Bill Gates Is Confused About Apple FBI Fight, Makes Everyone More Confused
from the understand-the-issues-before-speaking-out-bill dept
Lots of people seem to have opinions on the whole Apple / FBI thing without actually understand the details. The latest just happens to be Bill Gates, so it's getting a fair bit of attention. On Monday the Financial Times published an interview with Gates emblazened with the title: Bill Gates Backs FBI iPhone Hack Request. The article then quotes Gates appearing to side with the FBI:The Microsoft founder took issue with Tim Cook’s characterisation of the government’s order that Apple help break open the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone as a demand for a “back door”, denying that it would set a wider precedent.Later in the article, he suggests that there should be times that information cannot be fully encrypted:
“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’.” “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,” Mr Gates told the Financial Times.
Mr Gates told the FT that there were benefits to the government being able to enforce taxation, stop crime and investigate terror threats, but said there must be rules on when the information can be accessed.Of course, seeing as (1) it's Bill Gates and (2) basically everyone else in the tech industry has come out siding with Apple, this story spread pretty quickly, leading Gates to then jump onto Bloomberg TV to claim that it was a misrepresentation to say he sided with the FBI:
“I hope that we have that debate so that the safeguards are built and so people do not opt — and this will be country by country — [to say] it is better that the government does not have access to any information,” he said.
I was disappointed, because that doesn’t state my view on this. I do believe that with the right safeguards, there are cases where the government, on our behalf — like stopping terrorism, which could get worse in the future — that that is valuable. But striking that balance — clearly the government [has] taken information, historically, and used it in ways that we didn’t expect, going all the way back, say to the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. So I’m hoping now we can have the discussion. I do believe there are sets of safeguards where the government shouldn’t have to be completely blind.So basically, it seems that (once again) everyone is a bit confused about this. Gates' initial answer was a bit wishy-washy and doesn't actually get at the actual issue. He focuses on the question of the precedent -- and he's just flat out wrong on that. He's right that the DOJ in this case is asking for a very specific thing, but setting the precedent that they can get that very specific thing will mean that similar things will be asked for in other cases -- and he is wrong that it won't put overall security at risk. The precedent here is everything, because once in place similar rulings can be used to proactively undermine security systems. That's a big deal, even if Gates doesn't recognize it.
[....] The courts are going to decide this. … In the meantime, that gives us this opportunity to get the discussion. And these issues will be decided in Congress.
Gates also totally misrepresents the issue by talking about how law enforcement needs to enforce the law and stop crime. That's a tautology. Everyone knows that. But that does not mean it needs to force companies to build systems to hack their customers. It's a completely different question. Meanwhile, his "backing off" of the FT's headline is still confused. No one's saying that the government is completely blind. They have a ton of other information. Gates is, unfortunately, buying into the myth that the FBI needs everything. But that's never been the way that the law works. We have a 4th amendment (and hell, a number of other amendments, including the 5th) for good reasons: and one of those reasons is that we expect the job of law enforcement to be hard. And that's because convicting someone of a crime shouldn't be easy. And we do that on the belief that if we make the job hard, we're a lot less likely to convict innocent people.
It's too bad that Gates doesn't appear to fully understand the issue, and is allowing yet more misinformation into this debate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill gates, doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, unlocking
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/apple-privacy-petition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
Swine Flu anyone? Or, bird flu? Or, (the list goes on and on).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
Take a look at all developed countries with good health care, low infant mortality and high life expectancy and you will also see low population growth or in some cases even population decline. This is not because vaccines reduce population growth.
Many factors actually contribute to this effect, for example if your children are only 50% likely to make it to their 10th birthday you are going to have more children. Reducing infant mortality will reduce the number of children born.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
Health care and modern technology (or vaccines, for that matter) have little-to-nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
And no, the Baby Boom was not a worldwide event - it only covered the nations involved in World War 2 i.e. developed nations.
If you really think that health care and modern technology has "little to nothing" to do with population growth then I ask you to quote your sources and in return I'd present the ghosts of Nightingale, Pasteur, Fleming, etc would happily tell to f##k off back into your cave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
No, that's exactly the point I'm making: that it's the same developed nations that experienced the baby boom where we're seeing an end to population growth as the baby boom generation, comprising the largest demographic group, moves out of childbearing years.
