Apple CEO Tim Cook challenges Obama with impassioned stand on privacy

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/13/apple-ceo-tim-cook-challenges-obama-privacy

by mikek • 11 years ago

345 190 11 years ago

TheBiv• 11 years ago

> "The Apple boss, who last year publicly acknowledged he is gay, added that “history has shown us that sacrificing our right to privacy can have dire consequences”

Why would this detail possibly be relevant to the point Tim Cook was making?

MarcScott2• 11 years ago

Cook also said

> "“We still live in a world where all people are not treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion or express their opinion or love who they choose,”

AdeptusAquinas• 11 years ago

I agree. Seemed an odd, irrelevant comment to make. Maybe they were suggesting he didn't fit the stereotype of big-business, conservative ceos, in order to suggest his words were not just money-motivated? Even then, it's a big, poor taste stretch.

harshreality• 11 years ago

If he were in certain other countries, his sexual orientation might result in death, or have other severe legal or social consequences.

Even in the United States, there is a social cost to being known to be gay. Arguably [in most communities] it's low enough that it's better than the alternative of trying to keep it a secret, but the cost still exists. Certain people will not want to be your friend or do business with you if they know you're gay. You may not care about those lost opportunities... you may have plenty of friends and business opportunities... but it still limits your options. In some small dogmatic communities even in socially liberal countries, you might be ostracized, and your only options are to keep it a secret or to start a new life somewhere else.

Privacy in the "cloud" means keeping information secret from people who you'd rather not have judging you based on that information. It could be a close-minded community, or health insurance companies, or even something relatively innocuous and minor like some interest of yours that would raise eyebrows even among your friends.

s_q_b• 11 years ago

If he were in certain other countries, his sexual orientation might result in death, or have other severe legal or social consequences.

Among those social consequences could be regular physical abuse, or even being beaten to death.

In the U.S., the cultural shift on this issue was so fast that it's easy to forget that we're not that far removed from Laramie, Wyoming and the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998 for being gay, or that LGBT individuals couldn't serve openly in the Armed Forces until 2011. [0][1]

Today that same state issues and recognizes gay marriages, and DADT is a fading memory. That's head-spinningly fast for a cultural and legal change of that magnitude.

Personally I think that this is one area where Tim Cook's sexual orientation probably influences his thinking, and in a very good way. He's smart enough to know that government access to Apple's data is more than enough for the government to build its own "pink lists" today.

Like Tim Cook, I believe we are not so close to the precipice that we can't use the normal political process to put a framework around our intelligence services that both safeguards privacy and protects our nation's interests.

I (contrary to prevailing opinion here), have great respect for our security agencies, and believe the men and women that staff them are mostly well-meaning public servants performing a valuable service.

But as we all know, this is not about today's government. It's about the unknown governments that will come to power in 10, 20, or 100 years, and in countless generations to come.

It's easy to design a government that you know will be staffed by decent men and women. But historically that is not an assumption upon which we can rely.

As James Madison said, our institutions should be designed to survive being "run by devils."

If I confront the issue directly: Do I feel our nation could survive as a free society if today's security apparatus was run by devils?

No. No, I do not.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43859711/ns/us_news-life/

approbatory• 11 years ago

He made a comment about people's lives being in danger if they are in the closet in regions where homosexuality is punishable and have no data privacy. Somewhat related.

patcon• 11 years ago

I think the author is possibly alluding to the fact that gay rights are frequently referenced as an historic example of how the ability to break the law is important to a society's ability to adjust it's cultural norms and make way for change. Sodomy was illegal until quite recently, but if that could have been enforced (as a dragnet allows), we might not be where we are today, because people couldn't test the limits of laws we came to view as unjust :)

stanley• 11 years ago

I'm by no means disagreeing with the point others are making in response to your comment, but I do think that sentence could have been worded better. It's stated out of context and would have been a better fit had the author mentioned that next to Cook's quote regarding equality, rather than in the middle of the statement regarding privacy. I was equally confused when I first read it.

mpweiher• 11 years ago

In the (democratic) Weimar Republic, the authorities collected "pink lists" naming homosexuals. Homosexuality was technically illegal, but not prosecuted, and in fact, the Weimar Republic was known for its tolerance.

