No such thing will happen. The public will forget this ever happened, and politicians will do nothing to prevent the government from doing this again.
He thought encryption was something we could easily ban, and he's a civil engineer. I walked him through it mathematically, then gave examples until he understood, but not everyone has a technical background.
We are losing because we aren't presenting an alternative public narrative.
We must educate the public on the necessity of strong encryption to the modern economy, and the danger of backdoors. Even getting them to imagine how the Soviets would have used this technology is usually enough to get the greatest generation and the boomers to at least think.
We won against the Clipper chip, munitions classifications, export grade encryption, 96-bit maximum key sizes, and SOPA.
We can win here.
This is something that I find is hard to explain to nontechnical people because it isn't intuitive of our understanding of the real world.
E.g. "If a bank can keep my money from being stolen, then surely you can keep this backdoor from being stolen, so stop complaining and just do it already!" -- As Trump would probably say when ordering it done, echoing the sentiments of many.
NYC: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/03/12/new-york-1620 TSA: http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/11/tsa-master-baggage-keys-3...
I'll fight this as long as it's under discussion. Talk to your friends and family, contact your representatives and let them know you care.
If we as technologists, the only ones who understand the tech side of things, are silent, then yes this defeatist attitude will win.
We need not be silent.
Unless you have a lot of money, your representatives don't care.
It seems like the only way to make progress is to support stronger encryption, with less of a possibility of engineering backdoors.
> Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2]
...
> Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2]
The point is, if they are voted out they lose their jobs and income, therefore they must listen to voters. I'm not saying I support super PACs or anything, but I find it comforting to know that if we come together on something then we do have a role in the democratic process that is stronger than money.
[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...
[2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...
Or make your own campaign. The more, the merrier.
There is also the EFF, and an organization called Fight for the Future which is currently running a campaign called Save Security. I'm in touch with both about working together. Tech companies will also lobby for stuff themselves. I'm not sure whether the likes of Facebook, Google and Apple are coordinating on this issue yet or not.
My thought is to do this campaign at zero cost and on donated developer time. I don't plan to register as a 501(c)3 or take donations. I'm hoping Obama changes his mind and there is no need for a campaign. But, if that doesn't happen, I hope we can present the facts to non-techies and share some reasonable arguments techies can use when talking with friends or family, or when contacting representatives. I've read a lot of good arguments online. I think it's just a matter of putting them in one referable location, and making them relatable to non-techies.
All of the companies I've mentioned have filed or joined in an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Apple [7]. If money mattered more than voters, then congress would have already passed a bill to satisfy the wishes of America's most financially successful company.
Why haven't they? Because money can only buy advertising and campaign staff. It can't buy votes and votes are what keep them in office.
[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand
[2] https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand
[3] https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand
[4] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand
[5] https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...
[7] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/03/03Amicus-Briefs-in-S...
Unless the voting public starts valuing their privacy more, the government can simply legislate around stronger crypto.
They can mandate key escrow, ban encryption altogether, or be old fashioned about it and send letters demanding you hand over the private key. Don't like it? Go to jail.
The window of opportunity is short, and closing every day.
I remember being told that I was paranoid when I had concerns about CALEA. I was worried that it would be used for purposes other than warrant-backed monitoring of actual criminals and criminal suspects.
Here we are, 20 years later and even though there's no evidence that things are quite as bad as I feared, it's certainly much more invasive than we were told it would be.
Even the most controversial and contentious of issues are quickly forgotten or mis-remembered by the public.
This IS the last stand on this front. If Apple loses, we all lose.
Further complicating things is the fact that this is a complex topic and most people (including almost all lawmakers and law enforcement agencies) are too ignorant to understand the important nuances, and they have no interest in changing that because, frankly, encryption is hard.
Lindsey Graham came around. Sam Harris changed his point of view after a fairly combative initial stance against technologists.
We will never know if we can inform the public unless we try. There are some good analogies out there supporting encryption. Use them. I recommend the one from Sam Harris' third video on the subject. There is also the whack-a-mole argument.
