I wonder how the US government would react if the the country which was asking for back door tool from Apple was Iran or China?
Yes if Apple is forced to do this they should do it for everyone else, then we will see how fast the government and politicians back pedal. Also its so great how we like to screw with our own American companies, no wonder they are all moving their stuff out of this country.
They're leaving the country because they don't want to pay Americans for labor (they'd rather use foreign workers in countries that don't treat their workers as well as the USA society has fought to treat its own; exploitation for greater profit). The more skilled labor they kill off in the USA (almost gone now), the worse the skill set becomes in the USA (because the skill-acquisition process isn't compensated with employment). They're leaving the country because of greed, damaging the country, and then the republicans and libertarians retcon the whole thing for their purposes of slamming immigrants and "lazy workers" who don't boot strap hard enough (utterly ignoring the fact that these successful people had LUCK on their side, if not also privilege that few others have).
As as for Bill Gates: his philanthropy is a distressing joke. He finances the worst and most insidiously destructive ideologies posing as plans of betterment. Either he is ignorant of the social fallout of these beneficiaries of his "gifts" (possible; he's well known for being myopic, privileged, and insular) or the institutions he donates to are servicing his own personal interests, his mindset, or both. Gates is not a progressive or a deep thinker. He has a position of power and influence, which gives him celebrity and therefore "importance" when spewing opinions. None of that makes him wise or any kind of credentialed authority.
Apple will give your personal information to Chinese government to view this information, but they will not help the US Government with 1 iPhone to track terrorist activity that could lead to the future safety of Americans?
That Bill Gates, responsible for the World"s Worst Operating System, setting humanity back by decades, an operating system routinely hacked by schoolchildren on a daily basis, a virtual petri dish of viruses, lectures ANYONE on cybersecurity is LAUGHABLE.
Hey Mikey, why is this false article still online or not corrected? In a Bloomberg video (45 seconds in), Bill gates disputes the report that he backs the FBI in this case. Integrity Mr. Campbell, a little integrity please.
Easy for Gates to come out on the side of the FBI. Of course he doesn't see the problem, because Windows has always been riddled with security holes.
But that is besides the point.
The government should not be able to forces someone to create something that does not exist, i.e. a new iOS to bypass the security feature. Such a software would make their product weaker and less desirable. That would cause serious financial harm to the company.
Hey Mikey, why is this false article still online or not corrected? In a Bloomberg video (45 seconds in), Bill gates disputes the report that he backs the FBI in this case. Integrity Mr. Campbell, a little integrity please.
The O.P. posted Bill's original comments which state:
Gates weighed in on the hot button topic on Tuesday, telling the Financial Times that technology companies, including Apple, should comply with government requests for assistance pertaining to investigations into terrorist activity. Further, he disputes Apple's claims that the creation of a so-called backdoor would set precedent both for the Justice Department and international state players looking to get their hands on consumer data.
"This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said. "It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said 'don't make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times'."
So Bill is whining now that people misrepresented what he said. His words are absolutely in support of the FBI. The video now shows him trying to walk that back, but not very successfully in my opinion. I would note that it is a fact that it is more than that single iPhone.
“We feel the best way forward would be for the government to withdraw its demands under the All Writs Act and, as some in Congress have proposed, form a commission or other panel of experts on intelligence, technology and civil liberties to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy and personal freedoms.”
--Tim Cook
I think this is the right course, however, be carful what you wish for. Congress could very easily pass a law that requires backdoors on devices.
“We feel the best way forward would be for the government to withdraw its demands under the All Writs Act and, as some in Congress have proposed, form a commission or other panel of experts on intelligence, technology and civil liberties to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy and personal freedoms.”
--Tim Cook
I think this is the right course, however, be carful what you wish for. Congress could very easily pass a law that requires backdoors on devices. If that comes to pass, Apple will most likely need to make separate versions of iOS for various countries. I'll be taking a short vacation to Canada whenever it is time to buy a new iPhone. Of course I'll be needing a VPN for updates.
At least there would have to be deliberation. In this particular case, Apple has a limited time to make its case, and the Court, if it rules for the FBI, may have the order executed immediately. Apple may attempt a stay from a higher court while it Appeals, but otherwise, precedence is set, without any oversight from Congress.
It's possible that the precedence is reversed by a higher court, but it is likely going to have to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may return it to the Appeals Court with no action.
Hey Mikey, why is this false article still online or not corrected? In a Bloomberg video (45 seconds in), Bill gates disputes the report that he backs the FBI in this case. Integrity Mr. Campbell, a little integrity please.
