Hacker News Reader

Comment by interpol_p | Hacker News Reader

This letter comes off very strongly. It's as if they treat the government as just another customer. The way they describe their process for assisting law enforcement almost reads like their process for providing developer support:

> We also provide guidelines on our website for law enforcement agencies so they know exactly what we are able to access and what legal authority we need to see before we can help them.

The concerning portion of this letter is:

> Yes, it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to undermine our security features as the government wants.

I have a feeling Apple is currently working on preventing updates to the Secure Enclave ROM from happening while a phone is locked (or at least ensuring the keys are wiped if it does happen while a phone is locked).

View on HN

"It's as if they treat the government as just another customer."

Shouldn't they? Albeit a customer with different 'needs' under the law. There's a process to follow to get assistance from Apple. Their products are in wide use and they can't reasonably be expected to have a dedicated support person for every request from every customer every minute of every day. "You want our help? Try these things first. If that fails, here's the process for queueing up to get help."

Further, there's a process to make sure law enforcement are behaving well and not, say, stalking some random member of the public. Get the courts involved, provide the right legal paperwork, their lawyers will review it, and they'll respond appropriately.

The idea (and I realize not included in your comment) that governments are above the law, and that government agencies will only use these powers in proper ways is ridiculous. They've proven repeatedly that they can't be trusted with the power they've been given.

I'm not saying that in a negative context. I was just impressed at how strongly worded the Apple letter was, directed at the US government. They almost seemed to be telling them off.

Most companies came out with some sort of half-public-support for Apple's letter after it was published. This follow up by Apple is just so strong in its principles that it was impressive.

Indeed, I agree. I realized long after I wrote my reply that it was toned more aggressively than I had intended. In my mind, I was adding to your comment rather than arguing.

> We also provide guidelines on our website for law enforcement agencies so they know exactly what we are able to access and what legal authority we need to see before we can help them.

Why is that sentence objectionable? Every tech company has guidelines like that on their website.

He didn't say it was objectionable. He just said it treats the government like a customer. I, for one, would like to live in a country where the government is a servant, not a master.

I didn't mean to imply that it sounded objectionable. I was impressed with that public statement by Apple.

For an international corporation, in a global economy, a government is just another customer. They can and will sue, like an upset customer can, but will anyone go to jail for this?

I'm actually not sure. The significant difference here, between the US government and any other government, is certainly a valid one. This is the government that oversees the country where their headquarters are located. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I have no doubt we are witnessing an event that will have an insurmountable influence on legal systems across the globe. Either way, a significant precedent is being set here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com