Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712) comment rss

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 09:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    I agree fully. However, if that was the case, it would one of Apple's points of contention, that the job wouldn't be easy. They have carefully avoided that, from all I have read.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 09:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    I read his post. He even admits that 2 out of the three points are fairly tame, and the third one would depend on (a) if Apple has the code already written (very possible) and (b) if they have to write for ALL of those protocols or only for any one of them.

    So far, there isn't much there, certainly nothing particularly high end. It would look like stuff Apple probably already has on hand (but doesn't want to admit to), and would require mostly someone to do a specific integration.

    "you could at least apply some honesty and facts to your posts"

    I learn from you. I do it your way. You are my inspiration - even if you are a retired old git :)

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    If it was a huge change, yes. From what I can see, most of it seems pretty much in the "disable feature" category, which shouldn't be a big deal - and potentially the options already exist in the OS as part of a debug process or may have been created along the way as part of the OS development in that area.

    Trivial changes can be problems, that is true. However, I have faith that Apple's high quality programming and high end engineers wouldn't have coded spaghetti, and that individual modules could stand up to modifications without harming the whole package. If that isn't the case, the Apple has even bigger issues.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Apple has nothing to lose

    ""We'd love to help, but there's absolutely nothing we can do.", right?"

    Actually, yes. If you rewind back to the start of this whole discussion, back on Mike's first post about it, I said pretty clearly that one of the big problems for Apple is that they have a security weakness so obvious, that even the FBI can see it.

    If Apple had mitigated that issue with a more secure design (generally requiring a longer pincode would do it) there there would likely be no discussion. That their supposedly "secure" one way chip can be modified live to remove it's main security protection (attempts per second) is a pretty big deal. That pincodes are short and they require to have a simplistic 10 counter to lock people out is another.

    Apple would certain be in the position to say no if it was not feasible. Their problem entirely rests on the idea that what is asked for is VERY feasible, just perhaps not desirable.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    "
    So, your understanding of the actual issue is completely incorrect as usual. Perhaps instead of finding pedantic ways to be able to say things contrary to every article, your time may be better spent learning what's actually happening and what's really being said."

    So please tell me, without scaremongering and claiming that Apple will have to make everyone's phone insecure (they won't), what the court order says. Last I saw, it said something along the lines of "disable to the 10 counter and any mechanism to slow brute force attempts".

    Now, you can invoke all sorts of "encryption sky is falling" scaremongering if you feel the need to suck Apple's teet, but try to answer the question by quoting the court's order, and not Tim Cook's greatest over reaches.

  • On the post: YouTube Flips, Now Thinks T-Mobile's Abuse Of Net Neutrality Is Ok, Following A Few Small Changes

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:31am

    Re:

    Except it wasn't Mike...

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:26am

    Re: Apple has nothing to lose

    You are correct, but not for the reasons you think.

    I think Apple is dead because their big encryption / security / we value your privacy claims will fall apart as people come to realize how weak their security actually is, and how little stood between their supposedly well protected data and exposure.

    "So, Apple has no other option that to fight. Tooth and nail. Desperately."

    More, they have to try to fight it in areas not related to the actual case at hand, and to use the biggest scaremongering tactics possible. They literally need to distract people away from how simple and basic the court's order is, and how little it really will take to accomplish it. So instead they have to scare people about turnng on everyone's camera and microphone for recording 24 hours per day and for all sorts of wild claims about hackers doing in their phones.

    Apple's desperation here is almost entirely economic, and not anywhere near as much about your privacy - that's just something they are selling you for a big profit.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:21am

    Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    "Software engineers capable of doing this type of coding at Apple's scale are in high demand. In all likelihood, no engineer who quit Apple over this would be unemployed for longer than they chose to be."

    I am not sure how many people would be lining up to hire people who may hold Apple essentially for ransom.

    As for the caliber of engineer required, considering this isn't "write an OS" but rather "remove or disable a 10 counter" it's likely that the work could be done by a junior - or someone out of the country for that matter. It's not the highest of high end jobs.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:13am

    Re:

    "The FBI never once stopped to realize how they would compel Apple's software engineers to write the code and what they would do if the engineers refused, which is exactly what looks like will happen."

    Since they are compelling Apple and not the engineers, the court would likely add more pressure on Apple (say contempt of court charges, daily fines, perhaps securing Mr Cook for a few days) in order to break the logjam. If Apple is unable to deliver, the potential is honestly unlimited.

    Absolute extreme: The court could appoint a trustee. That would be insane, but there is that potential at the very, very extreme end of the rainbow.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:10am

    Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    "The government can compel Apple to fire employees now too? Sounds like this whole government-thingy is a bit out of control, don't you think?"

    You still aren't a very good troll, are you?

    No, the government can't make Apple fire anyone, but Apple could end up in the odd position of being in contempt of court if nobody is doing the work. At some point, Apple will feel enough pressure that they will have to act, and that could include having to let people go who are blocking the project from completion.

    "Why does the most powerful government on the planet with nearly unlimited resources, need a company to do anything for them? "

    Why do you need someone to help you pee? No matter how powerful your keyboard warrior status, you are still frail in other ways.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:07am

    Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    H1B... it all works out in the end.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:07am

    Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    "Yes, and Apple would be required to use their staff to enact the change. If the staff refuse, they may have to find other staff to do this, but initially the impetus would be to compel the existing engineers to make the changes."

    Yes, but the difference is that the courts are not compelling the engineers... Apple is. it would be a stand against their employer, not against the work. Mixed message?

    "It figures that making an honest stand on an issue that a person values more highly than money would be a foreign concept to you."