When the Nazis came to power, they used those previously obtained lists to round up the homosexuals and send them to death camps. A lesson that privacy matters even if you think your current government and/or its use of data is benign.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261

simonh• 11 years ago

This is a really key point. Obama and Cameron are telling us that it's ok to let them snoop on all our private communications because we can trust them and they can protect us. Even if we can trust them, they can't protect us. Also, who knows about the next president of the USA, or the next UK Prime Minister? What if we get another Nixon or worse? These things have happened and will happen again.

Beyond that, by saying it's ok for governments to snoop on private communications, it's normalising that same behaviour by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc. It's not good enough to say that it's alright for the West to do it because they are good guys and not ok for despotic regimes to do it because they are bad guys. It's a matter of principle that it's wrong for everyone to do it.

That is the only way to set a standard and hold every government to it. We should figure out what line in terms of privacy and respect for personal rights we would like China, Russia, etc to abide by. It's only ok for our governments to do things that we would accept as being legitimate for those governments to do. That is the only way to normalise respect for the individual and protect our personal freedoms in the long term.

TazeTSchnitzel4• 11 years ago

Related: Why were the Nazis so efficient at rounding up and murdering Jewish people? Because the 1933 Census asked if you were Jewish, and IBM sold them (mechanical) data processing systems.

morgante2• 11 years ago

It's incredibly relevant.

For one thing, his speech included direct references to the importance of privacy for marginalized groups (including homosexuals), especially in places where it is been illegal.

Moreover, I personally think it's one of the reasons that I believe Cook (far more so than other technology people) has a credible commitment to privacy. He's a very private person himself (in fact, he only came out last year), and I think that personal preference for privacy shines through in how he's running Apple.

Joona• 11 years ago

I think it's mainly about telling the readers who Tim Cook is. The name doesn't ring a bell for many, but when you refer to news about him, it's a bit easier to remember.

MarcScott2• 11 years ago

I recently taught a small module on cryptography to some 13 year olds.

In one lesson, I asked them to write down what they thought of companies being forced to weaken encryption.

This was a very typical response from the group.

"I think that encryption should still be allowed because I should have some privacy in my life and everyone else can. No one wants to be watched, stalked, etc. just because a couple of criminals may be able to start a (rare) terrorist attack, there should be other ways to stop them apart from making everyone elses life uncomfortable. You might aswell have no passwords for any website, it's basically the same thing."

If kids get it, I fail to see why politicians don't.

mc322• 11 years ago

The problem with that is that when asking kids you get sunshine. I mean, I have an opinion on this, but that's beside the point.

You ask kids, what do we do about global warming --stop polluting the atmosphere!

Yes obvious, it's just that things aren't as simple as that.

mch82• 11 years ago

Actually, things are exactly that simple.

Look at how the WWII generation responded to the need for behavior change in order to supply raw materials and labor for the war effort. If our generation cared about the environment as much as they cared about winning WWII then we could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a little extra for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable, and be well on the way to reversing damage to our environment.

emmab• 11 years ago

I've seen what happens to people when they become "adults". They sit around and talk with the grown ups about really boring things like gossip. They stop playing tag. They start caring only about having relationships and stop caring about anything fun.

If they aren't having fun because they just sit around and talk about boring things, maybe they don't care about the world as much.

keslag• 11 years ago

Things are always that simple. Humans makes things artificially more difficult for wealth, power, and control. If you put a back door in encryption, the bad guys will stop using that encryption. All you manage to do is make the honest citizen less secure. Nothing changes this fact, and therefore nothing justifies backdoors in encryption. It really is that simple.

BjoernKW• 11 years ago

I think most things actually are as simple as that. They're just made unduly complex because the obvious solutions to these problems don't align with the ulterior motives and sinister agendas that are often involved in politics:

You want to secure people's right to privacy? Defund the NSA and use the money for something that's actually useful (like leaving it to the tax payers to spend as they please).

