Maybe Apple should have just stated that its impossible to create a backdoor (the way actual encryption should be). But since we all know that its possible to create one, the fact that there is an option will always spur debate.
The most important thing that the author mentions though is "How can the government regain the trust of the people?".
>The most important thing that the author mentions though is "How can the government regain the trust of the people?".
Why should it? And do the people even distrust the government?
Just look at the Presidential candidates. All the Republicans left are totally in favor of mass surveillance, and Hillary, the choice of mainstream Democrats, of course is a big fan of ubiquitous surveillance. Face it, most of the American public, except maybe the Millenials and Gen-Z, love the idea of having the government spy on them all the time "for their safety".
> Face it, most of the American public, except maybe the Millenials and Gen-Z, love the idea of having the government spy on them all the time "for their safety".
John Oliver did a show on this. It isn't that they are in favor of it, it is that they don't understand the implications. They think the spying is limited to just terrorist, not realizing that everything they do is being spied on.
That was a great episode - no one cared about Snowden or privacy until he explained to them that it meant government officials could see every dick picture they had sent or received.
My feeling is that most people would be against mass surevillance and anti-encryption posturing if they truly understood what was happening and what the imnplications were.
Unfortunately most people do not have a reason to learn about basic infosec during their daily lives and remain blissfully ignorant about it.
> Face it, most of the American public, except maybe the Millenials and Gen-Z, love the idea of having the government spy on them all the time "for their safety".
Um, I already did: Bernie's the only candidate really against spying, and it's mainly young liberal people who like him. Everyone else, plus conservatives, loves all the other candidates, who are all in favor of spying. Hence, the people want to be spied on. If they didn't, they wouldn't be fans of these candidates.
> Um, I already did: Bernie's the only candidate really against spying, and it's mainly young liberal people who like him.
Most of the exit polling breakouts I've seen have shown that (among Democratic primary/caucus participants) he does better among the young, among white voters, among people who have not participated in Democratic primaries/caucuses before, and among people who do not describe themselves as liberal, with Hillary doing better among the opposite groups.
Read up on how democratic candidates are selected. Hillary is the establishment candidate. The people have nothing to do with her appointment (assuming she wins).
And yes, I know how democratic candidates are selected. The people are going to have plenty to do with it (that's what all those primary elections are about).
I agree that Hillary is the establishment candidate. That's pretty hard to argue with. But if she doesn't win, it will be because people didn't vote for her.
So you should know then that the DNC doesn't use popular vote to decide it's candidates. The only reason Hillary is in the lead is because the only votes that have counted up until this point have been establishment votes.
You can't sit here and say "The public doesn't care. Look at Hillary" when Sanders is actually the popular candidate and he is a proponent of stronger privacy laws.
I know that the DNC doesn't exclusively use the popular vote to decide its candidates, yes. There's the "superdelegates". They make up, what, 15% of the delegates? So, yes, they can swing the election if the primaries break 60/40. It's not the most democratic system, I'll admit. But the people are not locked out. Their voice will be heard, and can easily swamp the voice of the superdelegates.
> You can't sit here and say "The public doesn't care. Look at Hillary" when Sanders is actually the popular candidate and he is a proponent of stronger privacy laws.
While Sanders has swung to near parity (slightly ahead in some) in national polls, he's finished just behind Hillary in both Iowa and Nevada caucuses (but well ahead in the NH primary). He's won slightly fewer votes overall, and the two candidates have about the same number of pledged delegates (I've seen different sources claiming 52/51 Hillary and an even 51/51 current split.) This is based on actual votes of actual voters, not skewed to establishment figures. Neither candidate is, either on the actual votes or the national polls, substantially more popular.
Hillary is far ahead in terms of informal commitments by unpledged delegates (superdelegates) who are mostly incumbent party officeholders, but those aren't votes, and while some media outlets report them as if they were the same as pledged delegates, they aren't. Superdelegates can and do switch allegiance over the course of the campaign, the same way as other public endorsements do.
Hillary has 100,000 popular votes, and 52 democratically elected pledged delegates to Sanders' 51. The "establishment votes" are not cast until the convention.
Oh please. Yes, Hillary is the establishment candidate, I'll agree, however there's no evidence yet that she's going to be "appointed". The only way that'll happen is if Bernie wins enough primaries/caucauses to get the Dem nomination, but the DNC gives it to Hillary anyway (probably because of the superdelegates), in a non-democratic process. From what I've read, this has never actually happened before; the Democratic candidates are selected by voters in primaries.
The Republican frontrunner is popular mostly because he has nothing to do with the government, and has no respect for most of the government.
Anyway, looking at presidential candidates is not that useful, because I think a huge amount of voters would say something like "I don't trust the government at all, that's why I'm voting for <x>".
Um, there is an alternative: Bernie. But while I like him, I can't say that a majority of Americans are big fans of him. So far, the majority of Americans appear to be fans of pro-spying candidates, so I think it's safe to assume that the majority of Americans support spying. And it's not just that one issue; most of those other candidates are also in favor of policies to benefit the moneyed elite, not the common voter. But Americans have convinced themselves, by and large, that they're all temporarily embarrassed millionaires and happily vote against their own interests in every election.
I wonder if it's a matter of apathy or if they genuinely like that idea. Most people I talk to about this say "I don't even want to know" or "who cares". They just find the whole thing difficult or painful to even consider as they're so attached to the technology as it is. They don't want to do anything differently when it comes to privacy.
Using the "nothing to hide" fallacy is bad enough (general warrants are still unconstitutional), but if you think the intelligence agencies only investigate "a large scale serious crime operation" then you should really do more research on what those agencies have been doing over the last decade.
"...you should really do more research on what those agencies have been doing over the last decade."
Can you point somewhere out that shows what they have been doing, as I would be genuinely interested?
I doubt I do anything interesting enough for the government to bother about. But I do hold non-mainstream / controversial opinions about certain things, and I am careful about who I actually discuss them with, I certainly don't post them on Facebook or send them in emails. I wonder if I should be more worried than I am.
The most important thing that the author mentions though is "How can the government regain the trust of the people?".