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.
You only snagged the original comment, and skipped over the more important one.
Being opposed to government surveillance is easy. That's like saying you oppose murder or child abuse. No one deserves brownie points for that.
Supporting true privacy via end-to-end encryption, now that is a far more meaningful stance. And of course it's one that google cannot take because their entire business model depends on having internal access to that data. In other words, google would be a shell of what it is today if it wasn't able to reach inside people's psyches to predict their behavior. Can't you see the danger in having that level of data on hundreds of millions of people? Not just google, but anyone with that kind of data, whether government or commercial.
The thing is, people mostly have themselves to blame. Lazy, narcissistic, tech-ignorant, etc. People willingly feed these beasts, like facebook, gmail, and all the rest, by sharing very personal data every hour of their lives. By using "loyalty" (tracking) cards at the grocery store, etc. ALL of it is bad.
I'll cut you off in advance, before you say how Apple is gathering data too. Your later comments about how apple and google are in very different businesses are spot on. Apple provides the option of using some of their services that gather and store personal data, but they are by no means required. I've been happily using Apple devices pretty much every day of my life for the past 30 years, but for at least the past 10-15 years they have absolutely zero personal information about me. That's virtually impossible with google because they need that data to thrive and grow (perhaps even to survive, now).
Besides, "hey, other companies do it!" isn't a good argument. ;-)
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.
Bingo! And yet, it won't surprise me if the agencie(s) will instead try to use this as an example of why they need back doors. To "stay ahead" of organized crime and terrorists. If only that was possible...
Bingo! And yet, it won't surprise me if the agencie(s) will instead try to use this as an example of why they need back doors. To "stay ahead" of organized crime and terrorists. If only that was possible...
...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.
Close all shops in the UK and move them to Germany and France.
Let the brits travel abroad if they want iOS devices.
Well thanks a bundle. Just the way to treat an Apple veteran since the Apple][
Why are we any different? Do you really think we automatically sign up to political grandstanding?
No...don't answer that :no:
I do agree that all user information should be encrypted and no government should be allowed to force companies to have "back door access".
However, I believe Tim is wrong on the encryption front here. Banks encrypt your information from ATMs and send securely from point A to B using generated keys that are mathematically impossible to break. The cryptography is so advanced that only the bank can decipher the information. Similar tech could be used in this case so only Apple could decrypt the information, however, I'm glad they do not want that responsibility and are in favour of user's privacy protection
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.
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).
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.
I do agree that all user information should be encrypted and no government should be allowed to force companies to have "back door access".
However, I believe Tim is wrong on the encryption front here. Banks encrypt your information from ATMs and send securely from point A to B using generated keys that are mathematically impossible to break. The cryptography is so advanced that only the bank can decipher the information. Similar tech could be used in this case so only Apple could decrypt the information, however, I'm glad they do not want that responsibility and are in favour of user's privacy protection
Difficult but not impossible. Throw enough computing power at it and it can be discovered using brute force.
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 [I]guessed[/I] no.
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.
I agree. I think also this may be used to force Apple to comply, which could severely damage their security reputation. I just hope Apple is willing to wage an all-out public battle over this to beat back the bastards willing to give up all privacy and liberty for a little temporary safety.
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.
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.
Poor little Airstrip Oneers. Gave away their protection and now they’re at the mercy of their parliament.
Comments
You only snagged the original comment, and skipped over the more important one.
Being opposed to government surveillance is easy. That's like saying you oppose murder or child abuse. No one deserves brownie points for that.
Supporting true privacy via end-to-end encryption, now that is a far more meaningful stance. And of course it's one that google cannot take because their entire business model depends on having internal access to that data. In other words, google would be a shell of what it is today if it wasn't able to reach inside people's psyches to predict their behavior. Can't you see the danger in having that level of data on hundreds of millions of people? Not just google, but anyone with that kind of data, whether government or commercial.
The thing is, people mostly have themselves to blame. Lazy, narcissistic, tech-ignorant, etc. People willingly feed these beasts, like facebook, gmail, and all the rest, by sharing very personal data every hour of their lives. By using "loyalty" (tracking) cards at the grocery store, etc. ALL of it is bad.
I'll cut you off in advance, before you say how Apple is gathering data too. Your later comments about how apple and google are in very different businesses are spot on. Apple provides the option of using some of their services that gather and store personal data, but they are by no means required. I've been happily using Apple devices pretty much every day of my life for the past 30 years, but for at least the past 10-15 years they have absolutely zero personal information about me. That's virtually impossible with google because they need that data to thrive and grow (perhaps even to survive, now).
Besides, "hey, other companies do it!" isn't a good argument. ;-)
Bingo! And yet, it won't surprise me if the agencie(s) will instead try to use this as an example of why they need back doors. To "stay ahead" of organized crime and terrorists. If only that was possible...
Bingo! And yet, it won't surprise me if the agencie(s) will instead try to use this as an example of why they need back doors. To "stay ahead" of organized crime and terrorists. If only that was possible...
...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.
Well thanks a bundle. Just the way to treat an Apple veteran since the Apple][
Why are we any different? Do you really think we automatically sign up to political grandstanding?
No...don't answer that :no:
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?
Kind of a missed opportunity for a headline like:
"Tim Cook Slams UK Backdoor"
I don't think anybody got this.
However, I believe Tim is wrong on the encryption front here. Banks encrypt your information from ATMs and send securely from point A to B using generated keys that are mathematically impossible to break. The cryptography is so advanced that only the bank can decipher the information. Similar tech could be used in this case so only Apple could decrypt the information, however, I'm glad they do not want that responsibility and are in favour of user's privacy protection
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).
Kind of a missed opportunity for a headline like:
"Tim Cook Slams UK Backdoor"
I don't think anybody got this.
How could anyone not get that? As puns go, it's a really simple one.
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.
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).
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.
I do agree that all user information should be encrypted and no government should be allowed to force companies to have "back door access".
However, I believe Tim is wrong on the encryption front here. Banks encrypt your information from ATMs and send securely from point A to B using generated keys that are mathematically impossible to break. The cryptography is so advanced that only the bank can decipher the information. Similar tech could be used in this case so only Apple could decrypt the information, however, I'm glad they do not want that responsibility and are in favour of user's privacy protection
Difficult but not impossible. Throw enough computing power at it and it can be discovered using brute force.
I agree. I think also this may be used to force Apple to comply, which could severely damage their security reputation. I just hope Apple is willing to wage an all-out public battle over this to beat back the bastards willing to give up all privacy and liberty for a little temporary safety.
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.