Which, again, is specifically what we are talking about here. We appear to be in violent agreement, as they say.
First, I didn't say that health care and modern technology has little or nothing to do with population growth, but rather that they have little or nothing to do with the recent decline in population growth. And as all three of the people you cite above made their contributions before World War II, I hardly see how they have any relevance on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
Increasing infant survival is recognised to reduce the parents’ demand for children. Further, a decreasing fertility allows the parents to devote more attention and resources to their children. That means healthier children who go on themselves to have healthy children, which further encourages the downward trend in population.
That trend needs to start somewhere, and it starts with fewer child deaths. And vaccination has repeatedly proven to reduce child mortality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Truest Me, I know What's Best For All Of You
Well, after creating the disaster that is Microsoft, all that pales in comparison.
Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other breaking news: dog bites man; rabid skunks found to be lacking in social skills; and sun sets in a generally westward direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the case of the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the case of the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next up on the war on Terror..........
Me neither!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........
remember when the WORLD had smart people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........
Right now every signer of that document would be ridiculed and marginalized by the media, both parties, and just about every world leader right now and more than 1/2 of the USA would likely support their imprisonment if not execution were the current government inclined to charge them as terrorists.
The other people we like to THINK are smart are those like Bill Gates... only smart enough to steal from the smart and smart enough to buy public opinion with philanthropy. Shocker right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next up on the war on Terror..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course your odds are far higher getting struck by lighting then ever killed by a Terrorists in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now we know what happened to Windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A bank built a high tech vault for safely storing customer money. A couple of mafia thugs approached them and demanded the key so that they could take the money to the racetrack. They promised not to take too much or to come back very often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zdziarski's take
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zdziarski's take
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His Billness is out of sorts
[https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2016/02/more-calea-and-why-it-trumps-fbis-all-writs-act-o rder]
[http://www.fastcompany.com/1561471/microsofts-global-criminal-compliance-handbook-leaked]
There be dots there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple lies
Ok,this really annoys the crap out of me. Backdoors are bad. Agreed. But this statement is complete bullshit. For example: Older insecure versions of IOS are essentially the same thing as what the FBI needs to unlock the phone. Apple can download one of those on the device if they are unwilling to build one. (and let me tell you: they already have a version ready to go). If Apple doesn't want to hand over this insecure ios version they can totally target this device with an over the air update. It does not need to be available to the FBI as a generic hacking tool.
Unlocking one phone in-house is not the same thing at all as providing the government with a backdoor to all iPhones everywhere. Again, the brainwashed Apple sheep believe everything Tim Cook says. Any critically thinking programmer deep down inside knows that all this grandstanding BS is not about the technical feasibility of unlocking that phone but is really a giant PR war so that Apple can claim in the end that they are the most "secure" and that their customers can really "trust Apple". Total nonsense. Apple IOS always had security flaws and secret little backdoors and still has them to this day. To believe otherwise is foolish indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple lies
They are working on this advertising campaign with Apple, portraying themselves as bad guy statists, good guy patriots and technically inept liars (going from one to another easily) just.. because they thought it would be fun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple lies
I'm not sure how many embedded operating systems you have created but downgrading software and ensuring that all the relevant databases stay intact is not an easy thing. At best the downgrade will work but all the data will be corrupt at worst the phone will be a brick.
If Apple were to comply with this order there will be a queue of FBI agents outside Apple HQ with an iPhone each they want to crack. (I read somewhere that there is currently around 50 or so known cases waiting on the outcome of this one)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple lies
1. Apple's creation of GovtOs will set a precedent and the FBI will keep coming back to use it for every iPhone they can't crack.
2. If GovtOs ever leaks out of Apple HQ, they have a major problem.
All this doesn't mean though that they shouldn't do it. There are ways to keep code secure. Do you have access to Apple's current ios source code? No, I didn't think so. Their corporate security is pretty tight. Also, the thing about setting precedents is not a total given. There are ways to limit the way this particular case applies to other future cases. It's a legal/constitutional issue and I'm not an expert in that (nor is any other poster on this forum btw), but if I were Apple I would negotiate a limited scope for the applicability of this insecure GovtOs. What they are doing now, grandstanding and lying to the public is going to get them hammered hard in court. Better to strike a deal and settle this quickly before it turns ugly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple nonsense
"Could Apple build this operating system just once, for this iPhone, and never use it again?"
