So this whole FBI/Apple thing
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
Another thought: If Apple cave in, what happens in six months time when China demand the tools to decrypt the iPhone from a captured CIA agent? :~ Troy Hunt's blog post on the topic is a good read: Troy Hunt: Everything you need to know about the Apple versus FBI case[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
That isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty. And consider that "even" Apple has to comply with the US-laws and cooperate with law enforcement. The question is, where are the borders between law and privacy. Do you what the salaries at Apple are?
Press F1 for help or google it. Greetings from Germany
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
Vark111 wrote:
What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple...
I'm sure such a thing happens elsewhere, where the company and the employee(s) are going in opposite directions. The voids eventually get filled.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
Vark111 wrote:
Where does it leave the government?
At the mercy of John McAfee of course[^] :rolleyes: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this. The NSA has in it's employ some serious brainiacs that could likely perform the requested tasks totally under the radar.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
Well - the court can order Apple to try - but they can't force them to succeed. But reality is that apple (MS, and the others that chimed in on their side) are full of cr@p. Apple's milking this for the free publicity and feigning they care about the user's privacy. They've been violating that to a massive degree. MS: invading Windows 10 systems at will - installing whatever they wish. It's a major crock to get that free publicity they've been getting. Much like Donald Trump's outrageous remarks and all the free airtime that gets him. Maybe he's apple's inspiration?!! Apple knows full well that they're showing 'proof of concept' will not change the fact that cracking the phones has been an ongoing project since the day of its inception. And wasn't that 10-try deal put in to make stealing their phones pointless? Whist I's at it, government 'officials' throughout the world are joining the ban-encryption bandwagon. What a hopelessly ignorant bunch of morons (on a good day). I'm about to leave KSS status, so I'll quit.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Vark111 wrote:
Where does it leave the government?
At the mercy of John McAfee of course[^] :rolleyes: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this. The NSA has in it's employ some serious brainiacs that could likely perform the requested tasks totally under the radar.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
You do realize that the best way to take advantage of hacking your way into something starts with not telling anyone you can do it?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Vark111 wrote:
Where does it leave the government?
At the mercy of John McAfee of course[^] :rolleyes: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this. The NSA has in it's employ some serious brainiacs that could likely perform the requested tasks totally under the radar.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
It's quite likely that they don't need Apple, but they want it to go to trial anyway so they can set a legal precedent.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
It's quite likely that they don't need Apple, but they want it to go to trial anyway so they can set a legal precedent.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Exactly - and its a precedent that will reach to nearly all countries. Which in turn is exactly why everyone who gives a damn about personal privacy should side with Apple in this case. If not Apple today it will be Google or Microsoft tomorrow.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
-
Another thought: If Apple cave in, what happens in six months time when China demand the tools to decrypt the iPhone from a captured CIA agent? :~ Troy Hunt's blog post on the topic is a good read: Troy Hunt: Everything you need to know about the Apple versus FBI case[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
from the blog: "[...]What’s intriguing about this approach is that when it works well, encryption is transparent. This is not a feature like you’d see showcased in an Apple product launch[...]" today, security and encryption are some of the main selling points of internet devices; no one care about CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD ... or even the OS as most apps are available on every OS and platforms. It is not just an Apple vs. FBI issue; it will happen for every device and OS manufacturer out there.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
Won't happen. There are some pretty damn good coders writing keyloggers, trojans, popups, blah de blah... All this effort, all this skill, for this? | CommitStrip[^] There are always people who don't care what it's used for - regardless of the industry or profession.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Exactly - and its a precedent that will reach to nearly all countries. Which in turn is exactly why everyone who gives a damn about personal privacy should side with Apple in this case. If not Apple today it will be Google or Microsoft tomorrow.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If not Apple today it will be Google or Microsoft tomorrow.
Ah yes! Bastions of personal privacy . . . . . . except all information they gather from you to sell to the highest bidders (and the not so high bidders).* * For example, you do know gmail's terms of service, right?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If not Apple today it will be Google or Microsoft tomorrow.
Ah yes! Bastions of personal privacy . . . . . . except all information they gather from you to sell to the highest bidders (and the not so high bidders).* * For example, you do know gmail's terms of service, right?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
True - which makes it all the sadder that I still trust all 3 of them (to do the right thing) more than I trust my government these days. :|
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
-
Vark111 wrote:
Where does it leave the government?
At the mercy of John McAfee of course[^] :rolleyes: One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this. The NSA has in it's employ some serious brainiacs that could likely perform the requested tasks totally under the radar.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
In order to prosecute a case in court, you have to have gotten your information/intel "legally". Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
One of the ridiculous parts of this whole charade is why the US government seems to think they need Apple for this.
