Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Speaks Out Against Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have to remember that there's more than one standard of search/seizure that's legal under the U.S. Constitution. "Probable Cause" is the higher standard and allows information collected to be used in criminal court. "Reasonable Suspicion" is the lower standard and does not allow information collected to be use in criminal court.
That said, both standards need to provide due process to citizens, and I think that continues to be the stumbling block in regards to digital search/seizure.
That nation started its long slide towards towards totalitarianism (remember Jefferson's warning against pure democracy) by taking the road through hypocrisy, and it began about two years after the Constitution was ratified. The first Supreme Court decided that it would immediately begin reinterpreting the document to expand government instead of their original duty as simply the highest court.
Lots of milestones between then and now, but some standouts: the first and second Banks of the United States, the war to prevent the southern secession, the Federal Reserve Act, the 17th Amendment (basically the end of the old Republic), and the War Powers Act.
Trying to do it that way led to 9/11. The cells are too compartmentalized to rely on that kind of old-school surveillance. You need to be able to connect the dots.
Its a tough subject. I don't want the gov to just pry into everyone's business, as I don't trust them just like the next guy. But at the same time, I also understand the national security need. We gotta find someplace in the middle.
I would think that is because people may realize there is a complete difference between the two goals. One limits government, the other seeks to expand it greatly.
In the case of the surveillance and privacy issue, Cook is quite rightly siding with the citizenry against the government and preventing our rights from being trampled. In the long line of people accusing companies of not being on the side of the common man and simply out for profit, there is no better thing for him to be doing than pushing back against the government. No amount of "going green" even comes close to this.
In the case of gay rights, Tim Cook is taking his personal stand and using the weight of the company behind him to ask the government to expand its reach. People pushing the gay marriage agenda, upon winning that increase in federal power (in direct contravention to the now largely ignored and even ridiculed 10th Amendment) immediately announced their intention to push the government to use force against companies who do not provide equal hiring opportunities for gays. This is yet another step in the expansion of federal power.
I should point out that government created the entire problem in the first place, by creating the concept of the marriage license. It was done for purely racist reasons, to prevent white women from marrying black men. (This seems to be completely forgotten, or at least pushed into the memory hole as an inconvenient truth because the Progressives haven't figured out a way to talk around the contradiction.) Many of the problems we face have been created likewise by government.
This is an absolute falsehood. Gays have every right to work at whatever company will hire them, and a company that makes whatever distinction against a person regardless of their talent will eventually suffer a competitive disadvantage against other companies in that segment. A company like Apple, given the choice to hire out of a pool of people, will take the most qualified person regardless of that person's private life and regardless of the laws in effect. Apple has in fact been doing this since the late 70s, including offering health insurance to the "life partners" of gay people. I don't agree with it any more than I agree with any other style of company-provided health insurance, which brings me to the next point...
Health insurance and all other corporate benefits that are now considered "expected" were invented or at least widely adopted in response to a federal wage freeze instituted by Truman in the wake of the 2nd World War. Apparently his administration was concerned about the effect of all the discharged servicemen on the talent pool so the freeze was designed to prevent wild wage swings. This left companies without a way to offer higher pay to more talented prospects. So they designed wage packages that included intangibles like pensions and insurance. Once the freeze was eliminated, the corporations couldn't eliminate the packages without fear of alienating their workers. It didn't help that the predatory income tax had employees looking for compensation that wouldn't be touched. So now major companies have been stuck with an ever-expanding pool of what is basically entitlement debt as they have to make ever larger gross profits to fund non-productive retirees. Its bringing the entire economy down and further infantilizing workers who would have otherwise learned to save and invest wisely.
As with all of your rights, it's existence depends on your willingness to fight for it.
You freedoms will get eroded bit by bit over time if you don't demand they be protected. Governments love power. They need to be restricted and made subordinate.