You want to uphold human rights? Stop condoning human rights violations. Close down Guantanamo today, explicitly condemn torture and prosecute those who were responsible for acts of torture in the past.

You want to counter terrorism? Stop getting politcally or militarily involved in other countries' affairs. Instead, trade with people. Foster economic and cultural exchange. Educate people. Now, this is a long-term one because it obviously won't do away with terrorism instantly but it'd be a first step in the right direction.

You want to solve the perpetual financial crises? Simply allow bankrupt banks to ... well ... file for bankruptcy instead of donating them tax payer's money.

You want to do something against global warming? Stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies. Make more use of the abundant solar energy available in the desert regions of the planet. Admittedly, this will be expensive but given the huge amount of money that's wasted annually in first world countries it's not impossible either.

Potando• 11 years ago

A lot of "it really is that simple" replies. Most big problems are simple to solve - if you only have one problem. Do we stop global warming, stop terrorism, stop government spying, stop poverty, stop high taxes, stop war, stop death from diseases, stop income inequality? Any one problem is simple to solve, but what's not simple is doing it without making other problems worse in the process.

TeMPOraL2• 11 years ago

As many others said, things are exactly that simple. Apart from not understanding that most of what adults say is bullshit, kids just don't understand coordination problems yet - that it's not the task which is hard, it's getting all the different people, each caring primarily about themselves, to unite for a common goal. That's why wars are effective - it's easy for everyone to share a common goal if the goal is to fight for survival, or rebuild things (facilitated by shared experience of suffering).

kenferry• 11 years ago

This is all framing. If you had first asked if the police should be able to catch the bad guys, and then if the crypto should prevent bad guys from being caught, you'd get a different answer.

Kids are kinda nuts anyway, I definitely wouldn't let one run my life. :-)

ps4fanboy• 11 years ago

Tim Cook just earned a lot of respect today.

venomsnake• 11 years ago

How? Apple does not care about privacy. If they did, they would not possess the keys to decrypt anything, even stuff stored on their servers.

I am sure apple cares about privacy from government, but they don't seem to care about privacy of their users from them.

anko• 11 years ago

even Schneier thinks they do a decent job: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/apples_imessa...

Throwaway1224• 11 years ago

Yea so apple doesn't store and use my information and do creepy shit with stuff i never explicitly gave them my permission to use. Dont fucking insult me, cook.

tunap• 11 years ago

He's not insulting you, he's protecting their back-end from exposure & scrutiny. NSA has become a problem, but Apple, et al, corps' data collections have been eroding & infringing our privacy all along... in the name of monetization/profit, which is quite a bit more nefarious than security, IMO.

beloch• 11 years ago

This is likely a jab at Obama, since Tim Cook is probably sick of all the NSA and FBI spooks plugging black boxes into his servers, not to mention how it's illegal for him to even complain about it publicly. The scary thing is that I'm no longer a bonafide paranoiac for expressing an opinion like this. I'm probably right.

TaylorAlexander3• 11 years ago

This is certainly a jab at Obama, who came to Silicon Valley today to tell us all that the government can "keep us safe" if we just let them take our personal data from private companies. Obama has been pushing a plan for "cybersecurity" that involves expanding the NSA spying program and making legal many of the things Edward Snowden revealed them to be doing apparently illegally.

I'm politically liberal and voted for Obama twice but the man is fucking lying to us about cyber security. The real solutions to security involve encryption and what Obama is suggesting is that they can protect us by monitoring more.

Tim Cook is calling him out as a liar without expressly saying it. I wish he would. We need more prominent people to call attention to how much we are being lied to, because too many people buy the BS as truth.

parasubvert2• 11 years ago

I would be careful about calling policy disagreements "lies".

Keep in mind Bill Clinton and his admin did plenty of horrible stuff as well (communications decency act, DMCA, the clipper and v-chip shenanigans, high strength crypto as a munition, the hounding of Phil Zimmerman and PGP, operation sundevil, etc.

My point is that digital privacy is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, it's a new concern that seems to have adherents across the political spectrum. Both democrats and republicans have been strong supporters of government surveillance and stomping on digital privacy rights. There is no mainstream political party taking up the privacy mantra yet en large because the people of the USA apparently don't want it.

