News Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[vela]

Great one by John Oliver, even Graham now understands it's a technological/math issue rather than a political issue.

But this whole case is a political issue. There's no question about the technology side. Either you have secure encryption or you don't. The issue is the FBI wanting to set a precedent.

 

[vela]

I don't generally look to comedians for legal advice, but since a few people expressed approval of this I tried watching and I'm proud to say I got 3 minutes into it before I got bored with mediocre jokes that had nothing to do with the issue, so I stopped...though I left it running while typing this and at the 2:55 mark he mischaracterizes the issues when he says "Apple cannot currently get into the phone..." Not a good start with the first relevant thing he said.

Not sure if this is an acceptable source for PF or not.

Why not? His coverage of the issue is better than anything the mainstream media has done. The fact that you completely dismissed it suggests to me that you're choosing to ignore it simply because you don't like the message.

If it's a mischaracterization to say that Apple can not currently get into the phone, then it's also a mischaracterization to say that the FBI can't get into the phone without Apple's help. It just has to decap a chip and extract the hardware ID. Apple can't get into the phone any more than the FBI can with the current software. The whole issue is the FBI is trying to force Apple to write software to weaken the device's security.

 

[nsaspook]

So...are we we agreed that his statement was intentionally misleading? Apple can't "currently" get in because they haven't made the effort to get in, but when they choose to get in they will be able to. Right?

No, I don't, because the choices and decisions we make freely matter.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I don't, because the choices and decisions we make freely matter.

I understand it is a choice. The mischaracterization is him characterizing it as not being a choice:
Will/won't is a choice
Can/can't is not a choice.

 

[russ_watters]

But this whole case is a political issue.

Yes, ultimately it is about personal privacy opinions; Whether one thinks people should be allowed to keep information completely secret or not.

 

[mheslep]

Why not? His coverage of the issue is better than anything the mainstream media has done...

Matter of opinion. Even if the arguments of both sides are presented fairly, each point includes mockery and a laugh track which is an emotional appeal to acceptance of a given view else one is siding with at least the unhip and likely the morons. The overall thesis is that the host is omnipotent, almost begging the listener to come aboard, anything but think for themselves. Comedy news did not invent the tactic, but it does it better than most.

 

[nsaspook]

Yes, ultimately it is about personal privacy opinions; Whether one thinks people should be allowed to keep information completely secret or not.

It's a false choice 'secret or not'. There is nothing the government can do to stop it other than use force to make people reveal keys on devices with strong encryption.
https://cdt.org/insight/issue-brief-a-backdoor-to-encryption-for-government-surveillance/

The organizations in the government (like the DOD) that use encryption to protect the nations secrets don't agree with the FBI for good reason.

Carter told a packed room that he supported strong encryption and thought backdoor access to encrypted communication as unrealistic. During his talk on the Apple-vs.-the-FBI case, in which he shied away from the details because it is a “law enforcement issue,” Carter received scattered applause from the crowd of security professionals after he stated that position.

“I think, first of all, that for the Department of Defense, data security, including encryption, is absolutely essential to us. We are for strong encryption,” Carter says. “I’m not a believer in back doors or a single technical approach. I don’t think it’s realistic.”

http://www.newsweek.com/us-defense-...er-doesnt-believe-encryption-backdoors-432811

 

[zoobyshoe]

Matter of opinion. Even if the arguments of both side are presented fairly, each point includes mockery and a laugh track which is an emotional appeal to acceptance of a given view else one is siding with at least the unhip and likely the morons. The overall thesis is that the host is omnipotent, almost begging the listener to come aboard, anything but think for themselves. Comedy news did not invent the tactic, but it does it better than most.

Begrudgingly: when you're right, your right. Your analysis of the video is very sharp and accurate, IMO. There are two things going on in it: at one level, a presentation of both arguments (which you conditionally suggest might be fair) but at another level, the viewer is being subjected to emotional manipulation that coaches him/her to understand which argument is "hip," most socially savvy. The viewer clearly understands which side is the "cool" side to be on and which side is the "loser" side, as arbitrated by the apparently "omniscient" host.