I don't get involved in the political side of things because, so I will interject on the technical side of things:
Regardless of whatever a government may pass, there is already unbreakable encryption, as Steve Gibson has said many times "it's just math". Thinking terrorists will bow to the will of a government because something like this is passed is hilarious at best. They already opened the box, it cannot be put back inside the box.
The real question is actually whether we should have *any* security or privacy.
I remember this coming up when Wild Bill Clinton was president. They wanted, at that time, to outlaw hard encryption, except for banks and government. Yeah, some for me, none for thee...
Even the ridiculous 'backdoor' installation idea that some have been wanting to legislate is pretty brain dead too. ANY backdoor essentially removes ALL encryption, except from the most brain dead people that want to see what you are doing.
The question is more nuanced in that does encryption, privacy, become a right of people, or do we essentially never trust anyone ever again. If *everything* is open to *everyone*, what kind of life can we have, and, ironically, how can a capitalistic society survive when people are under constant attack and their finances are subject to theft and other mischief.
And when I hear that there is a bill in the House of Representatives to absolve any corporation from blame or liability for security 'failures' that expose customer specific data. That bill is cowardly, and should never have even been thought of enough to be brought to a committee, let alone be scheduled for a vote! In my book, THAT bill needs to die, and quickly and a clear message needs to be sent that Congress is FOR THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE, and they work FOR US!
Politicians that would work so hard to provide cover for the industries that should be doing everything they can to keep our financial and other data private should not be given a 'Get Out Of Jail' card because they don't want to be held responsible for their malfeasance, and incompetence... 'Security' and 'privacy' will become even more of a joke if this bill passes, and we have to remember this for the upcoming elections, because ANY candidate that doesn't take a clear stand on privacy should never be elected.
Good non-electronic analogy. The rhetorical question seemingly has an obvious response but in times where the POTUS breaches separation of powers, it isn't surprising for other Federal agencies to violate the constitution or encourage laws that allow it. In the physical world analogy, government already has sophisticated ways to gather information without coercing landlords to install eavesdropping and without any laws that might allow such coercion. The privacy premise is laudable and promised in the Constitution but apparently many in our government don't agree.ctyrider said:
It blows me away that our government wants the ability to analyze everyone's personal information so they can find bad guys. This is no different than allowing the government to put cameras in your home and monitor you 24/7 in the name of catching illegal activities.
No way, no how, not going to let this happen. It's not the principal upon which our country was founded upon.
No way, no how, not going to let this happen. It's not the principal upon which our country was founded upon.
I love it when a bunch of blue hairs in the senate and congress talk about tech and cybersecurity like they know what they're talking about.
My 62 year-old dad just got a 2010 smartphone the other day, and we expect the 60/70-yo in congress to know what they're talking about? Ha.
My 62 year-old dad just got a 2010 smartphone the other day, and we expect the 60/70-yo in congress to know what they're talking about? Ha.
And this reason is why I dumped my Samsung Android phone after just using it for 1 year.
Google simply does not respect the privacy of its users. Google's underlying mission in ALL of its applications and devices it creates is to collect data from the consumer.
Apple, whether true or not, at least make a public statement on where they stand on protecting the privacy of their consumers.
Google simply does not respect the privacy of its users. Google's underlying mission in ALL of its applications and devices it creates is to collect data from the consumer.
Apple, whether true or not, at least make a public statement on where they stand on protecting the privacy of their consumers.
People like to say the constitution needs to evolve and that it's an old document an not relevant in this age. I completely disagree. My personal focus in rights is our second amendment. The one that clearly says "shall not be infringed". There are so many regulations on that right it is sickening. I have to darn near have a day or two of study before I go on a road trip with a firearm to understand to what degree my rights have been infringed upon and be in compliance with the laws. But you know, it' s for our safety, or for the kids or whatever right?
Shall not be infringed. That's how you word things when you don't want anything standing in the way of the exercise of that right. That and "shall pass no law".
How would we react if our freedom of speech was regulated like our right to bear arms?