It's our job to change that, but that requires changing people's minds that their privacy is worth risking a successful terrorist attack (which is how everyone in the mainstream US perceives the trade off).

rednukleus2• 11 years ago

This is likely a jab at Obama

I'm pretty sure its just another indirect jab at Google.

rednukleus2• 11 years ago

To explain further, for the downvoters, Apple is trying to position itself as "the company that safeguards your privacy (for those that can afford it)" because its their key point of differentiation with Google.

Its very unlikely that Tim Cook would make a statement like this unless it is in line with their marketing message.

Iv• 11 years ago

"We should not share the control we have over our consumers with the NSA!"

morgante2• 11 years ago

Apple, unlike other major tech companies, has a business model which is completely compatible with privacy. If anything, I suspect they would prefer a world where consumers demanded strict privacy and fewer online services.

hahainternet• 11 years ago

If anything, I suspect they would prefer a world where consumers demanded strict privacy and fewer online services.

Because they are shit at building online services and excellent at selling people overpriced devices.

Oh and FWIW. Apple also operates iAd, a locked down ad program targeted at their customers specifically.

pdkl95• 11 years ago

Yes, Apple is different. Their business model is one of the few that is actually worse than the "big data" surveillance companies such as Google. Instead of attacking privacy, Apple has become one of the worst of the rent-seekers trying to control the General Purpose Computer. They have done most of what we feared Microsoft would do, and they have an entire generation of people who now think in terms of their walled garden.

I respect Tim Cook quite a bit for making this effort to argue for privacy and the rule of law, but that doesn't excuse the incredible damage his company has done over the last decade.

walshemj3• 11 years ago

In that Case why is apple acting as the gate keeper for what I can or cant do with my phone?

Logmix3• 11 years ago

Bullshit. iOS devices have only one way to do wireless backups, and that's with the Apple cloud. Apple could decide that it only does wireless backups with a little home server that you put into your own home, but they decided against that.

Apple also could allow users to secure their cloud backups against anybody. But they decided they include mandatory key escrow by Apple itself. The mud puddle test proves that Apple and the NSA can access all your backup data.

How is that a business model "completely compatible with privacy"?

TazeTSchnitzel4• 11 years ago

Similarly, Microsoft's business model is (or at least largely was) compatible with privacy.

luke-stanley• 11 years ago

Doesn't the latest OS X share to Apple what people are searching for on their own computer? (By default).

maccard• 11 years ago

It sends your spotlight commands to the search engine to give you web and iCloud results in spotlight. Equally you could say that Google sends every key press you do in chrome's address back home

Puts• 11 years ago

And IOS 8 takes any chance it gets trying to trick me into enabling Icloud...

po• 11 years ago

Yes, they send your queries out to their servers (not to be confused with sending information about files on your machine out) but the 'session key' they use is apparently not tied to your identity by them or third parties they work with. In their words:

You can always opt out of Suggestions and continue to use Spotlight solely for local search on your device. You are also free to opt out of having Spotlight use Location Services any time you want. If you opt out, Spotlight will still use your IP address to determine a general location to make your searches more relevant. Unlike our competitors, we don’t use a persistent personal identifier to tie your searches to you in order to build a profile based on your search history. We also place restrictions on our partners so they don’t create a long-term trail of identifiable searches by you or from your device.

https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-built-in/

k-mcgrady• 11 years ago

Much better response imo than just not going to the event like some other tech CEO's.

shiggerino2• 11 years ago

I'm not sure what the US government is complaining about. If the baseband has direct memory access, they should be able to grab any cryptographic key off the phones without Apple or the user ever noticing, that is unless Apple has been getting stroppy lately about who gets to talk on their PCI bus.

As for Apple doing the right thing, even if they manage to keep the government out of people's business today, they still hold the key to the universal back door and might give it away tomorrow. Apple certainly has the resources to develop a completely liberated phone, but NeXT and post-merger Apple has always been incredibly hostile to software freedom, and this speech doesn't change any of that.