The digital world is very different from the physical world. In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.
Tim Cook: "Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks. Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked by hackers and cybercriminals. As recent attacks on the IRS systems and countless other data breaches have shown, no one is immune to cyberattacks."
Ok so Tim Cook has never heard of an "air gapped PC"? Or just put the file on a fucking USB stick and throw it in a safe. ???? Apple can't even figure out how keep one insecure version of ios9 out of the hands of hackers, how are they going to protect all their customer's data? What a joke....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple nonsense
You, sir, are a joke. You do not understand security or what this is about or you are a shill.
Apple can't just lock this sort of thing in a vault ten miles below the surface. They do this once and it's already known the government will ask them THOUSANDS of more times. Hundreds or thousands of people will have access to these tools. Apple simply won't be able to vet everyone who could have contact well enough and it WILL leak. Every government and criminal organization on earth will be trying to get a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No kidding. Let's also not forget that Microsoft was the first to enthusiastically jump on board the PRISM band wagon as well, which is why I originally refused to buy an Xbox One (I bought one only after they removed Kinect as a requirement). Between Bill's public statements and having a look at Windows 10 recently (sandboxed of course), anyone willing to trust them these days is crazy. That questionaire on first boot? It felt like I was being asked the same question in multiple different ways, i.e. to let them have access to anything and everything private. As much as I dislike Linux, it's looking more and more likely that it's going to end up being my go to operating system some day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The FBI needs everything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The FBI needs everything...
http://evidencebasedliving.human.cornell.edu/2014/10/03/does-video-surveillance-deter-cr ime/
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/do-security-cameras-deter-crime
http://cityroom.blogs.nyt imes.com/2009/03/03/study-questions-whether-cameras-cut-crime/?_r=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The FBI needs everything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best bet is to keep your private info reasonably encrypted as to prevent any random passerby from accessing it, but also understand that there's not really a lot you can hide from the government if it sets its sights on you.
It's unfair but that's how it is nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Today, in public at least, our leaders feign fear when confronted with important matters saying they are not being pursued because they're "dangerous" and what they really want is "to save human lives".
Meanwhile behind closed doors thousands die for the whims of the exact same leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inaccurate Metaphor
it is not asking the bank to cut a ribbon, it is asking the bank to build some scissors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is utter BS
Did Apple do what the Judge told them they had to do? Did Apple follow the court's order? Nope. NOW they are whining about having to do what they wanted the FBI and NSA to be required to do in the first place? NOPE! Its called being hypocrites!
At last count well over 50% of the public is telling Apple to grow a set and man up and unlock this one phone. only 30% are saying dont do it. The NY Stock Exchange is showing Apple's stock is falling. And unless they can convince the Judge otherwise, on March 22nd 2016 Apple can be found in direct violation of federal law and not only be fined up to $1,000,000.00 a day till they comply, but the CEO of Apple can be personally charged and arrested and fined until he complies. And no matter how much money Apple thinks they have, you cannot survive a one million dollar a day fine for very long. And I dont care how educated or powerful you think you are, if you cost a company millions of dollars and did it because of some ego trip you are on like the CEO of Apple is doing today; you WONT be CEO for much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is utter BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is utter BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is utter BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is utter BS
I'm guessing you missed it, but not a day or so ago there was an article here on TD about that very thing. The main point? The numbers are meaningless, because that's not what's being demanded of Apple here.
Apple isn't being 'asked' to unlock the phone, they're being 'asked' to create a custom version of the phone OS specifically designed to remove two key security features, or in other words to undermine their own product's security.
'So what?' you might ask, 'The previous owner killed a bunch of people, and he's dead anyway!'
Precedent is what.
Once it's been found legal and acceptable to force a company to undermine their own security, it will happen again, and again, and again. And unless you're naive enough to think that the code created to remove the security will never make it into the wild(and if you are, tell that to the various government agencies who've been hacked the last few years), it's not a matter of 'if' the code will be used by criminals, but 'when', making everyone less safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is utter BS
So are you calling him a liar now? Or are you willing to admit that you are wrong and that Comey is right and that all they want is the information on this phone. Even Comey admitted that they offered Apple the phone and asked them to take off the information they wanted and keep the rest of it locked up, and Apple refused.
