Bill Gates cautions Apple and other tech companies about arrogance inviting government int...
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has warned Apple and other tech companies that they need to exercise care when dealing with governments over important issues, such as the San Bernardino fight between Apple and the FBI over a locked iPhone, suggesting the firms may be inviting government intervention for overtly arrogant actions.
In an interview with Axios ahead of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's annual letter release, Gates noted the policies and activities of major tech firms are working against some important areas of the government's work. "The companies need to be careful that they're not... advocating things that would prevent government from being able to, under appropriate review, perform the type of functions that we've come to count on," advises Gates.
When asked if he has seen situations where this has occurred, Gates confirms "Oh, absolutely."
According to Gates, the tech companies have to be "careful that they're not trying to think their view is more important than the government's view, or than the government being able to function in some key areas." When asked for examples, he highlighted the "enthusiasm about making financial transactions anonymous and invisible, and their view that even a clear mass-murdering criminal's communication should never be available to the government."
While it is not mentioned specifically, it is likely that this refers to the ever-ongoing encryption debate between tech companies and government agencies, including the FBI. While the security agencies want to have access to data encrypted on smartphones, such as by the introduction of backdoors, Apple and other companies counter with claims that this would weaken security overall, increasing the chances of a data breach by a hacker or other bad actors.
Part of the debate was fueled by the 2016 San Bernardino shootings, where the FBI went to court to compel Apple into breaking into an iPhone 5c owned by one of the shooters to search for evidence. The Department of Justice withdrew the legal action after the FBI managed to gain access to the device, allegedly by paying Israel-based security firm Cellebrite to bypass Apple's device protection.
An open letter from Apple CEO Tim Cook published to the Apple website in February 2016 explained Apple's stance on encryption, due to it having "implications far beyond the legal case at hand." Cook warns that, while Apple could potentially have created a version of iOS to bypass the security, it was impossible to guarantee that it wouldn't be misused in the future, despite government insistence that it would only be used for that specific investigation.
On being asked if his example referred to Apple unlocking an iPhone for a government, Gates avoided confirming outright, but offered in reply "There's no question of ability; it's the question of willingness."
At the time of the San Bernardino dispute, Gates had to clarify reports suggesting he sided with the FBI, advising of a more balanced stance on the issue.
In the clarification, he suggested there could be a series of "safeguards" that could be implemented, preventing investigators from being "completely blind" in cases where such information would be warranted. He also acknowledged that the U.S. government has "taken information historically" and used it in unexpected ways, in activities going as far back as the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover's tenure.
As part of the same interview, Bill Gates also mused on how the progress of technology is empowering smaller groups of people to cause harm to others. Suggesting the potential for such groups to gain access to nuclear weapons and to cause biological terror and cyber attacks, Gates notes it is a good thing for children to access genetic technology in a laboratory, "unless a few people decide to make human-transmissible smallpox and spread that into the world."
In an interview with Axios ahead of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's annual letter release, Gates noted the policies and activities of major tech firms are working against some important areas of the government's work. "The companies need to be careful that they're not... advocating things that would prevent government from being able to, under appropriate review, perform the type of functions that we've come to count on," advises Gates.
When asked if he has seen situations where this has occurred, Gates confirms "Oh, absolutely."
According to Gates, the tech companies have to be "careful that they're not trying to think their view is more important than the government's view, or than the government being able to function in some key areas." When asked for examples, he highlighted the "enthusiasm about making financial transactions anonymous and invisible, and their view that even a clear mass-murdering criminal's communication should never be available to the government."
While it is not mentioned specifically, it is likely that this refers to the ever-ongoing encryption debate between tech companies and government agencies, including the FBI. While the security agencies want to have access to data encrypted on smartphones, such as by the introduction of backdoors, Apple and other companies counter with claims that this would weaken security overall, increasing the chances of a data breach by a hacker or other bad actors.
Part of the debate was fueled by the 2016 San Bernardino shootings, where the FBI went to court to compel Apple into breaking into an iPhone 5c owned by one of the shooters to search for evidence. The Department of Justice withdrew the legal action after the FBI managed to gain access to the device, allegedly by paying Israel-based security firm Cellebrite to bypass Apple's device protection.
