• Bill Gates takes a new stab at Apple/FBI



    Bill Gates has weighed in again on the FBI vs. Apple case.

    Bill Gates isn't quite sure what Apple should do about encryption. The Apple vs. FBI controversy during a Reddit AMA this afternoon, arguing that a balance needs to be struck between security and the ability to provide law enforcement with critical information ó but he indicated that it was unclear to him where that line should be drawn.

    I think there needs to be a discussion about when the government should be able to gather information. What if we had never had wiretapping? Also the government needs to talk openly about safeguards. Right now a lot of people don't think the government has the right checks to make sure information is only used in criminal situations. So this case will be viewed as the start of a discussion. I think very few people take the extreme view that the government should be blind to financial and communication data but very few people think giving the government carte blanche without safeguards makes sense. A lot of countries like the UK and France are also going through this debate. For tech companies there needs to be some consistency including how governments work with each other. The sooner we modernize the laws the better.
    The question asked on Reddit was what suggestion he would offer Apple, Gates replied that Apple should start trying to figure out how to balance privacy and security.

    "Maybe they could propose an overall plan for striking the balance between government being able to know things in some cases and having safeguards to make sure those powers are confined to appropriate cases, there is no avoiding this debate and they could contribute to how the balance should be struck." He doesn't have a specific course of action to suggest, only writing that Apple should elevate the discussion. Gates made a similar comment last month, saying that "striking [a] balance" is important here.
    That's the same thing we're hearing from major tech and political figures who don't want to take a hard line against encryption but don't want to unconditionally support it either. Gates clearly understands its privacy benefits, but he makes his security concerns known as well. "What if we had never had wiretapping?" he writes. "I think very few people take the extreme view that the government should be blind to financial and communication data, but very few people think giving the government carte blanche without safeguards makes sense."

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made similar remarks on Monday, saying, "There has got to be some way to avoid breaking data encryption and opening the door to a lot of bad actors. But there has to be some way to follow up on criminal activity and prevent crimes and terrorism." Mark Zuckerberg defended encryption and said it shouldn't be blocked last month, but he also noted that his company has "a pretty big responsibility" to help combat terrorism.

    The open question is: how is that possible while still fully protecting everyone else's data? It's clearly a difficult topic. No major solutions have been put forward, and the general consensus from top tech figures so far has largely amounted to "We should probably talk about it." Over at Apple, Tim Cook has been pushing for the issue to be taken up by Congress. There would be plenty of lobbying, of course. But getting a debate started in DC would mean that someone else has to figure out where to draw that line.


    [via The Verge]

    What do you think?
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Bill Gates has no real position on Apple vs. FBI started by Caiden Spencer View original post
    Comments 17 Comments
    1. bubba456's Avatar
      bubba456 -
      Shut up Bill Gates
    1. eman561's Avatar
      eman561 -
      Quote Originally Posted by bubba456 View Post
      Shut up Bill Gates
      No, you should probably shut up. Bill Gates isn't just a good man, he's a great one. Google him.
    1. King_O_Hill's Avatar
      King_O_Hill -
      He's a great thief!
    1. kddo14's Avatar
      kddo14 -
      the FBI is not interested in a dissection of homeland sigint collection, they want an apple signed jailbreak and they want it now. like i appreciate that gates wants a conversation but this is an ongoing legal battle.
    1. Ambi_Valence's Avatar
      Ambi_Valence -
      Quote Originally Posted by King_O_Hill View Post
      He's a great thief!
      No more so than Jobs/Cook.
    1. NSXrebel's Avatar
      NSXrebel -
      Quote Originally Posted by Ambi_Valence View Post
      No more so than Jobs/Cook.
      Negative.

      Steve Jobs DID go to Xerox' PARC and saw what they were working on and took those ideas with him back to Apple. Not only that, Xerox willingly invited Jobs to PARC and they even invested in Apple.

