The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; if it's a choice between no encryption and a marginal increase in the conviction rate, or strong encryption and a marginal decrease in the conviction rate, I'm in favour of the latter.
But of course bad people can still use extra encryption, so lack of default encryption will mostly hurt good people. This increases the amount by which the detection and conviction rate needs to improve to justify the intrusion.
I think it comes down to how willing you are to let bad people get away with their crimes vs lose your own right to privacy in a world where more and more of your private life and thoughts are stored digitally.
I know I find myself increasingly self-censoring in case what I write gets taken out of context and used against me. I have to second-guess some third party reading my emails, my private notes, etc., and I really don't like that feeling. It doesn't take long for political winds to change, and we're not long past times where people were put to death for what they wrote or who they were.
> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
No, they don't. We live in nations with individual rights. The US specifically is a nation without acceptable levels of healthcare. The needs of the many clearly do not outweigh the needs of a few.
> But of course bad people can still use extra encryption, so lack of default encryption will mostly hurt good people
This is a non sequitur driven by a false dichotomy. Nobody is suggesting the removal of encryption.
> I think it comes down to how willing you are to let bad people get away with their crimes vs lose your own right to privacy in a world where more and more of your private life and thoughts are stored digitally.
How many criminals are you willing to let get away with their crimes? Apple has currently built a system that allows child abusers and some rapists to be all but immune from conviction.
> How many criminals are you willing to let get away with their crimes? Apple has currently built a system that allows child abusers and some rapists to be all but immune from conviction.
Nonsense! Believe it or not, prior to the existence of smart phones it was possible to convict people of abuse and rape; in fact, it happened quite regularly. The evidence against such criminals need not be on a smartphone; after all, there are the victims; there are witnesses; there is forensic evidence.
> Nonsense! Believe it or not, prior to the existence of smart phones it was possible to convict people of abuse and rape; in fact, it happened quite regularly. The evidence against such criminals need not be on a smartphone; after all, there are the victims; there are witnesses; there is forensic evidence.
So this means it's OK to withold access to evidence, even if you are simply a private company with no legal standing? No of course it doesn't.
Please, tell me how a paedophile I know exists and uses an iPhone can be prosecuted for the contents of that device. I'm fairly sure he has taken illegal photos of children he may be abusing, but he lives in Cambodia.
>How many criminals are you willing to let get away with their crimes?
So you are saying Apple is only helping criminals with encryptions?
And because weakening encryption can not only be used in special cases (you mention child abusers and rapists in an attempt to appeal to emotions), you don't fear encryption being used against the average person?
For example if the police would search your phone in a traffic stop, that would be okay?
The amount of cases you could solve with a crypto backdoor seem very small in comparison the risks for the average citizen. Privacy is an important right for everyone.
> So you are saying Apple is only helping criminals with encryptions?
No I'm saying that arrogantly the people behind these decisions cannot imagine a scenario in which someone else could hold information about them that would be harmful just by its existence.
They can only imagine their secrets being revealed, such as Tim Cook being outed before he was satisfied.
> you don't fear encryption being used against the average person?
I'm confused as to what you're asking, that's exactly what I fear. A rapist taking photos of his victim, the evidence being insufficient for a conviction, Apple now protects that rapist and his access to his victim's photos at the cost of the victim's mental health.
> For example if the police would search your phone in a traffic stop, that would be okay?
If they had good reason, that's the basis of the legal system after all.
> The amount of cases you could solve with a crypto backdoor
Crypto backdoors are ineffective. Service provider accountability is. This is why Apple is fighting it.
Oh no, crypto backdoors are quite effective at their stated purpose - letting an authority break it when they desire. See also the Clipper chip, DUAL_EC, and so on.
The problem is that we're no longer talking about physical devices like a gun or a safe, we're talking about math. Breaking crypto is basically solving a math problem. If for any reason the problem is solved, it's forever solved, and expecting that solution to stay in a few trusted hands against nation-state level actors (or hell, even motivated security professionals) is absurd.
The issue here is that the FBI is demanding that Pandora's box be opened. There is no closing it again. Are you ready to sacrifice the safety of every iPhone everywhere based on a promise from the FBI?
I disagree with your healthcare analogy. It is in the interest of the many for the US to have widespread, cheap, available healthcare. It would give our citizens longer, healthier lives, which from a purely economic standpoint would allow them to work longer and increase GDP.
The US already spends significantly more per capita on healthcare than countries like the UK that have socialized it. Right now, the needs of the few (for insurance companies to make huge amounts of money) are outweighing the needs of the many. I suspect that will change over the coming decades, but there's a long political battle to fight before we see any real change.
> I disagree with your healthcare analogy. It is in the interest of the many for the US to have widespread, cheap, available healthcare. It would give our citizens longer, healthier lives, which from a purely economic standpoint would allow them to work longer and increase GDP.
I agree it is, but my point is that despite this, it is not implemented in any way. The needs of the many in the US do not outweigh the needs of the few. Nor in most cases should they. Individual healthcare has no significant harm to it, but prohibiting the searching of communications and data on someone's primary computer has major harm implications.
> If the needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few, then why does the total number of criminals matter?
Because the victims matter.
> If I want to buy strong encryption with no backdoor, and I'm not a criminal, then why would the issue of crime matter at all?
Being a criminal isn't an attribute of a person, it's the actions the person carries out. I don't give a shit about jaywalking, but I care about rape victims. This is not inconsistent.
But of course bad people can still use extra encryption, so lack of default encryption will mostly hurt good people. This increases the amount by which the detection and conviction rate needs to improve to justify the intrusion.
I think it comes down to how willing you are to let bad people get away with their crimes vs lose your own right to privacy in a world where more and more of your private life and thoughts are stored digitally.
I know I find myself increasingly self-censoring in case what I write gets taken out of context and used against me. I have to second-guess some third party reading my emails, my private notes, etc., and I really don't like that feeling. It doesn't take long for political winds to change, and we're not long past times where people were put to death for what they wrote or who they were.