Apple is going to lose this case and they are going to be fined a major amount of money on March 22nd. And I doubt that if you are a CEO and cost your company a couple hundred million dollars because of your ego, that you will stay the CEO.
Oh and you might want to look at the Wall Street Journal's NY Stock Exchange. Seems Apple stock has dropped about 15% since this started. And considering that Chinese cell phone makers are making better phones with more features at a third of Apples cost, it is seriously eating into their market share in their backyards of South Korea and North America and they are losing money BIG time there. Thats why they had to lay off over 3000 people in the last 2 years and more layoffs are coming because of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS
Oh he's telling the truth when he says that... but only technically. In the current case he does only want the info from this one phone(well, that and the precedent. More the latter than the former really). And in the next case it will just be one device too. And the next case, and the one after that...
When you've got multiple groups and people talking about how they're watching the case closely, and about all the currently locked devices they've got that they'd really love to have unlocked, the idea that if Apple is forced to do what the FBI demands it won't be swamped with similar requests pretty much immediately is absurd. If a company can be forced to undermine their own security at the orders of a court, it will be happening on a regular basis, with each order making it that much harder for the next company to refuse.
Even Comey admitted that they offered Apple the phone and asked them to take off the information they wanted and keep the rest of it locked up, and Apple refused.
Probably because thanks to the FBI's incompetent bungling of the matter the easy route was taken off the table, so Apple cannot just 'take off the 'information they wanted and keep the rest locked up'. To get at the info on the device the security has to be removed, and that absolutely requires that Apple create a modified version of the phone OS to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS
All it is going to take is for the FBI to bring just one set of grieving parents before a camera and have them ask Apple why they are blocking the investigation, and its all over for Apple as public sentiment will shift against them so fast it will look like a tidal wave hit them. Already over 50% of the public is saying that Apple should do the right thing and unlock this one phone with only 30% saying they shouldnt. Meaning the majority of the US is telling Apple to unlock the stupid phone.
This is not going to bode well for Apple as they are already losing money and stock price according to the Wall Street Journal and the NYSE. And China is building cell phones that do everything Apple's does and more, with larger screens and more useful applications, for about a third of what Apple's cost and are taking a massive bite out of Apples bottom line in South Korea and the North American countries. And Apple is feeling the pressure. And now this? Apple is in deep trouble if this farce continues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS
If code is treated as speech, then forcing someone to write specific code is an an example of forced speech, something that courts generally aren't too keen on last I checked.
However the first amendment argument is more there for later on, their primary argument is more centered on which applies, AWA or CALEA, and should the judge agree that the latter pre-empts the former, then Apple is off the hook, as there's nothing in there that allows the government to force a company to undermine their own security. They also argue that it's hardly a simple process as the FBI/DOJ are arguing to create the modified OS, and would take significant work, as well as the idea that creating it won't put other phones at risk by opening the door for the code to leak.
All it is going to take is for the FBI to bring just one set of grieving parents before a camera and have them ask Apple why they are blocking the investigation, and its all over for Apple as public sentiment will shift against them so fast it will look like a tidal wave hit them.
You mean like they already tried to do?
'Stephen Larson, the lawyer for the victims, told the Guardian the office of the US attorney for the central district of California contacted him on 14 February with a request to file a brief asking Apple to aid in unlocking the phone.
On 16 February, the federal attorney, Eileen Decker, requested a federal magistrate, judge Sheri Pym, issue a warrant for the unlocked iPhone 5C. Pym provided it that day.'
Just as the FBI has relatives of victims on their side agreeing with them, Apple has relatives of victims on their side, so the FBI's cheap attempt to use emotional tactics to bolster their case is a wash.
Already over 50% of the public is saying that Apple should do the right thing and unlock this one phone with only 30% saying they shouldnt. Meaning the majority of the US is telling Apple to unlock the stupid phone.
And as I and many others have already pointed out that's utterly meaningless, because what those who answered the question think is being demanded of Apple and what is actually being demanded of them is significantly different.
