Bill Gates is wrong

[Batu69]

I see something disingenuous about Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates supporting the government's demands that Apple selectively unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif. shooters. The former CEO turned philanthropist spoke to the Financial times in an interview posted today. The implications for Microsoft cannot be overstated, and the company's current chief executive should state corporate policy.

 

Gates' position aligns with the government's: That this case is specific, and isolated, and that the demand would merely provide "access to information". Here's the thing: The interviewer asks Gates if he supports tech companies providing backdoors to their smartphones. The technologist deflects: "Nobody's talking about a backdoor". Media consultants teach publicly-facing officials to offer non-answers exactly like this one. The answer defines the narrative, not the interviewer's question.

 

Foot in Mouth

 

Except this: Gates suffers interviewee foot-in-mouth disease in the worst way, as his response, or lack of it, puts him on the government's side. He later tries to backpedal in an interview with Bloomberg, stating he is "disappointed" with the FT report and "that doesn’t state my view on this". Thing is: Financial Times posts a video of the interview that clearly gives context. The philanthropist's selective, deflective answer to the backdoor question is unambiguous.

 

In  followup question during the FT interview, Gates states—and I'd argue without the technical trade secret expertise about iOS and iCloud encryption—that "Apple has access to the information. They're just refusing to provide the access". He likens the government demands to a bank :tying a ribbon around a disk drive. "Don't make me cut this ribbon, `cause you'll make me cut it many times".

 

But that response diminishes the encryption technology, which is a helluva lot more like a fortress than a "ribbon" tied around a disk drive.

 

FBIOS

 

Quick recap: Law enforcement classifies the Dec. 2, 2015 San Bernardino shooting as an act of terrorism. The  county health department owned the iPhone 5c and granted access to it. But a four-digit numerical passcode was needed, and in the hours following the attack an official reset the associated iCloud account, eliminating that as means of getting to the "information".

 

The Feds want Apple to create custom software, which I've seen on the InterWebs sarcastically called FBIOS, to turn off the security measure that wipes data after 10 failed password attempts and to enable a means for automating a "brute force" attack to uncover the correct combination. Apple contends that complying would undermine security, create a backdoor for accessing any iPhone, and would undermine customer trust. The DOJ disagrees.

 

In a legal filing, the agency asserts that the so-called FBIOS wouldn't need to come into "government custody...Just as with Apple's already-existing operating systems and software, no one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it".

 

Possession doesn't change this: Encryption must be bypassed.

"Complying with this particular FBI request would set a damaging precedent", Stephen Cobb, senior security researcher for ESET, says. "If Apple were to comply with this court order, the ramifications for U.S. companies and consumers would be significant, from undermining international commerce to eroding trust in the technology on which so much of daily life and business in North America depends".

 

Who Benefits?

 

In news reporting, my first question always is this: Who benefits? When Gates was Microsoft CEO, I listened to him testify in open court claiming that the company could not remove Internet Explorer from Windows; that such action would break the operating system. The company took a firm position during antitrust cases on two continents that the government shouldn't dictate how software is developed. That is the core issue here with respect to Apple unlocking the iPhone 5c.

 

But now Gates is a philanthropist, who travels the globe, and many of his operations require government cooperation. Taking a position against the FBI and U.S. Justice Department could undermine his efforts here and abroad. Perception matters as much in philanthropy as business.

 

I wonder if his answers would be dramatically different and more aligned with past positions if answering for Microsoft. As a journalist covering the tech sector for more than 20 years, and Microsoft for much of that time, I see this: Gates' response to the first interview is appallingly contradictory and his backpedaling in the second bewilderingly undermines his authority as successful entrepreneur and philanthropist.

 

But matters are worse. During the Windows NT 4 release cycle two decades ago, rumors started circulating that Microsoft had created a backdoor for the NSA. The accusations resurfaced for Windows 2000 and XP. By failing to directly answer FT interviewer Stephen Foley's direct question about allowing government backdoors and by taking a neutral to pro-FBI position with respect to Apple's refusal, Gates appears to support selective government access by way of a backdoor. What he thinks is immaterial to the perception he creates as former Microsoft CEO during the time period in question about the alleged NSA backdoor.