I don't think they are afraid that they won't be able to spy on people, but they are worried about maintaining the public opinion that privacy is for creeps and terrorists. But another interesting effect of closing every back door but the baseband is that there will likely be a power struggle within the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Only the highest ranking officers will be able to push malicious firmware updates, regular police will have no choice but to stick with traditional police work.

comboy• 11 years ago

they still hold the key to the universal back door and might give it away tomorrow

Care to elaborate? Do you mean assumption that they can have it if they want to, or is there some information about it?

meric3• 11 years ago

Your encrypted iMessages is one iOS update from being non-encrypted. As far as I can tell.

dandare• 11 years ago

I don't get it. Why is everyone (including Snowden) talking about personal moments, privacy, intimacy etc when the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power? We have very specific and numerous evidence that in the past the state used its powers to spy, threaten and discredit ideological opponents and activists, from M. L. King to all anti-war movements since Vietnam. Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. We need to stay safe from our own state, that is why we must not give up our privacy, not because of some silly naked pictures on your phone.

MetaCosm2• 11 years ago

Because it resonates with everyone. Personal moments, privacy, intimacy ... these are things everyone understands, everyone can see how it might impact them.

Talk about "misuse of power" and you lose the attention of the very people you are trying to convince. It might just be the trivialities (and peoples desire to protect themselves from them) that create more fury and action that talking about the real issues.

I think it is smart of Snowden to take the tact that will resonate with the most people. It might be a sideshow, but it is a useful sideshow that might move the ball forward on the big issues.

humanrebar• 11 years ago

Right. The civil rights movement in the U.S. also dealt with oppression and tyranny, but many of the actual protests revolved around bus seats and the ability to buy lunch.

bsbechtel12• 11 years ago

For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could potentially betray you.

If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State.

The difference between your parents and the State though, is that different individuals of varying trustworthiness move into and out of power. As this happens, eventually some bad actors will gain power, and those who depend on that established trust will be badly hurt.

thanksgiving2• 11 years ago

If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State.

We hear about child celebrities getting cheated out of their income by their parents. We know this can happen but I guess we assume they are exception rather than the norm?

TazeTSchnitzel4• 11 years ago

Oh come on, not even socialists believe the State can do no wrong. The public are more cynical than you take them to be.

yodsanklai• 11 years ago

Very true. Propaganda was so successful that even when you rationally know States are bad, your heart tends to give them the benefits of the doubt. Like "they did that in the past, but we're more civilized now", "our president is such a nice guy, he wouldn't do anything evil - he said it won't happen again", "it happens in other country, but mine is better".

dd367• 11 years ago

That's why the U.S. system is split into three branches.

Also, your use of the term "the State" is ambiguous. The State could mean a system of laws with law enforcement and dispute resolution. People believe in a system of laws - fight for it, even.

You have to remember: the state is a technology. It was developed by our ancestors to solve certain problems. It's not a panacea that solves every problem and I, frankly, only know straw men that think otherwise.

d232• 11 years ago

For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could potentially betray you.

This is cringeworthy. I knew HN had a Ron Paul bent, but has it been completely overtaken by 15 year olds?

Go ask ANYONE, your cashier, your hairdresser, or the random joe working on your car -- the standard line of thinking isn't that the government is some nice friend and protector. The standard line of thinking is that government is dysfunctional and politicians are corrupt. You people pick up a copy of 1984 and suddenly you're all mini-orwells running around spewing your "insights" to whoever will stand around long enough to pretend they care.

If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State.

Oh, wise sage, please enlighten us with more of your wisdom. Tell us the story of the bunny going to the store to buy milk this time!

rayiner3• 11 years ago

Let me offer a counterpoint. The average Internet anarcho-libertarian has grown up so coddled by the benefits of first-world government they don't even understand why they need it. They go out in the street and feel safe and think that's just how human societies are. They talk about jack-boot thugs, but they've never experienced fear of a real one. They have no experiences that would let them comprehend a world without a monopoly on violence. A world where small groups of people using organized violence can terrorize the majority. A world where the background threat of violence at the hands of government is replaced with in-your-face actual violence from the vicious people among your fellow man.

skylan_q• 11 years ago

...the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power?

