Funny, I think this paragraph (3) was what Europe intended with that infamous "computer programs as such". However, not being clear enough turned it into a huge loophole.
- As I see things here, the problem should not be about the expectation of privacy about the IP address, as much as about the means used to collect it. If the government can use any means and justify it afterwards saying it's about "public information", then there simply is no such thing as "privacy" or fourth amendment on the internet.
- This also conflicts with care about cops who prohibit people from filming them. A public agent performing public duties in a public place has expectations of privacy. A private individual on private business in a public space while trying to limit the private information he shares... has none? That's all kinds of crazy. Someone should really explain everyone what a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is. We can't let government decide that it only applies when it says it does.
I might give you that you were sincere with your definition of a "backdoor". Here, I have a lot of trouble sending any shred of good faith. 1. Even a one-off software requires "design". 2. So you seriously think this will be a one-time-only thing? 3. You could have argued a few technicalities (eg. does Apple qualify as telecommunication provider? does CALEA apply when you're trying to decrypt stored information and not ongoing communications?...), but this objection is just ridiculous.
"The mistake many are going with here is that Apple is being asked for a golden key or to completely and instantly defeat all encryption and passwords. It's just not the case." Isn't it your mistake assuming we do? Particularly here on Techdirt after a number of articles pointing out clearly that Apple is "only" asked to take down the number and delay of retries, I think that's quite a wrong assumption to make.
So calling it a backdoor might not suit your definition of it (no "instant access" here), but it does ours. And it does weaken security all around, even if YOU think that this feature is just "bubble wrap" around the lock. (Must be Titanium-level bubble-wrap though, given how it's so annoying to the FBI.)
You're the only here who doesn't want to call it a backdoor and you're not making your point across. At least you focused on this until TOG asked you very direct questions. (And it was nice of you to reply as straight-forwardly.)
Now if we could drop this nonsense about "backdoor/non-backdoor", we can maybe move on with the actual debate.
I was also ticked off by that note. The success and rewards should not have any incident on such rulings. The law is supposed to apply to all, rich and poor, successful or failure... Then again, that's the theory. In the real world, "some are more equal than others."
I also think the 5-page runs might be the problem here. It could be one of those rules that they decide when to use. You're OK with getting 500 pages of totally meaningless content (a fiction book, the complete collection of a random tabloid...,) but 6 pages of polemic content and you're out.. (EFF flyers, pirate party manifesto, the latest news about Snowden)
Don't you realize that owning a strongly encrypted phone encourages you to kill, steal and rape? Nobody would become a terrorist without encryption. No child would be molested without encryption. Crime and violence never existed before encryption!
I love that kind of mincing of words. Trying to pretend two opposite things at the same time, while downplaying the most important of them.
On the one hand, it's "only" removing a minor, nearly insignificant part of the security. Something "every expert" agree should not even be part of the security.
On the other hand, the FBI is just waiting for this insignificant security feature to get the data... because this negligible feature is completely blocking them out.
That's quite a contradiction. It seems like this unimportant feature is actually quite useful, and a way to bypass it clearly match the definition of a backdoor. The fact that you despise this feature doesn't make it irrelevant.
So there already is a backdoor in iOS, and that is the simple fact that iOS can be updated without approval from a signed user. From there, anything is possible, even if the "anything" has yet to be built. Isn't there a way to prevent those "sneak" updates? That is quite a large breach of security, since all it requires is a single certificate to fool the system into accepting anything.
Re: Regarding the "retroactive" copyright extensions and ex post facto
"Under current copyright law, this remains true regardless of its copyright status anywhere else in the world and regardless of whether it may have been in the public domain in the United States in the past."
... And it did, though not in this particular case. (The diary of Anne Frank had never been in public domain by the time of those extensions.) I don't remember exactly when, but I've read an article detailing some of the works that were in public domain but got copyright re-assigned to them by those extension acts.
So, sorry but you don't even have an argument here, regardless of whether you were serious about it or not.
More like: I look forward to Mr. Woods winning, simply because it would give standing to all the people he similarly insulted to sue him for millions in turn.
Seriously, I can't understand that kind of thin-skinned troll. He has no problem insulting and "making statements of fact" that he expects everyone else to take as hyperbole, but can't tolerate that one guy does the same to him. Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit?
"And they found exactly what they were looking for, so it's not like they had it wrong or something." Wrong argument there. This surviving decision can be open for debate, but Justice is about procedures. If law enforcement doesn't respect the rules, why should anyone else? Simply ask yourself: does the end justify the means? If so, why should there be any rules when trying to catch criminals?
On the post: After Some Dangerous Wavering, Indian Patent Office Gives Definitive 'No' To Software Patents
On the post: Courts, DOJ: Using Tor Doesn't Give You A Greater Expectation Of Privacy
My potential objections
- As I see things here, the problem should not be about the expectation of privacy about the IP address, as much as about the means used to collect it. If the government can use any means and justify it afterwards saying it's about "public information", then there simply is no such thing as "privacy" or fourth amendment on the internet.
- This also conflicts with care about cops who prohibit people from filming them.
A public agent performing public duties in a public place has expectations of privacy.
A private individual on private business in a public space while trying to limit the private information he shares... has none?
That's all kinds of crazy. Someone should really explain everyone what a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is. We can't let government decide that it only applies when it says it does.