Honestly, the biggest thing standing in the way of the public being informed is not the unwillingness of the public to listen. It's the technologists' unwillingness to try to educate them.
I understand your trepidation. In life, we scientists are often ignored. But sometimes we are right and I do feel if we push hard here we can figure out ways to reach people.
What is the outcome of this major revelation? Much of the public thinks no different than before in regards to government spying or encryption, and security practices are not fundamentally different even after years of media advertising what happened. Many people don't even know the significance of Snowden.
We should definitely push harder for the correct stance on encryption but I cant help and think your hope is a bit pollyannish.
How many interviews did Tim Cook give again? How many news outlets brayed this at the top of their lungs? https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+apple+fbi&ie=...
In this case we're talking about the FBI wanting access for regular police cases. That touches way closer to reality for many.
See, it's words like pollyannish that we shouldn't be using when engaging the public. Only kidding. But I did need to look that one up. Thanks for making me think about it. I'd say it describes me well.
If you think that is a worthless way to look at the world, then that is my problem right? What skin is it off your back?
Regardless of whether you see good in other people or not, the fact is people can and do learn about things and change their points of view. You can't point to an uninformed mass and say they are incapable of learning. En masse, yeah I agree, we can't flip a switch, but that's the way it should be. People have their own brains and should use them. We just need to present the facts about encryption in a manner that is clear for non-techies. I think there are a lot of ways to do that. If you aren't up for it, that is your decision and I support you in that.
Basically, he did a complete 180.
You should listen to both his first [1] and third [2] podcast on the subject. In the first one he really lambasted supporters of encryption, and in the third he changed his view completely.
He quotes a good analogy here [3] and concludes his thoughts with a final opinion here [4]
I don't fault him for his first podcast. He came up with a reasonable point of view given the facts he understood. And when presented with new information, he changed his mind.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQAmlVFjJ9k
[2] https://youtu.be/9HK4IBscfMQ
Edit
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp6IhjK75oE
People are already aware. It's being covered in all forms of media, across all demographics. Awareness and understanding are wildly different concepts. People are aware, they just don't understand. The public can't be properly educated in the matter, because it's so nebulous and complex that it requires dedication to understand it. That goes for most of the issues we face as a society.
Think about this: Do you think the President, or any of the candidates, know much of anything about technology? Do you think they understand the intricacies of encryption? Would they even be able to name standard cypher suites? No, because that's not part of their education or job function. They rely on the few, their advisors, just like they do with most major issues.
I've seen your comments on this story, more power to you for wanting to start a grassroots education movement. I've also seen you muddy the waters with making comments about anti-encryption laws; this is an extremist fabrication on your part and not part of the actual current issues. As I've said elsewhere, directly in response to you, the outcome may be similar but the approach is completely different. If you manipulate outrage to reach your desired goal, you're just as bad as they are. You could've taken the time to read my other comments about this before declaring me defeatist, but instead you jumped to conclusions based on a small sampling; is this what your education is about?
How far down the advisor and lackey chain do you need to go before you get to someone who does understand the intricacies of encryption? Can name the standard cipher suites? Because I bet none of the advisers to the candidates or POTUS know those things either. This is not any of their jobs either.
Complete government reform and transparency are what is needed to correct most of the huge problems our world faces. Who has the ear of the king, can they be trusted, are they qualified, who has their ear, etc.
[editing what I wrote, I missed something you said]
I believe our best hope is to start informing the public about encryption so that when more laws about encryption start appearing, then they are knowledgeable enough to let their representatives know how they feel about it. The idea is to inform enough so that the government is unable to spread FUD and an alarmist view that we will be safer when US phones have back doors. Because we won't. Other encryption tools exist that are not governable by the US.
[end edit]
> Think about this: Do you think the President, or any of the candidates, know much of anything about technology?
No. I've been thinking this for 8 years since patent trolls started becoming a nuisance. I'm happy to see we now have a couple of computer science graduates as representatives, including Ted Lieu who has been pretty vocal on this DOJ vs. Apple case.