I am all for the pushing out of government from the all powerful OZ they are trying to be. If that means we are at a greater risk of terrorism, then so be it. In the big picture of things. The threat from terror is very small and we are making a HUGE deal of it and spending so many resources on it. Hammers kill more people in a year. Heck, I think bathtubs are killing more Americans than terrorists. But let's dump our rights, our money, and our privacy to fight terrorists. Just makes no sense. The fight against terrorism though is a good vehicle to gain control over the citizenry. Maybe that is why so many resources are being poured into it. There seem to be a strong push toward global governance. I don't think US sovereignty and global authority are compatible. One of them will have to give. Are we heading down that road?
The scary thing is that these organisations can benefit by allowing terror attacks to take place. They can warn those who they seek to protect (normally the wealthy) and then allow the attack to take place to further their agendas. Wouldn't be the first time that this has happened in history.
The government might not care about those things, but some hacker might use those things to blackmail you, or hold your data hostage for a ransom. This isn't theoretical - it actually happens thousands of times a day. (http://www.radiolab.org/story/darkode/).
If the government can get in and take a look, then anyone can get in and take a look.
Wow not only do we engineers get to fight with the sales people
we also get to fight with the G men too
Why don't we stop measuring and engineering things - all of you guys seem to hate it.
I'll tell you right now, engineers have a lot in common. If all the engineers in Apple, Microsoft, Google, et all tell you you're getting a raw deal - theres no middle ground in this. Someone's gonna get their dinner, bring it home and eat it too.
we also get to fight with the G men too
Why don't we stop measuring and engineering things - all of you guys seem to hate it.
I'll tell you right now, engineers have a lot in common. If all the engineers in Apple, Microsoft, Google, et all tell you you're getting a raw deal - theres no middle ground in this. Someone's gonna get their dinner, bring it home and eat it too.
Apple image damage control before the inevitable IMO, government overreach under the ruse of *it's for your safety* is a time honored practice by politicians who consider our rights and the constitution their main enemy.
Cisa is the icing on the PRISM cake which Apple is part of. By the time Cisa gets to Obama to sign off on, the president's new slogan will be *Yes We Scan !*
Cisa is the icing on the PRISM cake which Apple is part of. By the time Cisa gets to Obama to sign off on, the president's new slogan will be *Yes We Scan !*
Last edited:
Right there you run into the dangerous assumption game where people are charged for "conspiracy". Simply talking about something can get someone into trouble there, and then you have the NKVD/KGB all over again. People should be able to discuss whatever they want, and whatever might result should those discussions be put into practice in the physical world. You can't have a crime without an injured party, and by injured I mean a loss of use of physical property, whether that property is your shoes, your car, your home, your savings, or your own body. To charge someone with conspiracy to commit a crime against any of that, or even worse "the people", is a complete fabrication.
If you mean "cares" in the sense that they have people in a room waiting to see what comes across your text messaging in the next day, no that surely doesn't happen to the common person. The real danger is the gathering of metadata on the average citizen in a society where you can be brought up on felony charges for innocent activities on a daily basis. I'm referring to the conspiracy charge concept I mentioned above, or perhaps the case of the Baptist minister brought up on "structuring" charges for regularly making cash bank deposits that fall below the arbitrary CTR requirements (search for Kent Hovind arrest for more info).
Also, the fact that you could get profiled by simple tracked activity. Multiple agencies have varying elements they look for that they consider symptomatic of terrorism, mental issues, drug trade, or a host of other charges. You could regularly drive past a location where activists meet (potential subversive), on your way to the health food store where you buy fluoride-free toothpaste (problems with authority), and you stop at the bookstore where you find a libertarian book you might buy for someone as a birthday gift (from an author on an SPLC watchlist, domestic terrorism connotation), and finally see a movie with strong anti-government overtones like the Hunger Games. You pay for it all on your VISA, and discuss the movie later with friends on a forum where you have an enlightened argument about government. The libertarian friend and you email back and forth, and he might have an email association with a person who once was arrested for a campus protest. Congratulations, you are now "linked to terrorist organizations". And the content of those conversations with Grandma would be sifted to find buzzwords and code phrases, and that nude pic could indicate you trade in pornography or perhaps have an addiction that could compromise your judgement and leave you open to recruitment.
