AT&T CEO says US encryption policy is up to Congress, not Apple

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 73
    macwise said:
    Look up what that means, and you'll see "where on Earth" ktappe gets that.
    But you said exactly the opposite of what he said and somehow you’re not agreeing with me. I know what it means, which is why I know he’s wrong.
  • Reply 42 of 73
    volcan said:
    macwise said:
    So you're saying that congress can make a law which allows government to enter your home and search it anytime you buy a desk, and your argument would be that "Who is forcing you to buy a desk?" Are you really that daft?
    No, just pointing out that there is no provision in the Constitution for any of what people are arguing as their rights. The articles are very literal.  Encryption is not mentioned in any way manner or form.
    Actually it's Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights that covers this.  In case you missed the entire gist of Constitution/Bill of Rights, these documents' sole purpose is limiting the rights of the government to only those specifically given by the people, and not the other way around.  It also means that all other rights  belong to the people, not the government.  So the right to decryption ain't the government's, because nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the government granted that right.   Anybody intimating otherwise is completely wrong.

    I don't blame you for this oversight, education and in return popular understanding is universally abysmal about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Shame because most of the key authors and supporters were some of the smartest, most prolific writers of their time, and explained almost point by point the exact thinking, and exact arguments used to craft these ideas.
    macwisenolamacguytallest skil
  • Reply 43 of 73
    ktappe said:
    He is quite wrong. It is a decision for the courts, specifically SCOTUS, on whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to be able to search and seize your communications. The government mandating all phones be unencrypted is directly analogous to it mandating all house front doors be kept unlocked; nobody would put up with that, nor should they put up with this. Stephenson is wrong about it being a decision for the people; if the people all wanted something else that was unconstitutional, such as mandated prayer in schools or slavery, they wouldn't get those either. The point of laws in general and the Constitution in particular, is not to cowtow to the whim of the masses, but to protect the rights of oppressed minority.
    Agree.

    If political systems were populated by trained leaders rather than paid mouths, I would give my full support to government determination of a law regarding privacy and encryption. I reckon these paid mouths are simply reinforcing their benefactors to reduce Apple's strengths. Hence I look toward Apple's competitors. In any case, just last week AI reported a family obtained passcodes to a deceased member's iCloud account. Unencryption is an idiotic step to obtaining information.

    Those who give up privacy for security deserve neither.
  • Reply 44 of 73
    jfc1138 said:

    ktappe said:
    He is quite wrong. It is a decision for the courts, specifically SCOTUS, on whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment for the government to be able to search and seize your communications. The government mandating all phones be unencrypted is directly analogous to it mandating all house front doors be kept unlocked; nobody would put up with that, nor should they put up with this. Stephenson is wrong about it being a decision for the people; if the people all wanted something else that was unconstitutional, such as mandated prayer in schools or slavery, they wouldn't get those either. The point of laws in general and the Constitution in particular, is not to cowtow to the whim of the masses, but to protect the rights of oppressed minority.
    Not really a mandate of unlocked doors, the 4th specifies a warrant, not no-access ever and the 14th reinforces due-process guarantees..
    "Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Where the argument might rest is government's rather naive assumption that were a "backdoor" to be included that only they would ever posses a key whose use would be regulated, perhaps, by a 4th amendment compliant warrant.

    At what point does a government with unpublished access to private information not constitute a breach of these amendments? Stupid question: who trusts the US govt? Intelligent answer: those who pay the cash.
    macwisetallest skil
  • Reply 45 of 73
    genovelle said:
    Are they willing and ready to take full responsibility for any At&t iPhone user breach caused by his support of back doors? My guess is no. 
    Not that the fools in the media will ever ask a smart follow up question such as that one.....
    They aren't paid to ask such questions. Perhaps they are, if fact, paid not to!
    macwise
  • Reply 46 of 73
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,162member
    This has much less to do with encryption than it does with the government insisting that it be given yet another tool to spy on its own citizens. Calling it a "back door" is too innocuous and focusing on encryption aspects is chaff to confuse average Americans who get lost in technobabble.

    Call it a spyhole and then the general public will have a clearer picture of exactly what the government and AT&T are lobbying for. How many public officials are willing to get up in front of average citizens and ask them: "Are you okay with us putting a spyhole in your personal communication device? But don't worry, you can trust us! We'll only peep in on the bad guys."  
    edited January 2016 macwise
  • Reply 47 of 73
    the congress and the people are divided on this issue, does that mean congress will win?

    america sure does love them some plutocratic oligarchy



    robin hubermacwisetallest skil
  • Reply 48 of 73
    technotechno Posts: 707member
    normm said:
    In a sane world, we would only have to point out that criminals can install (using Xcode) or sideload (via corporate app store or jailbreaking) any apps they like with uncompromized encryption.  Apple can't prevent this.  So we lose our privacy, and make our devices vulnerable, FOR NOTHING.

    The fact that criminals can make their phones prone to eavesdropping means nothing. That is not what the government has a problem with. They take issue with the fact that they can't spy on the rest of the users that do not intentionally make their phones vulnerable.
  • Reply 49 of 73
    revenant said:
    the congress and the people are divided on this issue, does that mean congress will win?

    america sure does love them some plutocratic oligarchy



    Keep the right and left fighting over the things that divide them, and they will continue to ignore the things that don't. 
    macwise
  • Reply 50 of 73
    sergiozsergioz Posts: 260member
    Well if Apple ever loses this fight, people will encrypt their devices. Same way openVPN exists and other encryption protocols for  communication exist today. People will come up with many different ways to encrypt their phones today or  in the future!
  • Reply 51 of 73
    Let's get to the heart of this whole discussion.