 

From a Microsoft public relations perspective, Gates' answers in booth interviews are a catastrophic occurrence that demands current chief executive Satya Nadella's official response. There needs to be clear policy about government backdoors and the position with respect to the San Bernardino shooting iPhone. If Microsoft corporate policy aligns with Gates' statements, say so. If not, state the position for the benefit of the large IT organizations that are the company's core customer base.

 

If not, rumors run wild will set the narrative, causing potential harm to Microsoft's brand.

 

Article source

[vibranium]

Don't we already know what's really happening?

[steven36]

Most people in the USA  are like Bill Gates they want him to give the back door to the FBI.  More people who dont live in the USA act like it matters but really what they think dont matter at all. Tim Cook will be lucky to win this case if he does it will shock me .

Quote

Tracy Mitrano explores the intersection where higher education, the Internet and the world meet (and sometimes collide).

Understanding Tim Cook

From what I can gather about Tim Cook’s background, he and I have some things in common. He grew up in the conservative South; I grew up in the liberal North, but in a conservative subculture of Irish/Italian Catholic community. He is 55, I am 57. He is gay; if I must use a term along those descriptive lines, I would call myself bisexual. In previous blogs, I talked about this aspect of my life, and even shared the insight that growing up in the kind of environment I did in the sixties and seventies probably has contributed to a deep and abiding interest in privacy. My guess, my intuition, is his background informs his view on privacy. 

 

I am willing to venture this guess because his blogged response to the All Writ’s Act struck me as deeply personal. Commentators and even the court that issued the writ are making much of Apple’s reputation and public relations posture. I don’t doubt those aspects might also be true, or that Mr. Cook has blended his personal identity with that of the Apple Corporation. But I would like so suggest another angel to this discussion if only to help us, as a country, sort this important legal matter out.

 

Were I adviser to Mr. Cook, and asked to zealously represent Apple’s defense to the Writ, the last thing I would have encouraged him to do would be to post that blog. The Writ is a legal matter. There are precedents from which to distinguish this case and facts which can be brought to bear under the undue burden exception. Albeit true that hard cases make bad law, to the degree that it begs a public policy response I would have suggested the tact of a New York court in a similar case that has called upon Congress to amend the Communications Assistance Law Enforcement Act. Not even in a legal document would I make the case that privacy is absolute.

 

To be sure, there is no absolute principle in the law, notwithstanding what some political extremists might want to establish, including the most sacrosanct of all constitutional amendments regarding free speech.  At least that one has language to the effect: “Congress shall pass no law…” As everyone knows, the word “privacy” can be found no where in the Constitution proper. Apart from some torts that still struggle for a solid hold in civil law, privacy as a constitutional matters makes its appearance in the middle of the last century as a “penumbra” of constitutional amendments cobbled together in the dicta – not the decision – of 1965 case regarding family planning.  Without going down a big rabbit hole about Griswold and its progeny, I will simply state that were I advising Mr. Cook, with this loose confederation of constitutional law for support, I should not have thought it advisable to stir up this hornet’s nest. 

 

Thus, what I suspect is eminently a personal matter deeply felt for Mr. Cook, has now become entangled with public relations and reputation of the most capitalized company in the world. This would be the same company that has managed to exempt itself from millions and millions of dollars in U.S. corporate taxes. And for its own business purposes, it has contributed mightily to the gross national product of any number of Asian countries, the People’s Republic of China most, rather than pay higher wages and keep the production of its myriad products within the United States. (Disclosure: I own and/or have owned Apple products almost exclusively, and am proud to say that my older son once worked there.) I bring up these extraneous matters because as Mr. Cook’s imaginary advisor I would be concerned that with his blog he has opened the door to many serious and legitimate concerns that the public might have about Apple and how it conducts its business. 