On the post: How Existing Wiretapping Laws Could Save Apple From FBI's Broad Demands
Re: Re: Re:
Here, I have a lot of trouble sending any shred of good faith.
1. Even a one-off software requires "design".
2. So you seriously think this will be a one-time-only thing?
3. You could have argued a few technicalities (eg. does Apple qualify as telecommunication provider? does CALEA apply when you're trying to decrypt stored information and not ongoing communications?...), but this objection is just ridiculous.
On the post: How Existing Wiretapping Laws Could Save Apple From FBI's Broad Demands
Re: Re: It's like CALEA was created in a different time...
That is sad, and worrying.
On the post: FBI's Scorched Earth Approach To Apple Means That Tech Companies Now Have Even Less Incentive To Help Feds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn't it your mistake assuming we do? Particularly here on Techdirt after a number of articles pointing out clearly that Apple is "only" asked to take down the number and delay of retries, I think that's quite a wrong assumption to make.
So calling it a backdoor might not suit your definition of it (no "instant access" here), but it does ours. And it does weaken security all around, even if YOU think that this feature is just "bubble wrap" around the lock. (Must be Titanium-level bubble-wrap though, given how it's so annoying to the FBI.)
You're the only here who doesn't want to call it a backdoor and you're not making your point across. At least you focused on this until TOG asked you very direct questions. (And it was nice of you to reply as straight-forwardly.)
Now if we could drop this nonsense about "backdoor/non-backdoor", we can maybe move on with the actual debate.
On the post: FBI's Scorched Earth Approach To Apple Means That Tech Companies Now Have Even Less Incentive To Help Feds
Re: Just take a lesson from FOIA costs...
On the post: Hurt Locker Publicity Rights Lawsuit Brought By War Veteran Tossed Again On 1st Amendment Grounds
Re:
The success and rewards should not have any incident on such rulings. The law is supposed to apply to all, rich and poor, successful or failure...
Then again, that's the theory. In the real world, "some are more equal than others."
On the post: Military Prison Blocks Won't Let Chelsea Manning Read EFF Blog... To Protect EFF's Copyright
Re:
It could be one of those rules that they decide when to use.
You're OK with getting 500 pages of totally meaningless content (a fiction book, the complete collection of a random tabloid...,) but 6 pages of polemic content and you're out.. (EFF flyers, pirate party manifesto, the latest news about Snowden)
On the post: Remember When The FBI & NYPD Told People To Upgrade Their iPhones To Enable Stronger Security?
Re: Re:
Nobody would become a terrorist without encryption.
No child would be molested without encryption.
Crime and violence never existed before encryption!
Oh wait...
On the post: Dissecting And Dismantling The Myths Of The DOJ's Motion To Compel Apple To Build A Backdoor
Re:
Trying to pretend two opposite things at the same time, while downplaying the most important of them.
On the one hand, it's "only" removing a minor, nearly insignificant part of the security. Something "every expert" agree should not even be part of the security.
On the other hand, the FBI is just waiting for this insignificant security feature to get the data... because this negligible feature is completely blocking them out.
That's quite a contradiction. It seems like this unimportant feature is actually quite useful, and a way to bypass it clearly match the definition of a backdoor. The fact that you despise this feature doesn't make it irrelevant.
On the post: Lawmakers Speak Out On Apple Being Forced To Create Backdoors; Some Wisely, Some Ignorantly
Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, The Backdoor That The FBI Is Requesting Can Work On Modern iPhones Too
indirect backdoor
Isn't there a way to prevent those "sneak" updates? That is quite a large breach of security, since all it requires is a single certificate to fool the system into accepting anything.
On the post: Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Todays Lesson
On the post: Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
Re: Re: Re: 99.9% accuracy... .01% of the time
On the post: Wikimedia Takes Down Diary Of Anne Frank, Uses It To Highlight Idiocy Of DMCA Rules, Copyright Terms
Re: Regarding the "retroactive" copyright extensions and ex post facto
... And it did, though not in this particular case. (The diary of Anne Frank had never been in public domain by the time of those extensions.)
I don't remember exactly when, but I've read an article detailing some of the works that were in public domain but got copyright re-assigned to them by those extension acts.
So, sorry but you don't even have an argument here, regardless of whether you were serious about it or not.
On the post: How The Dark Net Is Making Drug Purchases Safer By Eliminating Associated Violence And Improving Quality
Re: Just treat it like booze during prohibition, because that worked great
The War on Drugs is one of the most common excuse for seizing cash without any conviction and trial.
On the post: Judge Changes Mind, Says James Woods Can Likely Unmask Guy Who Made Fun Of Him On Twitter
Re:
Seriously, I can't understand that kind of thin-skinned troll. He has no problem insulting and "making statements of fact" that he expects everyone else to take as hyperbole, but can't tolerate that one guy does the same to him. Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit?
On the post: Court Says 10 Weeks Of Warrantless Surveillance Is Perfectly Constitutional
Re: Where's my flying car?
On the post: Court Says 10 Weeks Of Warrantless Surveillance Is Perfectly Constitutional
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Says 10 Weeks Of Warrantless Surveillance Is Perfectly Constitutional
Re:
Wrong argument there.
This surviving decision can be open for debate, but Justice is about procedures. If law enforcement doesn't respect the rules, why should anyone else?
Simply ask yourself: does the end justify the means? If so, why should there be any rules when trying to catch criminals?
Next >>