But hey, so long as we're throwing out meaningless numbers, how about the other poll that's been mentioned on TD about the matter, that showed roughly 46% overall against the FBI being able to force Apple to unlock the phone, with only 35% in favor of the FBI's actions. They also got the question wrong, but as it clearly demonstrates(just as much as the other poll does) more people are in favor of Apple's actions than the FBI's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS
Sorry to tell you that your post is wrong from the get go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is utter BS
'Under well-settled law, computer code is treated as speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 449 (2d Cir. 2001); Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481, 485 (6th Cir. 2000); 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1099–1100 (N.D. Cal. 2004); United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Bernstein v. Dep’t of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426, 1436 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
The Supreme Court has made clear that where, as here, the government seeks to compel speech, such action triggers First Amendment protections. As the Court observed in Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781,796 (1988), while “[t]here is certainly some difference between compelled speech and compelled silence, . . . in the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance.”
However that's almost a moot point, because as I noted above the First Amendment argument is more a fallback in case the other arguments don't cut it, or aren't enough on their own. If it never even reaches the point of compelled speech, because it's shot down by the court agreeing that companies cannot be forced to provide decryption services to anyone who comes calling, the free speech issue won't even come into play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doubt it Dragon
Thats just wrong. And Apple knows it.
And as for being killed by a terrorist? Yea right. Tell that to the Boston Marathon Bombing survivors, or the meat Packing shooting Survivors, or the California shooting survivors, or the Military base shooting survivors or the people hurt by 9-11. Try telling them that they had a better chance of getting hit by lighting then being shot or harmed by a terrorist and dont be too shocked when they laugh at you and then punch you in the face
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubt it Dragon
No, that's the law, and Apple knows it.
Sorry you don't like the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doubt it Dragon
Boston Bombing(2013): 6 deaths(including one of the bombers).
280 non-fatal injuries.Source
Deaths by lightning(2013): 23.Source
Rough estimate for yearly number injured by lightning: 297.Source
9/11 Attack(2001): 2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers) dead, 6,000+ non-fatal injuries.Souce
For context:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death(2013)
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
Source
Lives lost to terrorist attacks are tragic, and horrible for both those that die and those that survive, but add up all the deaths caused by terrorism in the US for the past decade and it wouldn't even come close to how many people die from numerous other causes on a yearly basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
Nice try but massive fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
No, he didn't.
'Of course your odds are far higher getting struck by lighting then ever killed by a Terrorists in this country.'
But even if he had, and had been wrong on that detail, as the numbers show you're still more likely to be killed by any number of other things, which kill more than any terrorist ever has on a yearly basis, and yet most people don't even bat an eye at them. Yet some loser with a bomb is supposed to have the public quaking in it's collective shoes and handing over privacy and security if only the government will protect them? Yeah, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
The odds of you being struck by lightning is 1 in 700,000 per year and then you multiply the 700,000 by every year you are alive. Meaning the older you get the less likely you are going to be struck by lightning. Now since it is already a 1 in 700,000 chance of being hit by lightning, then Dragon is saying that the odds against you being shot or killed by a terrorist in the US are much greater. And in this he is essentially saying that nobody has been killed or shot by a terrorist with odds against it happening being that high.
I proved him wrong. Simple math and fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
I did, and it seems pretty clear to me the statement means 'You are more likely to die from being struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist', which is certainly supported by the numbers that I've been able to find.
This one mentions a 1/25,000,000 chance of dying from a terrorist attack aboard an American commercial airliner, taking into account the 9/11 deaths, and compares that to a 1/500,000 chance of being struck by lightning.
This one looked at terrorist attacks in the period of five years since it was written(2011), and put the odds at: 1/20,000,000 death by terrorist, 1/19,000 death by car accident, 1/99,000 dying in a building fire, and 1/5,500,000 death by lightning. Or as they put it:
'In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.'
Or how about this one, which runs through various risks and how likely people are to die from them compared to terrorism(TL;DR version: pretty much anything is more likely to kill you than a terrorist), including this gem:
The 2011 Report on Terrorism from the National Counter Terrorism Center notes that Americans are just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
You can try and sugar coat it or twist it any way you wish, but the fact remains what his intention for the statement was. And I notice that he has never denied it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
Let's be really generous to you and say that yes, that was what he meant. Even then while he'd be wrong on the specifics, he'd be correct in general, you absolutely are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, something I notice you haven't denied either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
And again if I am wrong then where is his posts saying that I am wrong, oh thats right....they dont exist!
