Bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaa "You want to strike that balance that the United States leads in setting example.". This guy is insane, the U.S. leads as the Snowden and Assange files contest, but that is by spying on its allies and friends, by ridicul other nations, spying on every bit of information on the internet they can get a handle on, listening to all telephone conversations at will and having guantananamo bay and drones to torture and kill at will outside of the U.S. Wow, it must be early senility for B.G.
Apple gives private information to the Chinese government but will not help the United States investigate a terrorist who killed Americans?
what proof do you have that they were actual terrorists and not just disgruntled mental midgets who were wannabe terrorists? shooting up your office colleagues is usually labeled work-place violence, since its a personal beef and not a political move.
I think that the fact that this guy "quit" Microsoft essentially negates any credibility he may still have regarding this issue.
The man has done more in the world than most people will ever do in their entire lives. He passed the responsibility to others to run a company as he and his wife went off and did other things. Others would see that as retirement with a nest egg of 75 billion dollars, yet you call it "quitting."
Because haters gonna hate. It works in both directions, to be honest.
This is going to become Metallica v Napster, although with far more important implications. Metallica was vilified by other artists and fans for fighting against the essentially free sharing of intellectual property, only to be proven right but not until recording industry was changed (for the worse in many cases) forever.
Those siding with the FBI are blind to the reality that will come with their demands being met.
There is always middle ground.
Authorities can enter person's home/premises with valid warrant issued by qualifying court. I'd think that the same rules should apply to entering person's digital premises encrypted on phone, tablet or a computer.
Authorities should NOT have software tools at their disposal, to use whenever they see fit at their own discretion, but if they can present device AND valid warrant from, say, federal judge (or whatever level of judge has authority over terror related cases), manufacturers should be capable of unlocking device and presenting authorities with information. And manufacturers should keep tab on this by recording and releasing (after investigation is completed) statements whenever they are approached to extract data. Not actual data from the device, just general info as of when were they approached, who signed warrant and whose phone/what case it was related to.
Minimize chance of authorities' abuse, but also minimize chance of helping terrorists... also drug dealers etc.
At 8:30am this morning I sent the following email to PED over at Fortune (he has on occasion run with information and clarifications I've sent him): amazing how the press formed their own view of Gate's statements and now seem to balk at him telling them they got it wrong. You'd think he'd be the one who knows his views, so he'd be the definitive source as to what he said. Anyway, here's the email I sent, right after seeing the actual comments initially made by Gates, which I apparently interpreted correctly.
"Someone needs to tell the world that Gates is not agreeing with the FBI, not on the larger issue. He's actually agreeing with Apple that there should be guidelines established to determine under which circumstances a company must provide the assistance the FBI is requesting. In other words, exactly what Apple is asking for, that there be reasoned discussion and decision."
^^^ We also should keepworking on defining the difference between the connected pocket computer and your houseor your telephone landline.
Nikon133 right above you says it's no different, and CyrusVance Jr probably would agrre. I'd say there's a quantum leap of difference, but I'm fresh out of analogies right now.
At 8:30am this morning I sent the following email to PED over at Fortune (he has on occasion run with information and clarifications I've sent him): amazing how the press formed their own view of Gate's statements and now seem to balk at him telling them they got it wrong. You'd think he'd be the one who knows his views, so he'd be the definitive source as to what he said. Anyway, here's the email I sent, right after seeing the actual comments initially made by Gates, which I apparently interpreted correctly.
"Someone needs to tell the world that Gates is not agreeing with the FBI, not on the larger issue. He's actually agreeing with Apple that there should be guidelines established to determine under which circumstances a company must provide the assistance the FBI is requesting. In other words, exactly what Apple is asking for, that there be reasoned discussion and decision."