In order to prosecute a case in court, you have to have gotten your information/intel "legally". Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
Slacker007 wrote:
Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
That's not true at all. Apple doesn't own the phone, nor did the terrorist. It was owned by his employer (a local government agency) and they've given the FBI the OK. The only legal argument I can imagine (other than the obvious point that the FBI wants to set a precedent for the 100's of thousands of new cases where they'll want access) is that a jury may feel that an "official" Apple hack is less likely to corrupt data. Imagine the police finding a safe in a criminal's house. They don't need to demand a master key from the manufacturer. They hire a damn locksmith. Same principle here.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
-
That isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty. And consider that "even" Apple has to comply with the US-laws and cooperate with law enforcement. The question is, where are the borders between law and privacy. Do you what the salaries at Apple are?
Press F1 for help or google it. Greetings from Germany
KarstenK wrote:
isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty
[my emphasis] What is the consequence of your statement? Say you work with pacemakers to save peoples lives. Then you are ordered, by company boss Ronnald Trump, brother of President Donnald Trump, and to hack the pacemaker of the North Korean ruler to kill him. You are happy to do it. It's not even nasty. It's kinda cool. Then they order you to provide a mod to hack any pacemaker. They don't say but, they might wanna use it on some other bad dictator [cool!], or drug-lord, or bank robber, or lefty journalist, or Hillary, or John Doe or your dad, or... you. Is it still "irresponsible" to leave? Or are there different kinds of nasty? Some where it is responsible to leave. Who defines the degree of nasty where to draw the line. Is it Karsten K? Or is it possible that some truly objective concept of "responsible" is not relevant?
Life is too shor
-
I know it's been discussed to death in other threads, but I have a different angle that just came to mind and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has seen/heard a similar thing happening anywhere (albeit likely at a much smaller scale). For the sake of argument, let's pretend the courtroom dust has settled, and the end result is in: Apple is compelled to create a new tool/OS for the FBI to use for its hacking pleasure. So here's where my question comes in. What if every developer in Apple's employ decides they'd rather quit than work on that project? What if they publicly announce a sort of conscientious objector or something? Where does that leave Apple (other than programmer-less)? Where does it leave the government? The ruling is against Apple, not any single developer, and you can't exactly threaten someone with jail for quitting their job, right? Any thoughts?
It's a nice thought however when you get this sort of dynamic, where a group of people stand up and oppose something - invariably you will find that the execs will identify the people they want to keep and make them lucrative offers to keep them. What then happens is that the people who were kept, through being lured back by money, are soon replaced with new people who are much less likely to question the authority of the execs. A lot of people have a price for which they would be willing to concede some of their freedom/integrity. The only question to ask is as an individual, when you decide to make a stand on a point of principle, how much would someone have to pay you in order for you to stand down?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
That isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty. And consider that "even" Apple has to comply with the US-laws and cooperate with law enforcement. The question is, where are the borders between law and privacy. Do you what the salaries at Apple are?
Press F1 for help or google it. Greetings from Germany
KarstenK wrote:
That isnt responsible software development running away if it gets nasty.
It's not a matter of nasty, it's a matter of personal ethics. If I was an Apple developer (disclosure: I'm not), and I was asked to write this tool/feature, I'd pack my things right in front of the manager requesting it and walk out. Heck, if my current employer asked me to write something that I felt did not fit with my personal ethics I'd walk out. I wouldn't even try to negotiate something like "Hey can you give it to someone else, I'm not comfortable... blah, blah, blah", I wouldn't even want to work for a company that produced such software to begin with. So I'd leave. Now, having said all that, I do realize that not all devs will have the same personal ethical stance on this subject as I do. Perhaps there are folks who work at Apple who feel it would be unethical to not help the FBI. If they feel that way, then cool. Stay and write the thing. If not (and they feel strongly enough about it), then leave. It's not like an Apple developer is going to have a hard time finding work. I was more interested in what would happen in the specific case where the devs all decide to walk. Almost in an non-unionized strike if you will.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
That's not true at all. Apple doesn't own the phone, nor did the terrorist. It was owned by his employer (a local government agency) and they've given the FBI the OK. The only legal argument I can imagine (other than the obvious point that the FBI wants to set a precedent for the 100's of thousands of new cases where they'll want access) is that a jury may feel that an "official" Apple hack is less likely to corrupt data. Imagine the police finding a safe in a criminal's house. They don't need to demand a master key from the manufacturer. They hire a damn locksmith. Same principle here.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
If you say so.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Any hack they do without Apple's approval, is illegal and not admissible in court.
That's not true at all. Apple doesn't own the phone, nor did the terrorist. It was owned by his employer (a local government agency) and they've given the FBI the OK. The only legal argument I can imagine (other than the obvious point that the FBI wants to set a precedent for the 100's of thousands of new cases where they'll want access) is that a jury may feel that an "official" Apple hack is less likely to corrupt data. Imagine the police finding a safe in a criminal's house. They don't need to demand a master key from the manufacturer. They hire a damn locksmith. Same principle here.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
I'm sure Apple could pull some obscure line out of their cavernous terms of service to exert ownership just like John Deere and GMC tried.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