And I dont have to deny anything as I am not the one that made the original post.
Not to quick on the uptake are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
Maybe because you seem to really want it to say that, because I have read it, several times at this point, and while the wording could use some polish...
'Of course your odds are far higher getting struck by lighting then ever killed by a Terrorists in this country.'
Is pretty clearly not saying 'no one has ever been killed by a terrorist in the US'.
As for why he hasn't stepped in and made clear what he meant? Other than the fact that the article is four days old, his last comment three, your lack of replying to his comment directly quite possibly made him miss it entirely.
And lastly, as I noted in the very comment you replied to, it doesn't matter if he did mean what you claim he meant and was wrong specifically, in general he was right. By the numbers lightning is absolutely more likely to kill you than a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
Worldwide! Bomb the Tube in London, and all Britain's "terrorized" by security overload. Twin Towers, NY, 15 years of war and counting. One nutbar rushes Canada's Parliament and we get C-51.
We get to talk about this because the US is so fscked up it can tell Microsoft "hand it all over" and as a good corporate citizen, it does.
Where to start to fix this mess? The Constitution or CALEA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doubt it Dragon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt Fans Having Fun With This One!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt censorship (NOT)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gates Understands Perfectly
Apple's phone market share in the U.S. is significant, but it isn't as significant in BRIC countries. The same BRIC countries where Android (Microsoft's $2billion royalties pocket book exists). The same BRIC countries that are eyeing U.S. tech companies as pawns of the U.S. intelligence agencies.
If I was Apple I'd change citizenship to a country that was more favorable to my bottom line.
In fact the irony of the U.S. pushing Apple so hard that it was forced to do this would be extremely funny to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gates Understands Perfectly
Not to mention that Apple is facing a new threat. China is producing cell phones just as good and in most cases better then Apple or Samsung with the same abilities as an Apple or Samsung at a third of the price. And they are selling these in Apple's back yard and cutting into their bottom line, as they are selling these in Korea and the US and making a bundle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gates is sort of a long term thinker, he's not so worried about today's fight as much as it's longer term implications and how to deal with them. It's not confusion you see, just someone getting a little misunderstood by media that is too driven by sound bites rather than deeper thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you missed this decision in 2014 where it says the Supreme Court has ruled police just cannot up and take your cell phone and snoop through it...UNLESS THEY HAVE A VALID COURT ORDER!! http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/28/opinion/cevallos-police-search-cell-phone/ And what destroys your whole argument is the FBI DID HAVE a valid court order for the information.
Game set and match, you lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And wow, you are really focused on the first amendment part of the filing, despite me pointing out several times now that it's not their central argument.
NOTHING is ANY of these decisions equates information on your cell as protected by the 1st Amendment.
The cell phone isn't, the code is.
NOTHING in these decisions say that asking Apple or any other company to give information that was demanded by a court order is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Apple cannot provide the information on the device thanks to the FBI's incompetent bungling, it doesn't matter if they are presented with one warrant or a hundred. The only way they can gain access to it is to create custom code contrary to their wishes, and if there have been cases in the past that have found code to equal speech, as is the case, then forcing a company to create code against their wishes would be an instance of compelled speech.
The FBI/DOJ's claims to the contrary, they are not just asking for Apple to 'unlock' the device or hand over it's contents, they are demanding that Apple spend considerable time and resources writing custom code with the intent of undermining their own security. A warrant can compel a company to hand over files in it's possession, but as it stands right now those files are not in Apple's possession, so they have nothing to hand over, warrant or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And again there is NOTHING in any of these decisions saying coding is protected by the first amendment either. The only ones who made that decision is the 2nd Circuit court and that means child that this decision is only enforceable in the 2nd Circuit. Apple is located in the NINTH Circuit and as such this decision bears no legal meaning in this case. Nice try but major fail. The ONLY way this would be the ruling all over the US is IF the US Supreme Court heard the case and upheld it, and they have not.
Before you start talking about the legal ramifications, it would do you a major amount of good if you actually KNEW a little about the law and the Constitution. I have been studying the US Constitution for over 40 years and can state chapter and verse what is and what is not in there. And when I was in the Military before I retired and was sent TDY, I spent almost a year in a JAG office. And you dont sit around with attorneys all day for almost a year and not learn something.
