I definitely expect Apple to comply with valid warrants to the extent possible. Is there a serious belief that Apple should flout the law? Is there a company in the world that obstructs justice in their home country?
There are extremists within any group. These folks do not want to bother fighting the government for rights because they think the public is too dumb and the government will win that fight. In thinking this way, they become apathetic themselves.
They're not all bad. Some of them contributed a lot to free software. But some times the ideas are toxic and hold people back from their best.
For example, many believe Snowden deserves a full pardon, and anything short of that is wrong. Well, Snowden himself has said he would return to face a fair trial. So it seems we are divided on some issues, and that can weaken our side in fighting for digital rights.
My response to these types of comments is precisely - when it is demonstrated that people make laws rather than governments in collusion with corporations - then I will pay attention.
Why the focus on property rights? Much libertarian thought is expended on equating freedom to how you/others interact with property. It hardly gives credence to other man made rights that should be equally, if not more, recognized.
When you look at the group of people it dogmatically and absolutely resolves, and who funds think-tanks promoting the ideology, it is the well-propertied.
I find it hard to believe that all other freedom can be derived from and ensured by deifying property rights.
That's interesting, since the National Laboratories employ tens of thousands of people who not only use Linux, but use Linux at work. Perhaps you should let the FBI know about this so they can revoke their security clearances?
> My response to these types of comments is precisely - when it is demonstrated that people make laws rather than governments in collusion with corporations - then I will pay attention.
This sounds like an excuse to selectively not follow any laws you don't like. The core law surrounding warrants in the US, which is sufficient for a lot of cases (no All Writs Act or FISA needed), are in the Constitution and some very early bills. Were these also made by collusions between the government and the corporations?
Remember when Snowden first revealed the Prism program? All the tech companies issued similar statements saying they want to tell people more, but did not have permission from the US government. For example, Apple said,
> Like several other companies, we have asked the U.S. government for permission to report how many requests we receive related to national security and how we handle them. We have been authorized to share some of that data, and we are providing it here in the interest of transparency. [1]
Also, I'm sure Yahoo would've loved to rally support from its users when the government was threatening to fine them $250,000 per day for refusing to hand over data, but they were not allowed to tell anyone [2]
I do believe the government was doing what they thought was right to protect public safety. However, they don't understand technology. Ted Lieu is about the only guy in Congress who does. We need a bit more representation there to have our voices heard, whether through electing Congressmen with CS backgrounds, independent lobbying like the EFF, or just better tech reporting and questioning in the White House daily briefs.
The existence of the FISA courts is something we should be scrutinizing more. Former NSA Director Hayden pointed out in one interview that we're the only country who has such secret courts. With these courts, democracy is circumvented. Currently, the public is not able to participate in the discussion of what's right on some major issues that have far reaching impact.
[1] http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
My understanding is people who are serious about security do not currently depend on Apple. Those folks use open source software and build it themselves. That said, I'm still interested in defending Apple's position (and not necessarily Apple) because I want our government to understand how to maintain public safety. Relying on access to people's phones, going forward, is not the right way to do that. You could argue that I am advocating privacy, but I'd say I am more in support of security.
Plus, extremely large and powerful companies do not play by the same rules as the rest of us. You aren't going to see the government risk serious economic damage just to enforce some laws. Wall Street is a case in point. When huge companies decide whether to fight unjust laws or acquiesce, their choices have a major impact on the political equation.
For many years all tech companies have, as expected, complied with warrants. We don't expect otherwise.
Now, in this one case, Apple is fighting the warrant.
And some people are saying "Look how great Apple is; they really care about your privacy".
Well, no, not really. Apple isn't as bad as some, but they still gather too much data and they still (as they should) obey any warrant they're given.
Hate or support the game, not the player. Stand up for ideas, not people.