    One of Benjamin Franklin's most famous quotes: 
    macwisetallest skil
  • Reply 52 of 73
    Many of you are too young to remember the most powerful commercial ever. It was Apple's commercial during the 1984 Super Bowl introducing the MacIntosh computer. 


    To this day, Apple still believes in the "Orwellian" theory: George Orwell described a number of things that would be destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. 
    1). Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.
    2). State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.
    The list goes on and on. 

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was created for a reason. We, the people, are supposed to be in control of the government. But, it seems to be turning in the other direction, where the government is controlling us. We are slowly being brain-washed towards a dystopian existence.

    I applaud Apple for standing up!
    macwise
  • Reply 53 of 73
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 703member
    "It is silliness to say there's some kind of conspiracy between the U.S. government and AT&T,"...

    he's right. it's not a conspiracy.
    it's well known that AT&T is is jointly working with the NSA (at least here in san francisco). hell, the NSA occupies space in the AT&T building for fuck's sake.
    he's nothing but a shill for the government.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 54 of 73
    mac_dog said:
    "It is silliness to say there's some kind of conspiracy between the U.S. government and AT&T,"...

    he's right. it's not a conspiracy.
    it's well known that AT&T is is jointly working with the NSA (at least here in san francisco). hell, the NSA occupies space in the AT&T building for fuck's sake.
    he's nothing but a shill for the government.
    Just because it's known doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy.  The government conspired with AT&T to act in secret.  Now, it's no longer a conspiracy theory as it has since been proven fact.  But it was a conspiracy from the get-go, that much should not be ignored.
    nolamacguytallest skil
  • Reply 55 of 73
    techno said:
    normm said:
    In a sane world, we would only have to point out that criminals can install (using Xcode) or sideload (via corporate app store or jailbreaking) any apps they like with uncompromized encryption.  Apple can't prevent this.  So we lose our privacy, and make our devices vulnerable, FOR NOTHING.

    The fact that criminals can make their phones prone to eavesdropping means nothing. That is not what the government has a problem with. They take issue with the fact that they can't spy on the rest of the users that do not intentionally make their phones vulnerable.
    I think he's saying the opposite, though I admit I misconstrued his comment at first as well.  What he is saying is that anybody can install, unfettered, any encryption app on their phone they like simply by using xcode or jailbreaking their phone.  So the government can force the law-abiding majority that makes up 99.999% of the population to give up their rights to privacy, while the .001% criminal class can still act in any level of anonymity they desire, thereby rendering the gross invasion of privacy irrelevant for the reasons government claims it is necessary.  

    Which then makes you realize that this has nothing to do with catching criminals, but rather making them through invasive and degrading practices of authoritarian control.
  • Reply 56 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,791member
    redefiler said:
    volcan said:
    No, just pointing out that there is no provision in the Constitution for any of what people are arguing as their rights. The articles are very literal.  Encryption is not mentioned in any way manner or form.
    Actually it's Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights that covers this. 
    The Commerce Clause of Article 1 and the Necessary and Proper Clause give Congress wide range of powers to enact regulations.
  • Reply 57 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,791member
    macwise said:

    Just because it's known doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy.  The government conspired with AT&T to act in secret.  Now, it's no longer a conspiracy theory as it has since been proven fact.  But it was a conspiracy from the get-go, that much should not be ignored.
    It was probably not a conspiracy, just a secret that the NSA twisted AT&T's arm to allow them to conduct surveillance on their network. AT&T had nothing to gain per se by spying on people, they just avoided whatever the government was threatening if they didn't comply. This sort of stuff has been secretly going on for a long time with FBI projects such as Carnivore, Cyber Knight, Magic Lantern, etc.
  • Reply 58 of 73
    volcan said:
    macwise said:

    Just because it's known doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy.  The government conspired with AT&T to act in secret.  Now, it's no longer a conspiracy theory as it has since been proven fact.  But it was a conspiracy from the get-go, that much should not be ignored.
    It was probably not a conspiracy, just a secret that the NSA twisted AT&T's arm to allow them to conduct surveillance on their network. AT&T had nothing to gain per se by spying on people, they just avoided whatever the government was threatening if they didn't comply. This sort of stuff has been secretly going on for a long time with FBI projects such as Carnivore, Cyber Knight, Magic Lantern, etc.
    conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē| noun (pl. conspiracies)

    A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
    • the action of plotting or conspiring: they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

    a conspiracy of silence: an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known.


    As the NSA's spying has been ruled illegal (and since their entire agenda flies in the face of the protections set out in the IV Amendment), it is nothing if not a conspiracy.  Whether or not AT&T was in on it for some value of their own is irrelevant.  There was a secret plan (secretly organize with the telecoms & others) by a group (the government) to do something unlawful or harmful (illegal spying).  It was a conspiracy.
    edited January 2016 nolamacguy
  • Reply 59 of 73
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 438member
    Pot, kettle, black
  • Reply 60 of 73
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,019member
    Borderdog said:
    Let's get to the heart of this whole discussion.

    One of Benjamin Franklin's most famous quotes: 
    Is there some kind of Godwin's law equivalent about how long a tech discussion will go on before this facile quote gets wheeled out?
Sign In or Register to comment.