The O.P. posted Bill's original comments which state:
Gates weighed in on the hot button topic on Tuesday, telling the Financial Times that technology companies, including Apple, should comply with government requests for assistance pertaining to investigations into terrorist activity. Further, he disputes Apple's claims that the creation of a so-called backdoor would set precedent both for the Justice Department and international state players looking to get their hands on consumer data.
"This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said. "It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said 'don't make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times'."
So Bill is whining now that people misrepresented what he said. His words are absolutely in support of the FBI. The video now shows him trying to walk that back, but not very successfully in my opinion. I would note that it is a fact that it is more than that single iPhone.
Bill is so establishment that it is pathetic.
You need to listen to the interview on Financial Times. Gates isn't siding with the FBI. Totally misleading headline.
Hey Mikey, why is this false article still online or not corrected? In a Bloomberg video (45 seconds in), Bill gates disputes the report that he backs the FBI in this case. Integrity Mr. Campbell, a little integrity please.
The O.P. posted Bill's original comments which state:
Gates weighed in on the hot button topic on Tuesday, telling the Financial Times that technology companies, including Apple, should comply with government requests for assistance pertaining to investigations into terrorist activity. Further, he disputes Apple's claims that the creation of a so-called backdoor would set precedent both for the Justice Department and international state players looking to get their hands on consumer data.
"This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said. "It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said 'don't make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times'."
So Bill is whining now that people misrepresented what he said. His words are absolutely in support of the FBI. The video now shows him trying to walk that back, but not very successfully in my opinion. I would note that it is a fact that it is more than that single iPhone.
Bill is so establishment that it is pathetic.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what my integrity has to do with this. I only watched the video where Gates refuted the claims that he's backing the FBI and that the media is generalizing his comments. If he's backpedaling on his original stance, that's his issue and has nothing to do with my integrity. When you have a vested interest in something and you see the horse saying one thing and others relaying the horses quotes that paint a different narrative (with a large headline), you have to ask why the misrepresentation. AI has already posted an updated article that supports Gates' "latest stance".
The O.P. posted Bill's original comments which state:
Gates weighed in on the hot button topic on Tuesday, telling the Financial Times that technology companies, including Apple, should comply with government requests for assistance pertaining to investigations into terrorist activity. Further, he disputes Apple's claims that the creation of a so-called backdoor would set precedent both for the Justice Department and international state players looking to get their hands on consumer data.
"This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said. "It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said 'don't make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times'."
So Bill is whining now that people misrepresented what he said. His words are absolutely in support of the FBI. The video now shows him trying to walk that back, but not very successfully in my opinion. I would note that it is a fact that it is more than that single iPhone.
Bill is so establishment that it is pathetic.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what my integrity has to do with this. I only watched the video where Gates refuted the claims that he's backing the FBI and that the media is generalizing his comments. If he's backpedaling on his original stance, that's his issue and has nothing to do with my integrity. When you have a vested interest in something and you see the horse saying one thing and others relaying the horses quotes that paint a different narrative (with a large headline), you have to ask why the misrepresentation. AI has already posted an updated article that supports Gates' "latest stance".
I completely agree that the scope goes beyond 1 iPhone.
The integrity part has to do with the Financial Times conversation where the original comments were made; without that, there is no context of the Bloomberg interview. According to the Financial Times,
Q: Is Apple right to be challenging the FBI’s request to open a backdoor to its phones?
There’s no doubt Apple can make this information available and I don’t think there’s any doubt that when the courts eventually rule that they’ll follow whatever the court says to do.
The discussion of do you want the government to be blind on one hand, or if it’s not blind does it have the right safeguards of how that information, when it’s acquired and how it’s used — that’s a good debate.
In my view the benefits to the government of being able to enforce taxation, being able to stop crime, particular things like terrorism with nuclear weapons or biological means, which means a very few number of people are given by innovation the ability to affect millions or billions — I hope that we can have that debate so that the safeguards are built so people don’t opt — and this will be country by country — that hey it’s better off that the government doesn’t access any information.
Q: Would you support a backdoor into Microsoft phones, Google phones, Apple phones as a general principle.
Nobody’s talking about a backdoor so that’s not the right question. This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They’re not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case.
Q: But is Apple right to say that a backdoor, once created in one case, is a backdoor that can be used in the future?
Apple has access to the information. They’re just refusing to provide the access and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not. You shouldn’t call the access some special thing. It’s no different than should, if anybody ever been able to tell the phone company to get information; bank records, should anybody be able to get at bank records. There’s no difference between information, the government’s come asking for a specific set of information and let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon around the disk drive and they say ‘don’t make me cut this ribbon, because you’ll make me cut it many times, just because this guy’s such a terrible person’.