What I want to ask you, though, is your opinion of the fairness of the presentation of the arguments. Abstracted from the propagandistic matrix, were both sides fairly presented, or did you see any flaws there that should be examined?

 

[vela]

I understand it is a choice. The mischaracterization is him characterizing it as not being a choice:
Will/won't is a choice
Can/can't is not a choice.

Oliver said, "Even Apple can't currently get into the phone," and in context, the statement is correct. He explains that the FBI wants Apple to change the software so that in the future they'd be able to get around the security features. You can only deem it a mischaracterization if you willfully misinterpret what Oliver said.

 

[Dembadon]

The appellate court ie US Second Circuit Court of Appeals would be bypassed you think and go directly to Supreme.
Would they accept. I guess they would, I suspect.

Two different US District Courts have reached opposite conclusions: California said they have to help, while New York said they did not. This is usually a sign that a case is headed to the USSC. However, Apple has appealed the CA judge's ruling, and the appellate court will likely consider judge Ornstein's ruling when making their decision. Also, the USSC isn't required to hear every case appealed from lower federal courts. I'm still unsure about how it will play out.

 

[russ_watters]

Oliver said, "Even Apple can't currently get into the phone," and in context, the statement is correct. He explains that the FBI wants Apple to change the software so that in the future they'd be able to get around the security features.

Here's the problem: it is poor writing style to reverse-qualify something that should be binary - it is weasel wording. And while the context may help clarify it, using a vulgar joke as the context is distracting - he should have just worded it properly to begin with. Needing to qualify it like that means he used the wrong word. To put a finer point on it, check out the use of language in the Wired article linked in the OP. It uses "can", "could", and "can't" about 30 times, almost all of them for the same type of purpose and none including a reversing qualifier like Oliver did. Specific to or similar to this example:

"They can’t read the secure private keys out of it, but they can eliminate things like the passcode delay"
"You can eliminate the passcode delay and you can eliminate the other device-erase [security feature]."
"There are changes that Apple can make to the secure enclave to further secure their phones..."

Anyway, this is a relatively minor point in the main issue here: that the source is from a comedy bit, and it isn't news. I reported it, asking the question ("Is this an acceptable source?"), but not explaining/weighing into convince anyone of my position, and Greg has made the decision: it is not acceptable, so it is deleted. To explain in more detail:

-A reporter has a duty to accurately inform you. There are ethical standards (not necessarily codified, but consensus) they are expected to follow. Probably the most important is a duty to report the truth.

-A comedian has a duty to make you laugh. Often, this involves misleading you, scaring you, manipulating you, insulting you, insulting someone else (that last one is probably the most common comedic device in such shows). Nowhere in there is any sort of duty to tell you the truth.

So simply put, a comedy source is not a news source and is therefore not acceptable for discussion of a news issue. I would be acceptable for the "Funny Pictures..." thread, though.

 

[russ_watters]

It's a false choice 'secret or not'. There is nothing the government can do to stop it other than use force to make people reveal keys on devices with strong encryption.

I really was trying to be agreeable there, distilling it down to what I thought we could agree is the main philosophical point of contention. Your objection seems to me to be too nuts-and-bolts level specific and not uniformly applicable: different peoples' visions of what privacy should be will necessarily have different implementations. So I'm not sure what your point is/what your philosophical view is here.

The organizations in the government (like the DOD) that use encryption to protect the nations secrets don't agree with the FBI for good reason.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what we are reading ("he shied away from the details"), but in either case, different government departments with different mandates may not agree on overlapping issues. That shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[zoobyshoe]

-A comedian has a duty to make you laugh. Often, this involves misleading you, scaring you, manipulating you, insulting you, insulting someone else (that last one is probably the most common comedic device in such shows). Nowhere in there is any sort of duty to tell you the truth.