> because that's not part of their education or job function
Hmm. They're supposed to have advisors or lobbyists for this. My argument is, in part, tech is missing a sufficient amount of those in the White House and DC. There can and should be more.
> I've seen your comments on this story, more power to you for wanting to start a grassroots education movement. I've also seen you muddy the waters with making comments about anti-encryption laws; this is an extremist fabrication on your part and not part of the actual current issues. As I've said elsewhere, directly in response to you, the outcome may be similar but the approach is completely different. If you manipulate outrage to reach your desired goal, you're just as bad as they are. You could've taken the time to read my other comments about this before declaring me defeatist, but instead you jumped to conclusions based on a small sampling; is this what your education is about?
Sorry hold up a moment here. Since when is providing facts muddying the waters? In most of my comments I'm citing sources directly. I also welcome debate. There literally are laws on the table at the state level in NY and CA that would require phone manufacturers to only sell phones that are decryptable when they are sold. Is it muddying the waters to call these anti-encryption bills? What would you call them?
I certainly wouldn't call what I wrote extremist.
I'm sorry if you're offended by what I wrote. I have no control over that. You are the one claiming the populace can't be educated. I have difficulty seeing how a person who clearly benefited from some form of education growing up can stand by this particular viewpoint. However, I do respect your opinion, and I apologize if I missed some of your remarks and mischaracterized your position. HN doesn't have any notification system for comments, so I probably miss some. I can't be expected to read every comment from one user before I respond to one of their comments can I? Please feel free to email me if you would like to discuss it further, or I can talk on the phone.
I'm not trying to manipulate anybody. I'm saying, let's put facts on the table and let people decide for themselves. If some people choose to ignore the facts, that's fine. If some technologists don't want to participate in sharing the facts, that's fine. But what's wrong with encouraging technologists to try? Again I welcome criticism of any of the words I write. If I'm being biased in some way I want to know about it, because if I appear biased here on HN then it will be more obvious to the layperson.
The narrative you've put forth is: "They're trying to remove encryption entirely so we aren't safe." when in reality it's "They're trying to backdoor our encryption, which makes us feel safe even though we aren't". The former conveys an obvious threat, while the latter conveys a much deeper and nebulous threat. I have to explain this concept to you, and we're both invested in the industry and the technologies involved; Do you think grandma is going to be aware of it, understand it, and take meaningful action? Considering the long and continuing overreach of TSA/DHS/FBI/NSA, the odds are slim. That sucks, but it's a reality. Your narrative wasn't an intentional manipulation, but an accident due to inaccuracies and misrepresentations; all too often the people on the other side do it intentionally.
I agree there can and should be more educated people responsible for legislation in the government, but that's part of a larger problem; The need for complete reform and transparency. The system in its entirety is broken and ineffectual and that's not likely to change any time soon. While we vote for a candidate, we elect a cabinet we usually don't even know about until the election is over. Think about that for a second. Now add in the fact that modern law enforcement will break rules first before being eventually regulated. The FBI and NSA have learned to follow the curve we've been using for years: Technology and innovation outpace regulation. This is just one tiny aspect of the overall complexity of this one single problem.
I would say it's not that technologists don't want to participate, it's that we have learned to direct our focus and energy to where it has the most impact; or realize that we don't have control to exert and choose to support those that do.
You, sir, keep being awesome and do what you feel is right. Just make sure you don't oversimplify massive problems for the sake of spreading awareness. That leads to people starting fights with misinformation; drugs are bad, muslims are terrorists, poor people are lazy, etc, etc.
Note that this is still an analogy. For better or for worse, analogies are used often in education. They're not the whole picture but they are a tool or gateway to other knowledge, if you will.
Anyway thanks again and I look forward to more critical feedback from you should we get a site off the ground. I can't say I'll necessarily agree but I will try to read and consider what you write.
Apple's revenue is $658 million per day (2015), not sure if they care too much about "hundreds of thousands".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/09/15...