Anyway, it’s a simple question of do voters want the government in any case, is there any case where a company should provide the information.
Q: Apple just made it sound like it’s a matter of principle, a broad principle.
Any time a bank is told, hey, turn over a bank account information, as soon as they do that on one person they are admitting they can do it on many people, so yes, they are waiting for a high court to make clear what they should do.
I don't see anywhere that there is a "NO" to the government getting information, so that sure seems like a yes.
Edit:
I wanted to add that I think that Bill's comments would have been useful prior to the court order, but now, he's be overrun by events. An appropriate statement would have been something like "We need to put the brakes on this court action, and have the conversation without the Sword of Damocles over Apple's head".
The judge demands a software masterkey be "delivered" to the FBI. With the pinkie swear it would only be used on that one health department work phone. And Gates buys that bullshit? Dumber than he looks.
So when the back door gets hacked, which will happen and my phone gets hacked then we can sue the US Government for Trillions of $ for forcing Apple to comply.
And in the meantime other news state that the FBI already has the next 12 iPhones ready and waiting to be unlocked "just this one and only once. Promised"
Apple should give the FBI access to this phone but only in this situation.
Dodod troller the DOJ had now asked the exact same thing in the exact same way for 12 more phones (reported in Lapresse a Montreal newpaper and Wall Street Journal today ). Got that. So, there is not "one phone"; this was smokescreen.
Boot lickers make me laugh, can't beyond the end of their nose.
This is proof that Bill Gates does not know what the issue is. Or what's he's talking about.
The FBI is not asking Apple to hand over the data in this one iPhone. The FBI is not asking for Apple to break the encryption on this one iPhone. The FBI is asking Apple to write special software that will allow them (the FBI) to break the encryption on this one iPhone to retrieve the data in it. The FBI is promising that Apple don't have to turn over, to them, the newly create software that defeats the security measures in iOS9 and add the ability to use a computer to enter the passcode (instead of having to punch it in using the touch keyboard), of this one locked iPhone.
What the FBI wants and stated in the court order is for Apple to created special software so that the FBI can break into the iPhone and retrieve the data themselves. Why? Because once the software is loaded in that one iPhone and the FBI has possession of that iPhone, the FBI will have the key that can potentially help them break into all iPhones, without Apple's help or a search warrant. The FBI will not return the iPhone nor let Apple be present when they use brute force to break into it. The key will now already be in the wrong hands.
This is like a phone company giving the FBI access to all their customers data or a bank giving them the master key to all their customers safety deposit boxes, providing that they promise to only look at the data of the bad guys or return the master key, without making a duplicate, when they're done. Most of us here know how's that's going to turn out.
This is not like asking for the data they have or cutting the ribbon around one hard drive and retrieving the data. This is the FBI asking Apple to construct the special scissors needed to cut the ribbon around this one hard drive and hand over the scissors to the FBI (along with the hard drive), so that they can find a way to modify scissors to cut the ribbon around all similar hard drives.
Maybe Bill Gate would understand if the FBI forced MS to build a backdoor into their Windows OS and hand them the key. Oh, I forgot, MS did just that, without the FBI even having to use any harsh language. I imagine it went something like this ………..
FBI- Build us a back door in Windows that can monitor all users, give us the key and we'll see to it that Windows will be use on all government agencies computers.
Gates- You forgot to say "please".
FBI- Please
Gates- Done deal.
I'm suspecting that Apple could, without too much trouble, whip up a Master Key and build a time lock of some description. As soon as the date is up, the software becomes unsignable just like with an app or an older version of iOS. I know I'm revealing my ignorance, but it would be good for all those idiots to think they have a way to undermine Apple and all its customers, and then have a 'Please update your operating system to the latest version' to make it functional again.
And Apple can charge each instance about 1b$US to make up for all the cash that MS and SS stole from them. I just want Apple to find a way to permanently wipe that slimy smirk of Gates' face for good.
You suspect things you have no clue about. Get a clue and then "suspect".
“We feel the best way forward would be for the government to withdraw its demands under the All Writs Act and, as some in Congress have proposed, form a commission or other panel of experts on intelligence, technology and civil liberties to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy and personal freedoms.”
--Tim Cook
I think this is the right course, however, be carful what you wish for. Congress could very easily pass a law that requires backdoors on devices.
There about to pass one anyway to pander to the fleeting whim of the public, so they'll do that but be complete moron about it (their usual state), instead of possible half moron, their exalted state) if there is this commission.