 

And we have not even gotten to the issue of terrorism yet. If no other appeal to restraint would have yet moved him as I made my arguments not to post, I would have lowered my voice and asked, “Have you no compassion, Mr. Cook?” Not just “people” on “U.S. soil,” this terrorist gunned down his own friends and coworkers for a cause that did not even know that he and his wife existed. Let’s play with the timetable for a moment. Suppose there was evidence in advance of the attack and law enforcement approached Apple with this one, last request: the owner of the phone has consented, and all we need you to do is disable the passcode encryption key destruct in order to find out “who,” “when,” “where,” or “why” to stop it. How many people’s lives would have to hang in the balance before the very obvious decision would be for Apple to produce the code to unlock the evidence that might prevent the attack? The answer should be not even one. Of course Apple should do it. 

 

And Apple should comply with this Writ. I will not brandish my privacy bona fides.Tying this Writ to the entire “back door” issue is hyperbole. All, as I understand it, Apple has to do is rewrite the IOS code to disable the encryption key destruct code for 10 failed passcode attempts for this one iPhone.  The Court is not requiring that Apple turn over the code to the government.  It is not requiring Apple to keep the code on hand for a future request. Apple can, and should, destroy the code once this one phone is unlocked. What is the sense of that? That is what the law means when it uses the term “tailored,” which is precisely the nature of this particular writ. And from what I understand from precedent, to do just that does not meet the standard for an undue burden, so that exception does not apply in this context. 

I may be entirely wrong about what motivates Mr. Cook, and if so then I will accept the criticism that I have “projected” my own experience onto what inspired his otherwise moving blog post. But I have not displaced it. I separate my own motivations to embrace privacy from this moment. Mr. Cook, as your fantasy advisor, I suggest you rethink your decision to appeal emotionally to privacy advocates or your customers or user base and honor the court’s Writ. Without safety, we would have no need for privacy, our lives would be too reduced to contemplate it. 

 

And without justice there is no right to privacy.

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/law-policy-and-it/understanding-tim-cook

 

 

[pc71520]

Bill Gates is wrong

I would worry for the other way round...

[rasbridge]

I support the position that a person's RIGHT TO PRIVACY is personal, meaning it ENDED when the person DIED.

[steven36]

1 hour ago, rasbridge said:

I support the position that a person's RIGHT TO PRIVACY is personal, meaning it ENDED when the person DIED.

Yes but were its happening is not the EU were they have the right to forgiven  blah , blah , blah or do the constitution have the word privacy in it . I dont trust big moneys motives at all and i always dont trust the FBI's motives ether  so i will not take sides even though i value  my privacy very much. I know how things are in the USA  once you get something started  like this and you dont follow there laws its going haunt you the rest of you're life .  Seems MR.Cook is just trying to get publicly  if he wanted to make a real statement  he would move his business outside the USA . Most these business dont pay hardly no taxes no way there a bunch of crooks who store there profits offshore anyways i would be glad to see them leave.

 

Even in our own homes were only allowed privacy as long we follow the law..  if  they suspect we dont law enforcement  will be at our homes and if they have a case against you regardless if you done it or not you may be in a cell full of people and not get privacy for a very long time .  Last i checked  what you do on you're phone or pc on the internet is public domain  and in pubic you have no have no privacy at all . The only way to achieve real privacy is dont come online  because its very public  and try not to break the law.

 

But its none of Apple's ,  Google  or M$ etc . business what i do really i didn't break no laws or are they law enforcement anyways  and  when i close my web browser there software should  not call home . When i want to be in public i open my web browser . That's  like someone coming in my home and breaking in and stealing my stuff without me knowing it. Since I do know what there up too  .. i dont use there services i have to sign in too and block there call homes in a FW  , Cookies , Trackers ADs ,  etc.

[flash48]

Bill Gates is trying to knock down Apple.  After all his company does compete with Apple.

[steven36]

12 minutes ago, flash48 said:

Bill Gates is trying to knock down Apple.  After all his company does compete with Apple.

Bill Gates is only part owner of M$ he sold a lot his stock off in 2015 Steve Ballmer owns more of it now than Gates. Microsoft could go out of businesses and Bill Gates would be just fine hes the richest man alive .