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao Zedong
People at Apple just refusing to assist the government is, in a way, the government's worst nightmare: it shows just how little power they actually have.
Some weak forms of political power grow out of the barrel of a gun. True power grows from the consent and support of the governed. Withdraw that consent, and the gun is shown to be a pitifully ineffective tool of government. Maybe this is a historical lesson we need to re-learn.
"You don't really own anything that you couldn't carry at a dead sprint while firing an AK-47 over your shoulder."
Presumably it is not a random number, but is calculated based on factors like the company's revenue. A $250k fine would kill most small businesses. Google/Apple could pay it indefinitely without breaking a sweat. So it makes sense to me that the fine has a very wide range depending on the situation.
> Can the government just declare the moon to be their property tomorrow?
No. The United Nations Outer Space Treaty prevents nations from claiming the moon as territory (although the US could withdraw from this treaty, wait one year, and then claim the moon).
> How would they enforce the delivery of these funds?
The same way they enforce collection of taxes. Bank accounts can be frozen, property can be seized, perhaps corporate leaders could be arrested for brazenly ignoring an order to pay.
Will people please stop quoting revenue figures for things like this.
I'm sure Apple has a legal army gaming out each one of these scenarios.
No, it doesn't work that way (see the post from dolske 7 hours ago):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11310214
Under these rules in only a few months all the money would be gone.
If a judge orders an injunction against these citizens and they don't comply, he won't fine them, he will jail them, which is an incredible hardship, esp. against people not used to the prison industrial complex and its dehumanizing effects.
Perhaps sitting in jail for weeks or months will endure these guys to the IT masses as martyrs-to-the-cause, but I would fully expect them to cave after a little while.
If you can show these people would know how to do it, then it must be common enough knowledge that the courts could find someone else.
If it is highly specialized knowledge that only these people might even know, then you can't prove that they do know how to do it.
Either way, you can't justify forcing them to do it. And it is if we are even fine with slavery to begin with, which I'm not.
[1] I mean this in the sense of to deal with or correct a problem, and also to influence the result by improper or illegal methods
Creating code is not like being compelled to testify. Is the DoJ going to have a prosecutor ask them "Now what would be the next line of code?" until they get a working tool?
The coders have an excellent case against them being jailed. The government has already stated their fallback position - that they want Apple's source code and signing keys. Apple will probably at that point secure their signing keys and code, perhaps by moving them offshore.
It will be interesting to see if some defense contractor can make head or tail of Apple's code, build system, etc. That could be a comedy I'd pay to watch.
How does that work if say someone resigned some months before the events of the terrorist attack from Apple? And they still refuse to work for Apple? There's no legal obligation for me to work for Apple or anybody in the US Constitution. All I got to do is pay taxes where applicable. Taxes don't include writing software for a random agency.
We need to fix here because we actually have a shot of fixing it here.
The expense may actually prove valuable as their willingness to "pay the cost of defiance" might make them seem more appealing to customers and increase the value of their products.
It doesn't work that way:
"dolske 7 hours ago: The feds threatened Yahoo with a fine of $250,000/day, _doubling every week_. It doesn't take long for that to become astronomical."
In just 26 weeks it's 16 trillions per day if I calculated right.
Please cite me an example of somebody who hasn't broke the law being forced to work against their will for months to do something as an employee.
I'm pretty sure Tim Cook and his lawyer mean it when they say they will comply with the law. Apple engineers need not worry so much about quitting their jobs over this. If I were there I would stick with Tim Cook. Consider,
If Apple loses this case, this becomes a gigantic public debate where we scramble to enact legislation that removes this power from the government.
If Apple wins this case, and the government pursues anti-encryption laws, this becomes a gigantic public debate.
If the case is delayed for 2 years and goes to the supreme court, this becomes a gigantic public debate.
Regardless, since this is in the public sphere, whether-or-not-we-put-back-doors-in-phones is going to become a gigantic public debate.
The only way it doesn't become a big debate is if Obama comes out and says he's been informed on the issue and now realizes encryption in our phones is, on balance, a good thing.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...