Comments
They're leaving the country because they don't want to pay Americans for labor (they'd rather use foreign workers in countries that don't treat their workers as well as the USA society has fought to treat its own; exploitation for greater profit). The more skilled labor they kill off in the USA (almost gone now), the worse the skill set becomes in the USA (because the skill-acquisition process isn't compensated with employment). They're leaving the country because of greed, damaging the country, and then the republicans and libertarians retcon the whole thing for their purposes of slamming immigrants and "lazy workers" who don't boot strap hard enough (utterly ignoring the fact that these successful people had LUCK on their side, if not also privilege that few others have).
As as for Bill Gates: his philanthropy is a distressing joke. He finances the worst and most insidiously destructive ideologies posing as plans of betterment. Either he is ignorant of the social fallout of these beneficiaries of his "gifts" (possible; he's well known for being myopic, privileged, and insular) or the institutions he donates to are servicing his own personal interests, his mindset, or both. Gates is not a progressive or a deep thinker. He has a position of power and influence, which gives him celebrity and therefore "importance" when spewing opinions. None of that makes him wise or any kind of credentialed authority.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-02-23/gates-disputes-report-that-he-backs-fbi-in-apple-dispute?cmpid=yhoo.headline&ref=yfp
But that is besides the point.
The government should not be able to forces someone to create something that does not exist, i.e. a new iOS to bypass the security feature. Such a software would make their product weaker and less desirable. That would cause serious financial harm to the company.
The O.P. posted Bill's original comments which state:
Gates weighed in on the hot button topic on Tuesday, telling the Financial Times that technology companies, including Apple, should comply with government requests for assistance pertaining to investigations into terrorist activity. Further, he disputes Apple's claims that the creation of a so-called backdoor would set precedent both for the Justice Department and international state players looking to get their hands on consumer data.
"This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case," Gates said. "It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let's say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said 'don't make me cut this ribbon because you'll make me cut it many times'."
So Bill is whining now that people misrepresented what he said. His words are absolutely in support of the FBI. The video now shows him trying to walk that back, but not very successfully in my opinion. I would note that it is a fact that it is more than that single iPhone.
Bill is so establishment that it is pathetic.
--Tim Cook
I think this is the right course, however, be carful what you wish for. Congress could very easily pass a law that requires backdoors on devices.
It's possible that the precedence is reversed by a higher court, but it is likely going to have to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may return it to the Appeals Court with no action.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/02/23/bill-gates-says-he-doesnt-back-fbi-in-case-vs-apple-encourages-more-discussion
I completely agree that the scope goes beyond 1 iPhone.
Here's a link to the first interview:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html
From the Financial Times, Bill's own words;
Q: Is Apple right to be challenging the FBI’s request to open a backdoor to its phones?
There’s no doubt Apple can make this information available and I don’t think there’s any doubt that when the courts eventually rule that they’ll follow whatever the court says to do.
The discussion of do you want the government to be blind on one hand, or if it’s not blind does it have the right safeguards of how that information, when it’s acquired and how it’s used — that’s a good debate.
In my view the benefits to the government of being able to enforce taxation, being able to stop crime, particular things like terrorism with nuclear weapons or biological means, which means a very few number of people are given by innovation the ability to affect millions or billions — I hope that we can have that debate so that the safeguards are built so people don’t opt — and this will be country by country — that hey it’s better off that the government doesn’t access any information.
Q: Would you support a backdoor into Microsoft phones, Google phones, Apple phones as a general principle.
Nobody’s talking about a backdoor so that’s not the right question. This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They’re not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case.
Q: But is Apple right to say that a backdoor, once created in one case, is a backdoor that can be used in the future?
Apple has access to the information. They’re just refusing to provide the access and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not. You shouldn’t call the access some special thing. It’s no different than should, if anybody ever been able to tell the phone company to get information; bank records, should anybody be able to get at bank records. There’s no difference between information, the government’s come asking for a specific set of information and let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon around the disk drive and they say ‘don’t make me cut this ribbon, because you’ll make me cut it many times, just because this guy’s such a terrible person’.
Anyway, it’s a simple question of do voters want the government in any case, is there any case where a company should provide the information.
Q: Apple just made it sound like it’s a matter of principle, a broad principle.
Any time a bank is told, hey, turn over a bank account information, as soon as they do that on one person they are admitting they can do it on many people, so yes, they are waiting for a high court to make clear what they should do.
I don't see anywhere that there is a "NO" to the government getting information, so that sure seems like a yes.
Edit:
I wanted to add that I think that Bill's comments would have been useful prior to the court order, but now, he's be overrun by events. An appropriate statement would have been something like "We need to put the brakes on this court action, and have the conversation without the Sword of Damocles over Apple's head".
Boot lickers make me laugh, can't beyond the end of their nose.