Your characterization pretty much misses the mark concerning the genre evident in that video:

American literary theorist Kenneth Burke writes that the “comic frame” in rhetoric is “neither wholly euphemistic, nor wholly debunking—hence it provides the charitable attitude towards people that is required for purposes of persuasion and co-operation, but at the same time maintains our shrewdness concerning the simplicities of ‘cashing in.’” [24] The purpose of the comic frame is to satirize a given circumstance and promote change by doing so. The comic frame makes fun of situations and people, while simultaneously provoking thought.[25] The comic frame does not aim to vilify in its analysis, but rather, rebuke the stupidity and foolery of those involved in the circumstances.[26] For example, on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart uses the “comic frame” to intervene in political arguments, one such way is his sudden contrast of serious news with crude humor. In a segment on President Obama’s trip to China Stewart remarks on America’s debt to the Chinese government while also having a weak relationship with the country. After depicting this dismal situation, Stewart shifts to speak directly to President Obama, calling upon him to “shine that turd up.”[27]For Stewart and his audience, introducing coarse language into what is otherwise a serious commentary on the state of foreign relations serves to frame the segment comically, creating a serious tone underlying the comedic agenda presented by Stewart.

-wiki article on Comedy

Truth is the whole point of this kind of comedy, the truth usually being: 'some people in the given circumstances are acting like morons'. It's social criticism with the intent of promoting change. So, the core "duty" is absolutely not merely to make you laugh at any cost. It's to make you laugh at the attitude or logic or propensity that makes you, or anyone, act like a moron, thereby breaking your attachment to that attitude, logic, or propensity. My college acting teacher once said: "Humor is the beginning of detachment." Humor breaks the spell, the spell of the mindset that is leading you astray. If you can be lead to see the absurd side of your logic, it frees you to replace it with good logic. All proper jokes function as psychological reducio ad absurdam proofs. Therefore, my own motto about it is: "Humor is serious business." That video was brilliant in that sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Your characterization pretty much misses the mark concerning the genre evident in that video:

-wiki article on Comedy

Truth is the whole point of this kind of comedy...

That isn't what the quote says. It says "provoking thought" and "serious", but never "truth" or anything close to that (such as "accurate", "correct", etc.).

...the truth usually being: 'some people in the given circumstances are acting like morons'.

That's mistaking opinion for fact. But it is indeed the point of the ridicule aspect of the device.

 

[nsaspook]

I really was trying to be agreeable there, distilling it down to what I thought we could agree is the main philosophical point of contention. Your objection seems to me to be too nuts-and-bolts level specific and not uniformly applicable: different peoples' visions of what privacy should be will necessarily have different implementations. So I'm not sure what your point is/what your philosophical view is here.

I have a pretty good nuts-and-bolts understanding of the limits of what even the full application of military power can do to limit the capability of people to communicate secretly. The FBI has to accept the genie is out of the bottle in their plan to see the secrets of others in secret. That's the real objective to law enforcement back doors for me. (surveillance in secret) I believe that the government has a proper case in public for Apple to respond to by making the required software even if Apples conscience tells them they cannot.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That isn't what the quote says.

Correct. It's what I said continuing forward from the quote into greater explication.

That's mistaking opinion for fact.

No. The "truth" in question is the truth about what the comedian's (social critic's) opinion is: "I truly think X is acting like an idiot," as opposed to pulling your punches, "I don't feel X is analyzing this situation as well as he might be if he gave it more thought." The social critic has a serious message as opposed to some kinds of comedy where, yeah, the only point seems to be to tickle you into mindless laughter. The social critic isn't bound by conventional debate tactics, or academic reasoning (facts), but ought to have the same integrity of purpose behind him to be considered a social critic (a George Carlin), rather than one of the three stooges.

 

[russ_watters]

Correct. It's what I said continuing forward from the quote into greater explication.

Agreed.

No. The "truth" in question is the truth about what the comedian's (social critic's) opinion is: "I truly think X is acting like an idiot,"...