An open letter from Apple CEO Tim Cook published to the Apple website in February 2016 explained Apple's stance on encryption, due to it having "implications far beyond the legal case at hand." Cook warns that, while Apple could potentially have created a version of iOS to bypass the security, it was impossible to guarantee that it wouldn't be misused in the future, despite government insistence that it would only be used for that specific investigation.
On being asked if his example referred to Apple unlocking an iPhone for a government, Gates avoided confirming outright, but offered in reply "There's no question of ability; it's the question of willingness."
At the time of the San Bernardino dispute, Gates had to clarify reports suggesting he sided with the FBI, advising of a more balanced stance on the issue.
In the clarification, he suggested there could be a series of "safeguards" that could be implemented, preventing investigators from being "completely blind" in cases where such information would be warranted. He also acknowledged that the U.S. government has "taken information historically" and used it in unexpected ways, in activities going as far back as the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover's tenure.
As part of the same interview, Bill Gates also mused on how the progress of technology is empowering smaller groups of people to cause harm to others. Suggesting the potential for such groups to gain access to nuclear weapons and to cause biological terror and cyber attacks, Gates notes it is a good thing for children to access genetic technology in a laboratory, "unless a few people decide to make human-transmissible smallpox and spread that into the world."
Comments
No, there are things that are best left up wholly to the individual. Bill is disappointing.
Given this was in the nineties it’s no surprise Bill Gates sides with the government.
I’m in two minds. Yes the government should be able to get data when proper protocol is followed. No they should not have carte blanche access to all data. No they must certainly not have a backdoor installed. No they can’t have the ability to access that data whenever they feel like it.
You can use the old “If you’ve got nothing to hide you shouldn’t be concerned” attitude but the truth is this attitude is a quite dangerous one to have because it WILL get exploited.
Apple is 100% correct in its view and Bill Gates has already proven that he doesn’t care at all about your privacy because WinNT 4 was under his rule. Gates is maybe 50% wrong in his view.
In his view, the three letter agencies hold tremendous (unchecked) power and we should all submit to them.
Before anyone talks about how encryption is only used by criminals, paedophiles, and so forth, please remember this debate was over long ago in 1994, but the powers at be keep wanting the people to surrender their privacy:
http://www.businessinsider.com/phil-zimmermann-pgp-essay-2016-2
There is a saying, “a policeman’s job is easy only in a police state.”
Privacy is a protected right that cannot be taken away just to make the jobs of government workers easier.
What Bill is saying is "tech companies shouldn't try to go against the wishes of government (in some cases), period." He's not saying "because they might crush you like a bug" he saying "because that's their role as governments and who are you to contradict them."
I would agree with the advice that AI attributes to Bill, but not the advice he actual gave.
The only thing that AI posters agree on is that end to end encryption of services like iMessage are necessary to prevent not just government but anybody who'd have an interest in getting hold of your data. It comes down to everyone's right to privacy.
Doing the right thing for the right reason, regardless of how unpopular it is, is not arrogant. Talking to the press and performing libel against someone who is doing what is just, I think, is the very arrogant.
Nice of him to talk about the imagined harm - and conveniently forgetting to mention all the real harm that he did against the American populace. Forgetting the monopoly abuse are we? The strategic embrace-and-extinguish business practice of acquiring of competitors and shutting them down? Spreading all that FUD?
Do you think donating to a charity undoes all that harm? The mafia probably donate to charities too.
He should stick to eradicating the mosquito, as he is so familiar with bugs.
The ones exhibiting arrogance are law enforcement expecting us to buy a device they can hack at will.
BTW, Bill, how is that Windows Phone coming along?
"arrogance" is a fracking loaded term and that alone should not have been used, yet like some guy with low emotional intelligence, he used it.
"arrogance" in what exactly? In serving the public better, understanding the technology better, than corporate tit suckers in power right now?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/us/bundy-ranch-standoff-case-charges-dismissed.html?