Every government devolves to this so it's unavoidable/unchangeable without widespread revolution. If the battle can't be won in a widespread fashion it has to be done locally. A person can encrypt and hide their own data, but they can't single-handledly end tyranny.

vermontdevil• 11 years ago

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

Thomas Jefferson

DanielBMarkham• 11 years ago

It's not that you are wrong, it's that you are not completely correct.

Yes, everything you said about the state was correct -- but, because digital information is so free and open, you are no longer making a choice about what the government should know or not, you're making the choice about what the entire universe should know.

So sure, sign me up for the lessons we can draw from history. But we're creating something even more monstrous than that, if such a thing were possible. We're creating (or trying to create) a 4 billion person clan, where everybody knows everything.

That's whacked in a way far beyond just destroying our lives and our children's lives. It's species-threatening. We have evolved to operate in small clans that compete for resources. There are a plethora of drawbacks to such a social structure, but that's who we are as a species. If nothing else, it gives us resilience: 99% of clans can make some evolutionary mistake, and as long as 1% does not, the species survives.

Now we are all throwing in together, betting that some huge clan of billions that's never been tried before will be able to not make any evolutionary mistakes at all. It is unlikely beyond reason to believe this would be the case.

parasubvert2• 11 years ago

Your argument doesn't follow. There is a large difference between removing secrets at large and cooperating at large. In practice we are seeing plenty of dividing lines.

lettergram• 11 years ago

I think it's easier to try to protect the way they we communicate than trying to over throw the government. Plus, something like 60%+ in the U.S. believe Snowden is a traitor. In other words, people in the U.S. trust their government.

I do agree with you though. I recently had my family watch United Stats of Secrets a PBS Frontline episode on Netflix[1]. It was honestly the best description of the Snowden leaks I have seen, it explains everything better than I had expected.

What was most interesting/disturbing was the NSA director with a big smirk on his face explaining how he manipulated congress.

It definitely changed my families view of Snowden from "traitor" to "wow, I don't know if he is a hero, but he's no traitor." Over time, this is how public sentiment can alter to believing our government is tyrannical, but right now it's not enough.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-sec...

DamnYuppie2• 11 years ago

Can you please provide a reference were 60% of the people believe Snowden is a traitor? I would be very suspect of any of those polls as they have the ability to now select a group of people who will generally provide the answers they are looking for. So please be very wary of any "poll" unless you are certain of the selection criteria and method of polling. Otherwise it is most likely just propaganda.

forgottenpass• 11 years ago

Why is everyone (including Snowden) talking about personal moments, privacy, intimacy etc when the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power?

In the US, to sell a political idea, it has to be seen as non-ideological. The branding has to paint a message of at least a "reasonable" or "balanced" position. In the very best case the position should appear downright non-political to the people primed to believe them; often referred to as "common sense solutions".

Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression.

This generally sounds like tin foil hat crazyness to people who have been taught to not have that thought by their political allegiances.

dd367• 11 years ago

The local law enforcer is inherently more dangerous than the foreigner. It's a simple function of points of contact. That's not to argue that we should not enforce laws.

sliverstorm3• 11 years ago

It sounds like tin foil hat craziness because it has been wholly discredited by tin foil hatters.

coldtea2• 11 years ago

Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression.

Yeah, but Americans, after the sixties, do not understand politics at that level, and even believe that the US is the be all end all of states, and the "moral power" of the world, and such BS.

lotsofmangos3• 11 years ago

Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression.

The inverse is also generally true. The largest existential threat to the USA as a political entity is another civil war. It is currently the best protected country against invasion in history.

msabalau• 11 years ago

Governments have long had the ability to surveil activists and cultural figures. And activists have long understood this. Heck, Malcolm X joked about government hirelings back in 1964: "Brothers and sisters, friends and enemies: I just can't believe everyone in here is a friend, and I don't want to leave anybody out."