So your background in trying to say I am wrong is what exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which of course is why two of your comments responding to someone else's comments have not been responses to said comments but entirely new ones I take it? If you are clicking 'Reply to this', then as the saying goes, 'You're doing it wrong'. Unless of course you meant to have this particular comment string be entirely separate from the comment it was responding to, in which case that's exactly the problem I'm pointing out.
The only ones who made that decision is the 2nd Circuit court and that means child that this decision is only enforceable in the 2nd Circuit. Apple is located in the NINTH Circuit and as such this decision bears no legal meaning in this case.
Which means it's not binding in the current court, but judges do take notice of how other judges have ruled in crafting their decisions(hence why legal filings include references to other cases), and if the only ones who have ruled on code in that manner have said 'Yes, code is speech', then the current judge is likely to take that into consideration when they make their judgement.
However, as I have said I don't know how many times now, it doesn't matter if the first amendment argument isn't overly strong here, because that's not what Apple's core argument in the case is. Their core argument has nothing to do with the first amendment, which makes your constant focus on it rather like someone deriding a skydiver for bringing an umbrella in addition to the chute as not likely to work. True, but rather a moot point as it's meant as a fallback, something extra, but not what they're depending on.
So your background in trying to say I am wrong is what exactly?
Someone able to focus on more than the immediate case, and more than one particular part of it apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Not all judges listen to other courts, case in point. the 9th said Yes to SSM, the 6th said No. Now if its like you say then the 6th should have took notice of the 9ths decision, right?
And no code is NOT speech anywhere but in the court stated. And since that courts jurisdiction does not enclose the whole US, that decision is only valid in in that courts jurisdiction. That is in the following states ONLY
District of Connecticut (New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport)
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn, Central Islip)
Northern District of New York (Albany, Binghamton, Plattsburgh, Syracuse, Utica)
Southern District of New York (Manhattan, White Plains)
Western District of New York (Buffalo)
District of Vermont (Burlington, Rutland, Brattleboro)
It has no legal authority outside these states. Look up the US District Courts and even they will tell you that. So you can use whatever terms you want, but the fact remains that the US Supreme Court has NOT and is not in any hurry to decide that coding is a 1st amendment right as you are claiming. Look it up on supremecourt.gov in their archives and you will see I am correct and you sadly are not.
So maybe you should take your own advice? And I see that you still have not stated what your background is that you can state that I am wrong unless it is clearly only your OPINION and not fact.
Nice try at obfuscation and spin, but your smoke and mirrors attempt fails miserably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said above, it's not binding on other courts, but they do take it into consideration when crafting their own rulings. That it's not binding simply means they don't have to rule the same.
...but the fact remains that the US Supreme Court has NOT and is not in any hurry to decide that coding is a 1st amendment right as you are claiming.
Last I checked the SC only tends to step in when you've got split and opposing rulings, and as far as I'm aware the only cases where 'Is code equal to speech?' have come up it's been ruled that yes, code is treated as speech. As such while it's not a sure thing it's at least likely a safe bet that should the issue come into play it will be similarly ruled.
So maybe you should take your own advice? And I see that you still have not stated what your background is that you can state that I am wrong unless it is clearly only your OPINION and not fact.
Given, as you yourself pointed out, that the SC hasn't ruled on the 'Is code speech?' issue both sides' stance on the matter at this point is a matter of 'opinion', with the notable difference that in the cases where it has come up the answer has been 'Yes'.
I've presented some of the reason that I accept Apple's argument as to why code should be classified as speech based upon previous cases, making forcing someone to create code an example of compelled speech, now then what do you have to support your opinion that it isn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you really need to check on your facts. I have looked in every US Supreme Court decision where the term "coding" is even mentioned in any way and have yet to find even one case where it was ruled by the majority that it is free speech. Same result in the US Library of Congress. fail number 2.
And how can you insist that it has come up when the US Supreme Court Archives clearly show it didnt, and the US Library of Congress says the exact same thing? Are you now going to claim that they are all wrong and you are the correct one? Do you have any idea how that sounds for you to claim you know more then the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress? fail 3
And I have already given my sources as to why Apple is going to lose on this issue...so why do you want me to repost them whn you refuse to accept them the first time they were posted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]