Apple’s FBI battle is just the beginning of a reality check for the tech sector

There are quite a few people active in software engineering today at major companies who grew up with the sci-fi ecosystem of dystopia stories that were relatively prevalent in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Add into the mix their observations and experiences watching the dotcom boom and bust, the first major cases of the FBI chasing down hackers and trying to deal with the inadequacies of the law to handle that class of crime by redlining all the punishments the law allowed, and the utter ridiculousness that was the war between file sharing systems / communities and the RIAA / MPAA, and you end up with a culture primed to see themselves as the smart guardians of the common person against abuse by authority. Even though they are the establishment now, they still see themselves as anti-establishment, taking a stand for little people against Big Brother. That's not necessarily a true reflection of the world (in many cases, the large software companies can themselves stand accused of being Big Brother), but it's the myth they grew up with.

And along comes clear and indisputable evidence that their governments have not only the theoretical capacity to mass-harvest data and mass-survey people, they are actually doing it and have actively breached the security infrastructure at the companies these people work for to make it happen. So people in the tech sector are mad. Seething, in fact. We talk of governments metaphorically breaking into people's houses, but it's not a metaphor for the people whose day-job it is to physically secure their houses---the people the governments have actually physically wiretapped, using Cold War-era techniques, without permission.

So if the governments want a war about who owns information, the people who work in the tech sector are excited to give them one.

I would agree with you except for this bit right here. Apple has already acknowledged that they can break this. They just don't want to. If they government pushes hard enough, they won't have a choice. My cynical side this is probably all Apple was hoping for. Look like the good guys, but don't do anything that would increase their liability.

Even if they designed something they couldn't break now, they control the update mechanism. Adding the ability to do so in the next update is, from my understanding of Apple products, possible. I do agree that it has forced this whole thing out into the open, but they could have done so much more here to make it actually impossible to break if they truly wanted to make a stand. Of course, they'd be giving up their hold on your device if they did that.

A lot of people have been jealously watching on as 'fat cat' 'tech bros' eat into their industries. Now there are signs that the market will correct and that technology companies will not continue to get free passes with which to ignore government. In short, they want to see blood and will settle to see it whichever way they can.

Tech on the whole needs to wise up politically. It cannot continue to accept the negative characterisations of its members, nor can it continue to do whatever it wants without any political ramifications. Even if we believe we're doing the right thing, we'll need to redeem ourselves in the public eye and critically evaluate solutions to social problems we've been implicated in (whether or not we are the sole cause of them.)

That may or may not be true, but I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to what seems to be a quite valid view to take.

The Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian Media Group had about 1.1 billion pounds net assets, of which the vast majority are liquid, as of end of March 2015 (after they've over the last few years sold of shares in various regional newspapers and AutoTrader, shoring up their balance sheet massively).

The sole purpose of The Scott Trust is to secure The Guardian in perpetuity.

There may be layoffs at some point. There may not be. But losing money for years on end is in itself not a problem for The Guardian. They'll want to at some point trim the loss down a bit to not eat to much into the capital, but at current rates then have quite literally decades of runway.

Correct me if I'm wrong it sounds like you are saying encryption is undermining security? It might be you have that backwards?

I would love to get the transcript to today's show, it has been very enlightening to hear it and one thing to note, probably ten to twenty million people will have heard it too

It's certainly ubiquitous and familiar in the UK (I don't know about internationally) and it's not at all unusual.

I completely agree that the State can compel anyone to do anything he is able to do. That's why it's so vitally important to build systems which don't allow anyone but the owner to authorise changes.

Apple shouldn't be able to install an app or update OS code without an iPhone owner okaying the change. Google shouldn't be able to read my WiFi password. Mirosoft shouldn't be able to read my OneDrive files.

If it's not possible for someone to do something, then he can't be compelled to do it.

In this particular case, the actual owner (the county) should have maintained an ability to access the phone at any time, but they didn't.

I can taste your sweet fear from here.