Looking around, it seems to be that most people are and have been indifferent to issues of peace and social justice most of the time. They do care about naked picture on their phone. Given that activists have been able to work despite extensive surveillance, why would people whose issue is privacy focus on something that doesn't matter to most people when they can talk about things that many people do care about?

graycat• 11 years ago

We need to stay safe from our own state, that is why we must not give up our privacy, not because of some silly naked pictures on your phone.

Gee, you seem to be suggesting that here in the US we should adopt something like:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ah, heck, how would the US ever adopt such a thing?

And, even if we did, could we follow it?

More along the same lines might be:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Such a policy would seem to guarantee the ability to gather on the Mall in DC to say things about the US involvement in Viet Nam, the Balkans, Iraq, Syria, etc.

For more, how about a policy such as:

"The Congress shall have Power To

...

declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

So, from this, the President could not declare war? Do we have freedom of speech to ask this question"?

Ah, there's the old thought, to be strong, both muscles and constitutional rights need exercise!

naked pictures on your phone

"Ah we got trouble, right here in River City. Trouble starts with a T, and that rhymes with a P, and that stands for" pictures and phone and naked pictures on a phone! "Oh we got trouble!".

Nice speech.

Good post.

mhuffman• 11 years ago

You would basically be demanding that people whom have power relinquish it. This has historically been hard to do. Instead, cleverly, you put external pressure from the masses to force the issue.

The inverse is claiming child porn or terrorism to get the masses to give up privacy rights when they normally would be reluctant.

jackgavigan• 11 years ago

It's worth remembering that Apple have stated that "conversations which take place over iMessage and FaceTime are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can see or read them. Apple cannot decrypt that data."[1]

I suspect that Cook is anticipating legislation that would require that Apple re-engineer its services to support "lawful" interception of the content of messages/conversations, but is hoping that adopting a aggressive stance now will result in a compromise end state whereby interception must happen proactively and by exception (and within a clear legal framework - e.g. authorised by a warrant or court order) as opposed to a mass surveillance regime where everything is hoovered up (i.e. intercepted and stored).

1: https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/

walshemj3• 11 years ago

id suspect that is the case pity that the other invited tech leaders didn't go - but Tim always struck me that he understands politics in a way Larry Sergei, Eric and Zuckerberg just don't get

slasaus2• 11 years ago

The business model of Facebook and Google is about getting to know as much as possible about you. Apple makes most money without your data.

higherpurpose• 11 years ago

Are iMessages automatically synced to iCloud on iOS? In that case Apple can see the copies of the messages, from most people.

As for Facetime, I think only the voice calls are end-to-end, not the video chats as well.

jonhohle• 11 years ago

Wrong (from what's known about iMessage). All devices have a distinct history of messages - http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/27/apple-explains-exactly-how-...

Apple says FaceTime messages are end-to-end encrypted https://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-built-in/

russell_h• 11 years ago

This.

A few weeks ago Obama came in on the side of David Cameron and the FBI in support of outlawing strong encryption: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01/16/obama-sides-with-came...

After yesterday's event he appeared to back off of that position: http://recode.net/2015/02/13/obama-theres-no-scenario-in-whi...

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out - its an odd situation when we're turning to Apple, Google and Facebook to defend our information privacy.

juancastro• 11 years ago

This mean if can continue using my iPhone without risk! Lol

jchomali2• 11 years ago

Yeah!

m12k• 11 years ago

That little "namaste" gesture that he ended it with - I wonder if he picked up that habit from Jobs?

jchomali2• 11 years ago

Definitely

arh68• 11 years ago

I think it would be convenient if Apple just 'bent over' and started selling NSAPhones, but nothing will kill foreign customers who value privacy [1] more than to know the KGB, or MI6, etc (or Madagascar Intel, it doesn't matter who, just not their country) runs their phone. I mean, what American would buy a KGBPhone? Apple's just defending a now largely foreign customer base, it seems to me. I'm sure they'll comply with requests, but they can't be a pushover.

[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/china-likely-to-top-us-for-apple-ip...

fspacef• 11 years ago

clickbait title tho

Apple CEO Tim Cook challenges Obama with impassioned stand on privacy

Related Stories