    It's not a foreign concept at all. It's just the wrong place to make a stand, because the stand isn't against the court or the order, it would be against the company. If nobody at Apple wants to do the work, Apple may have not choice but to start firing people and hiring new ones willing to work. It seems incredibly silly to lose your job, career, and possibly your future because you don't want to disable a 10 counter.

    It's just a bad place to make a stand that will harm the company, and not the FBI or the court that ordered it.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:40am

    Looks like Apple has bigger fish to fry.. perhaps they should be more concerned about their user's security!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3496831/New-kind-malware-Apple-devices-discovered-breaks-computer-installs-malicious-apps.html

  • On the post: Macy's Settles With Strategic Marks, Gives Up The Brands It Killed Off Through Acquisition

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:18am

    " In other words, that would mean that it held the brands it had killed off hostage not over concerns of customer confusion, but simply for money."

    Actually, it looks like a simple transaction really SM wants the use the names and is willing to pay for it, and Macy's is willing to give up any future use of the brands. Avoiding consumer confusion is important if you intent to keep them, a pot of money is important if you are not.

    Strikes me that you have never run a business.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 06:48am

    Doesn't work out

    The problem for the engineers is that they aren't being compelled to anything - they are getting paid by their employer to do a job.

    You have to think about it clearly: The court has not said "Mr Engineer 27, you must do this", rather it is telling Apple they they as a company must help the government out, and that they will be compensated for it. The employees are getting paid to work by their employer, period. They may not like the particular task, they they are not being compelled by anything other than a paycheck.

    Essentially, if Apple's employees refuse to do the work, Apple would likely have to fire them with cause. End of benefits, end of vested shares, end of it all. It's unlikely that any engineers would take that risk (unless they got very, very bad legal advice).

  • On the post: How Apple Could Lose By Winning: The DOJ's Next Move Could Be Worse

    Whatever ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2016 @ 06:42pm

    Re: Apple could also Win by Losing

    Sorry danny, but I think you are to foiling in a very big way here.

    The "signing keys" are powerful, but they are both easily revoked and also potentially quite indivdualistic. As an example, when you update to ios 9.2, you cannot go backwards to 9.0.x if you didn't like the 9.2 update. Even with a valid signing key, you have already gone past that update so you are done.

    Apple could issue a signing key for the individual phone in question that would be a 0.0.0.1 update on whatever is currently on it, and that phone would update, and that signing key might only be able to be applied on phones with a lower number than that on it.

    Further, and this is important: It's unlikely that Apple will have to write a whole OS. In reality, they need two very small patches (one that disables the 10 counter, one to eliminate speed blockages), and that is it. It's not going to be a full OS update.

    Apple loses no matter what here. It's very likely that any further attempts to make encryption MORE secure will be met with laws at the federal level to limit it. The desire and the will appears to exist in congress to do such a thing. Apple would also look even more like they are trying to block law enforcement by making such a move, which could in turn land them in some legal trouble.

    Most importantly: Apple is going to get ass f--ked on taxes in the next year or so, mark my words. There is a pretty big build up in Washington (and around the world for that matter) to deal with the issues of offshoring profits to avoid paying tax. Don't be entirely shocked if the federal government doesn't move to something like a national value added tax or flat percentage of sales for electronic devices, online memberships, subscriptions, and the like. No matter what, Apple is bringing a lot of things to a head and the results generally will not be in their favor.

  • On the post: Apple Tells Court That The DOJ Is Lying About It Advertising The Fact That Encryption Keeps Out Law Enforcement

    Whatever ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2016 @ 09:48pm

    Re:

    "Now, some people apparently think Apple has the ability, right, and obligation to determine which of their customers are "honest" and deserve protection, and which of their customers are "rotten" and deserve to have their iPhones stolen by people with allegedly-good motives."

    Apple isn't being asked to make any deterimination as to who is good or bad. That's crap. The courts get to decide if the police / feds meet the standard of probable cause. Apple isn't being asked to be a judge or jury on anything, just to stop helping people hide what the courts have ordered revealed.

  • On the post: Apple's Response To DOJ: Your Filing Is Full Of Blatantly Misleading Claims And Outright Falsehoods

    Whatever ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2016 @ 08:54pm

    Re: Apple lost anyway

    Actually, with Apple "avoiding" nearly 60 billion in US taxes, you can bet the next step is to plug up many of the loopholes that the company uses to offshore profits.

  • On the post: Apple's Response To DOJ: Your Filing Is Full Of Blatantly Misleading Claims And Outright Falsehoods

    Whatever ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2016 @ 08:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: There's an app for that.

    "I think, Whatever, you trust state agencies more than the rest of us,"

    No, I look at both in the same way, with an exception: law enforcement is put in place for the unfortunate but socially required efforts to make everyone follow the law of the land. They are human too and they, like you, will make mistakes or overstep the law from time to time, and likely pay a bigger price than you ever will for it.

    I don't want to give the feds MORE rights, but I also don't want to give the people a way to avoid what has been fair game for the feds for 300 plus years. It's a key point of discussion, you know, balance.

  • On the post: Apple Tells Court That The DOJ Is Lying About It Advertising The Fact That Encryption Keeps Out Law Enforcement

    Whatever ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2016 @ 08:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Exactly. But it is clearly marketing Apple by saying "we will keep the government out of your phone". If that isn't marketing, what is?

    Read the first three paragraphs here from 2014, and the roll out of IOS 8... http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/09/apple-expands-data-encryption-under-ios-8-making-handover-to-cops-moot/

    It's clear the intention is to make it so that Apple can no longer cooperate with police to decrypt phones. It's a key part of the ios 8 update, something they took to the media. No matter how you slice it, they very intentionally moved themselves out of the line of fire and crowed about it.

Next >>