Agreed. I'm not seeing that in what you wrote, but thanks for clarifying.

 

[1oldman2]

same integrity of purpose behind him to be considered a social critic (a George Carlin), rather than one of the three stooges.

 

[Borg]

I only posted the video because I thought that it brought up some interesting points that I don't remember being discussed such as past encryption back-door failures and the plethora of apps that provide encryption. Oliver is a comedian and has to deliver his content in that respect. However, he does provide social commentary as Zooby points out.

While Oliver stated that he thinks that the government shouldn't be able to force Apple to help the FBI, I still believe that they have a social obligation to do otherwise. No matter the outcome - this issue will always be a cat and mouse game and I do not believe in giving aid to those who are intent on harming others. I guess that I am not swayed by comedic pauses or laugh tracks.

BTW, after it was moved to another thread, I saw the mod note on the video about profanity. I had forgotten about that part and asked for it to be deleted in case anyone is wondering. I like John Oliver's videos but he can be a bit vulgar at time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I only posted the video because I thought that it brought up some interesting points that I don't remember being discussed such as past encryption back-door failures and the plethora of apps that provide encryption. Oliver is a comedian and has to deliver his content in that respect. However, he does provide social commentary as Zooby points out.

While Oliver stated that he thinks that the government shouldn't be able to force Apple to help the FBI, I still believe that they have a social obligation to do otherwise. No matter the outcome - this issue will always be a cat and mouse game and I do not believe in giving aid to those who are intent on harming others. I guess that I am not swayed by comedic pauses or laugh tracks.

The important information that video communicated was that the issue is vastly more complicated than what most people who come down on the FBIs side in a quick knee-jerk reflex realize. I didn't see it as summing to a pro-Apple stance. I saw it as summing to "this issue is nowhere near as clear cut as you thought!"

 

[Borg]

The important information that video communicated was that the issue is vastly more complicated than what most people who come down on the FBIs side in a quick knee-jerk reflex realize. I didn't see it as summing to a pro-Apple stance. I saw it as summing to "this issue is nowhere near as clear cut as you thought!"

I agree that the main point is that this isn't a clear cut issue - which is why I thought that it was a worthy submission. However, at 15:30, he clearly states that he is on Apple's side in this case which is why I made the point that I wasn't swayed by his video.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree that the main point is that this isn't a clear cut issue - which is why I thought that it was a worthy submission. However, at 15:30, he clearly states that he is on Apple's side in this case which is why I made the point that I wasn't swayed by his video.

Ah. I don't even recall him saying that. If he did, then I must have dismissed it, not considering it a summary, just his opinion: "I'm on Apple's side," is not the same as "And so, everyone can now see, Apple is clearly right, here." I don't recall hearing anything amounting to the latter.

 

[gjonesy]

Ok I been thinking and I understand the need for privacy. Gonna play devils advocate for a moment here, there are those troubling "what ifs" Hypothetically speaking what if cracking this phone would incidentally lead to the location of hostages (American or allied) being held by ISIS due to be executed by beheading within the next 5 days. Let's say apple wins its appeals and later the FBI challenges and appeals the court ruling and ultimately wins and this information is discovered to late to do anything about it? How will the public and apple feel about these petty squabbles then? There is a solution, apple needs to have its own investigational division that can comply with court orders without compromising the security of everyone else's phone. Just hack phones on a case by case basis for the government without giving them the tools and know how to do it themselves.

My understanding is there is a third dimension to this argument "money" which apple stands to lose a ton of by complying with the order. Consumers may be less likely to buy an iPhone if they know that apple can and will crack it with a court order. Those dirty little secrets of craigslist, infidelity and compromising photos are great motivators to argue against any kind of intrusion cause it establishes case law.