Enough of this would get you escalated through several layers of machine intelligence until you pop up on a human actor's computer screen in some dingy government office, then kicked through several more levels till an active agent takes it upon himself to ruin your day with a no-knock warrant. Anything in your house could be made to look suspicious. Duct tape and plastic wrap becomes part of a "kidnapping kit". A box of old ammo and two or three WWI era pistols becomes an "arsenal". A collection of pre-code movie posters becomes "subversive art". Heaven help you if you had the trade paperback of "V is for Vendetta". After all the smoke clears, the involved agencies would say that they did everything according to the book, and their system works because it filtered your behavior and alerted to a possible threat. You'd be offered a chance to do two years hard time or ten years probation, provided you signed off your rights to sue the government or even talk about the arrest. Of course, you'd never get the property they confiscated back.
So yes, the government "cares" about those conversations, and those texts and pics.
Generalizations/sterotypes aside, many of us in that age group are quite computer literate and surpass the skills of those in their thirties. Apparently it is forbidden to stereotype women and minority groups but older Americans are exempt? Doesn't sound like a liberal supporter of Bernie Sanders ( see "Profs" avatar ).Prof said:
Presumably all folks in Congress rely on professionals in specific fields for expertise since they cannot possibly be expert in every bill they must vote.
It's not complicated and we don't need a new solution. There is a process to obtaining information. Probable cause and a warrant. This is not blanket surveillance of everyone. If I have lunch with a terrorist I am fair game to be watched or have my phone records handed over. If I live in the same city as a terrorist, that is not sufficient cause to gather my and all of my families information. They should not have the authority to do whatever they want and gather all information. Yes it is currently being abused. Laws made to fight terrorists are being used to investigate other crimes when they stumble upon other wrongdoings, so yes, this search for terror info is looking to see what you and your grandma are talking about, and your escapade to get her some illegal marijuana to help her with pain just landed you in jail thanks to the patriot act and them seeing your convos.
The government would like to have everything, but it cannot. It is prevented. Quite simply it's hands are tied, and get ready for the important thing here: THIS IS ABSOLUTELY OK! They will not be able to do everything they can. There will be walls they cannot get through. This does increase the vulnerability but who cares, I would rather be free and vulnerable than safe and dominated by a government who thinks it has the all powerful authority to do whatever it wants in the name of keeping you safe.
Actually they do.
The employees of these organizations have already been found perusing the data and/or using it to investigate others not sanctioned (ex's, friends, dates, etc.
Wanna bet these have been used to investigate appointees, folks running for office, and any other reason any government agency/person who can get access can think up?
It is just too tempting of a target for folks at that level (and LEO's) to ignore.
Have cake. Eat cake. Don't get caught with cake.
Yeah... heck, our own past secretary of state didn't realize the security risk behind the way her email server was handled.
privacy is a very complex concept. It might shift depending on social norms, but also historical events. Has anyone opposed to the privacy changes after 9/11?
If tomorrow terrorists start using iPhones and something horrible happens with thousands of victims, and a debate starts that it could have been prevented if they had access to their phones, I don't know if Apple would ever recover of such tragedy.
On the other hand, Americans don't even allow traffic enforcement cameras because of 'privacy concerns', lol.
I fear Apple is fighting something that looks like a good cause, but really few care, and might come back and bite them in the *ss.
If tomorrow terrorists start using iPhones and something horrible happens with thousands of victims, and a debate starts that it could have been prevented if they had access to their phones, I don't know if Apple would ever recover of such tragedy.
On the other hand, Americans don't even allow traffic enforcement cameras because of 'privacy concerns', lol.
I fear Apple is fighting something that looks like a good cause, but really few care, and might come back and bite them in the *ss.