Hacker News Reader

Comment by Oletros | Hacker News Reader

> Why wold Google and Facebook get behind this? They store their customers data in a way they can access and subsequently have to give it to persecuters when there's a court order

Exactly like Apple. Or do you think that the emails in iCloud are not given to the prosecutors?

View on HN

Not exactly like Apple.

Google and Facebook's core competency is using your personal data to sell ads.

Apple's core competency is selling you appliances. Yes, they wind up with some personal data because of the services they also provide, but it's far less valuable to them than Google or Facebook.

> They store their customers data in a way they can access and subsequently have to give it to persecuters

What has to do your post with this claim?

Yes exactly like apple. To quote the link: "When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it."

The point I was trying to make is that Google and Facebook have direct access to all the data of their customers, and already provide access to government agencies. Contrary to Apple they don't safely store some data of their costumers safely on the device, which this case is about.

> The point I was trying to make is that Google and Facebook have direct access to all the data of their customers, and already provide access to government agencies. Contrary to Apple they don't safely store some data of their costumers safely on the device, which this case is about.

Your point is wrong regarding Google and smartphones if the smartphone is encrypted

There's a huge distinction between Google (Android) and Apple (iOS) though: Apple affirms they don't have your keys, and this case bears that out (else the FBI would obtain the keys via subpoena to Apple rather than asking the court for a circumvention tool). Google is ambiguous about whether they have your Android keys; they claim they don't, however if you forget your device password it is possible to unlock your device via your Google account on a PC[1], and that alone is telling. If this were an Android device, the FBI would have already unlocked the phone with a simple subpoena.

Beyond that, Google definitely has the keys to your encrypted backups on their servers, so access to the phone might not even be necessary.

[1] http://visihow.com/Recover_Android_Device_in_case_of_Forgot_...

> For either company to unlock the device without the owner’s permission the smartphone or tablet must not be encrypted, according to the report.[0]

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/24/google-can...

From your link:

"The situation is different for Android. Google’s version of Android, which runs on most Android smartphones and tablets in the western world, only implemented encryption by default with the latest version Android 6.0 Marshmallow released in October 2015."

That version of Android is only on a handful of devices, not even a full percentage point of global market share. Even on Lollipop and older devices that do support encryption, it has to explicitly be turned on by the user. And once again, Google is not expressly clear that they don't have your encryption keys on Lollipop and lower; they only claim not to have them for Marshmallow devices. They definitely have the keys to your encrypted data on their servers no matter what, which can include complete backups of your device.

> That version of Android is only on a handful of devices,

And?

> Google is not expressly clear that they don't have your encryption keys on Lollipop and lower;

They have explicitly said that if the device is encrypted they don't have the key.

> They definitely have the keys to your encrypted data on their servers no matter what, which can include complete backups of your device

Source for that?

If you can still access your backups after changing your password, you don't control the keys.

In other words, if you can ever actually use something, it's probably not secure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com