That all fine and good, but the news this morning is that the FBI has been fibbing big about the number of cases, so, to put it mildly, Bill Gate's statements that he was making were already out of date and inaccurate, and more to the point, Apple's case looks exactly, exactly, as it did on day one. Bill served no purpose by having been so inelegant and vague, and that looks to me like support for the DOJ. Maybe it isn't, but that's how it looks, and frankly he was ill prepared, just like the DOJ.
If Bill wanted to look like a Statesmen, he would have argued to put the brakes on the Court action, and have Congress intervene with a Senate panel of public, industry, and privacy advocates to create the framework that he is so fond of touting.
I wanted to add that every single statement that Apple has provided to the public has been surgically precise in its verbiage and so far, absolutely accurate. Bill, sounded of obfuscation; he actually made things worse.
When was the last time the US held a 'reasoned and rational' debate? Gates is a prime example of the total irresponsibility that seems to pervade US politics. How many times have 'the people' chosen more government intervention at the cost of constitutional liberties and freedoms over the past decade? Since 2001? Since JFK was assassinated? I really do suspect the outcome of any 'debate' will be the end of encryption for consumer products unless some reality of such can be made clear to 'the people'. Core business practices of both Goog and MS depend upon unencrypted data. Several TV exposés need to be done to show the consequences of non-encrypted consumer devices, but I seriously doubt this will happen. An excellent reason for Apple to become a content producer, too!
He was most likely misquoted, and his view was oversimplified to the point of error (which happens a lot in coms). I guess Bill does “get it” this time.
Comments
This guy is insane, the U.S. leads as the Snowden and Assange files contest, but that is by spying on its allies and friends, by ridicul other nations, spying on every bit of information on the internet they can get a handle on, listening to all telephone conversations at will and having guantananamo bay and drones to torture and kill at will outside of the U.S.
Wow, it must be early senility for B.G.
Authorities can enter person's home/premises with valid warrant issued by qualifying court. I'd think that the same rules should apply to entering person's digital premises encrypted on phone, tablet or a computer.
Authorities should NOT have software tools at their disposal, to use whenever they see fit at their own discretion, but if they can present device AND valid warrant from, say, federal judge (or whatever level of judge has authority over terror related cases), manufacturers should be capable of unlocking device and presenting authorities with information. And manufacturers should keep tab on this by recording and releasing (after investigation is completed) statements whenever they are approached to extract data. Not actual data from the device, just general info as of when were they approached, who signed warrant and whose phone/what case it was related to.
Minimize chance of authorities' abuse, but also minimize chance of helping terrorists... also drug dealers etc.
"Someone needs to tell the world that Gates is not agreeing with the FBI, not on the larger issue. He's actually agreeing with Apple that there should be guidelines established to determine under which circumstances a company must provide the assistance the FBI is requesting. In other words, exactly what Apple is asking for, that there be reasoned discussion and decision."
Nikon133 right above you says it's no different, and CyrusVance Jr probably would agrre. I'd say there's a quantum leap of difference, but I'm fresh out of analogies right now.
If Bill wanted to look like a Statesmen, he would have argued to put the brakes on the Court action, and have Congress intervene with a Senate panel of public, industry, and privacy advocates to create the framework that he is so fond of touting.
I wanted to add that every single statement that Apple has provided to the public has been surgically precise in its verbiage and so far, absolutely accurate. Bill, sounded of obfuscation; he actually made things worse.
Gates is a prime example of the total irresponsibility that seems to pervade US politics.
How many times have 'the people' chosen more government intervention at the cost of constitutional liberties and freedoms over the past decade? Since 2001? Since JFK was assassinated?
I really do suspect the outcome of any 'debate' will be the end of encryption for consumer products unless some reality of such can be made clear to 'the people'.
Core business practices of both Goog and MS depend upon unencrypted data. Several TV exposés need to be done to show the consequences of non-encrypted consumer devices, but I seriously doubt this will happen.
An excellent reason for Apple to become a content producer, too!
That's because he accidentally fell off the fence when he intended to stay firmly on it.
In the video, he keeps saying we need to "strike a balance" but never clarifies how.