everything. There are numerous pieces of legislation world wide that have been enacted in the name of terrorism which have never been used to counter terrorism and have just been used to make officials lives easier, like the UK -> US extradition treaty.
Poor little Airstrip Oneers. Gave away their protection and now they’re at the mercy of their parliament.