 

[nsaspook]

Ok I been thinking and I understand the need for privacy. Gonna play devils advocate for a moment here, there are those troubling "what ifs" Hypothetically speaking what if cracking this phone would incidentally lead to the location of hostages (American or allied) being held by ISIS due to be executed by beheading within the next 5 days. Let's say apple wins its appeals and later the FBI challenges and appeals the court ruling and ultimately wins and this information is discovered to late to do anything about it? How will the public and apple feel about these petty squabbles then? There is a solution, apple needs to have its own investigational division that can comply with court orders without compromising the security of everyone else's phone. Just hack phones on a case by case basis for the government without giving them the tools and know how to do it themselves.

Why don't we just let Apple be in the business of selling secure products without known back doors. Apple is in this mess because Apple left a back door in it's product that made Apple instead of the owner/operators of the device in question open to demands from law enforcement in a hypothetical. There are plenty of tools available to use other than requiring all phones be open to hacking in the odd case where there might be critical information. The information on the phone might be intentionally misleading if it's known the FBI can read it with the help of Apples investigation division.

 

[gjonesy]

Why don't we just let Apple be in the business of selling secure products without known back doors.

That's exactly my point, leave it to the product maker. I do not see the need for a master key to be used in conjunction with the patriot act, that's not at all what I am suggesting. I say if there is a strong issue of importance to everyone such as a terrorist attack. Or some other threat to the well being of the general population or information on a phone of any kind that could prevent crime and tragedies from happening, then the maker of said device of any make or model should have a way of retrieving it without compromising everyone's phone in the process.

We don't limit law enforcement from executing search warrants on a house, car, business or computer. WHY should phones be any different?

 

[nsaspook]

We don't limit law enforcement from executing search warrants on a house, car, business or computer. WHY should phones be any different?

I agree they should be able to execute search warrants but there is nothing that demands the targets of that search be displayed on the kitchen table to make it easy for them.

 

[gjonesy]

there is nothing that demands the results of that search be displayed on the kitchen table to make it easy for them.

Agreed BUT...if left to discover a way to decrypt this information on their own the (FBI) would undoubtedly misuse the technology if they can develop it. If the manufacture is involved there is no risk of proprietary copy or misuse...they have a stake in HELPING the FBI. The product itself would be less compromised and proprietary secrets could remain secrets. Although I'm sure the FBI would demand "how they did it" and the company apple could fight any further litigation via copyright laws. There is no need to give away the secret recipe just give them a peek under the crust. IMHO.

 

[vela]

We don't limit law enforcement from executing search warrants on a house, car, business or computer. WHY should phones be any different?

Because it's technically possible to create a phone which no one can break into. Your suggestion that Apple form an investigational division amounts to requiring companies become an arm of law enforcement.

As far as hypotheticals go, I can easily counter with what happens if the backdoor is used by some repressive government to spy on its citizens and massacre of political opponents?

 

[gjonesy]

As far as hypotheticals go, I can easily counter with what happens if the backdoor is used by some repressive government to spy on its citizens and massacre of political opponents?

I'm not even talking about a backdoor or hidden code, I'm talking about serviceable software that only the manufacture can access. There is no such thing as a totally secure device. They have to be serviceable which means someone will know how to access the content of the phone without destroying the information. And just because a company retains a way of accessing a device doesn't mean it has to publish a how to manual or make proprietary technical developer tools available to anyone who wants it. Keep the encryption but comply with court orders.

This seem to be more about a selling point of the iPhone than it is about privacy and security in the first place. I broke into an old cheapo droid to unlock it for a friend and the only information lost was the contact list, text messages email accounts and photos were still on the phone.

FYI most mobile phone companies already have (information security divisions) and you can obtain information up to a certain point with a simple subpoena.

 

[nsaspook]

I'm not even talking about a backdoor or hidden code, I'm talking about serviceable software that only the manufacture can access. There is no such thing as a totally secure device.

The someone who will know how to access the contents of the phone without destroying the information is the person who created and entered the device password or key. Apple or the FBI can service the device after the user unlocks it for them. If you don't wish to unlock the device and only you have access several things could happen. With Apple you don't get help or updates, with the FBI you could possibly be fined and/or jailed until you unlock the device.