      Bill Gates on the other hand, had direct access to Macintosh computers and deliberately stole from Apple, copying pretty much the whole OS. They were even found to have copied Quicktime, line for line of code.

      Taking an idea and improving on it is NOT the same as having direct access to software/code and copying it.
    1. Ambi_Valence's Avatar
      Ambi_Valence -
      Quote Originally Posted by NSXrebel View Post
      Negative.

      Steve Jobs DID go to Xerox' PARC and saw what they were working on and took those ideas with him back to Apple. Not only that, Xerox willingly invited Jobs to PARC and they even invested in Apple.

      Bill Gates on the other hand, had direct access to Macintosh computers and deliberately stole from Apple, copying pretty much the whole OS. They were even found to have copied Quicktime, line for line of code.

      Taking an idea and improving on it is NOT the same as having direct access to software/code and copying it.
      Not paying the due tax is theft, (Cook). Jobs and his CFO at the time were alos involved in some very shady deals.

      His excuse was akin to, “I didn’t perform the act, it was performed on me”.

      Please don’t assume. You make an *** out of U &.
    1. luvmytj's Avatar
      luvmytj -
      Quote Originally Posted by Ambi_Valence View Post
      Not paying the due tax is theft, (Cook). Jobs and his CFO at the time were alos involved in some very shady deals.

      His excuse was akin to, ďI didnít perform the act, it was performed on meĒ.

      Please donít assume. You make an *** out of U &.
      How did Jobs not pay taxes, please elaborate.
    1. Ambi_Valence's Avatar
      Ambi_Valence -
      Quote Originally Posted by luvmytj View Post
      How did Jobs not pay taxes, please elaborate.
      Ok, so I actually said Cook was evading taxes although you can bet your sweet bippy that Jobs was too, but…...(Click).
    1. luvmytj's Avatar
      luvmytj -
      My bad, Cook. The story you linked to had to do with stock options, not taxes. My point is that if they did things in accordance to current laws, loopholes included then they did no wrong. And Apple is not the first or last company to make use of loopholes.
    1. Ambi_Valence's Avatar
      Ambi_Valence -
      Quote Originally Posted by luvmytj View Post
      My bad, Cook. The story you linked to had to do with stock options, not taxes. My point is that if they did things in accordance to current laws, loopholes included then they did no wrong. And Apple is not the first or last company to make use of loopholes.
      Oh god no of course not. There will always be companies, (and individuals), that will look for an opening. Tim Cook doing it just doesn’t sit right - I think it’s because he tries to project this image that he is a moral crusader and always takes the high road.
      I always find it funny when people say that Cook would make a good president. I think to myself, Right so this guy who is so good at evading taxes, (being dishonest), is suddently going to change his ethos on this and be good enough to run the country?

      You might see a loophole that is legal, but you do not have to take it.
    1. steve-z17's Avatar
      steve-z17 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Ambi_Valence View Post
      You might see a loophole that is legal, but you do not have to take it.
      Why wouldn't you though? If it's legal and all your competitors and other big companies are doing it and it's going to save you a ton of money then why not? From a business stand point it makes sense! If it ever becomes illegal then they definitely shouldn't do it, but until that point take advantage of it!

      Tim Cook is a great guy, he believes in his products, he wants his customers to be happy, he stands up for equality, and most of all he cares about our privacy. I think he's one of the best CEO's out there right now.
    1. Ambi_Valence's Avatar
      Ambi_Valence -
      Quote Originally Posted by steve-z17 View Post
      Why wouldn't you though? If it's legal and all your competitors and other big companies are doing it and it's going to save you a ton of money then why not? From a business stand point it makes sense! If it ever becomes illegal then they definitely shouldn't do it, but until that point take advantage of it!

      Tim Cook is a great guy, he believes in his products, he wants his customers to be happy, he stands up for equality, and most of all he cares about our privacy. I think he's one of the best CEO's out there right now.
      If you are purporting to be a great moral crusader the behaviour is at odds with this image. It would be a complete 180 when he gets, (hopefully not), into government.

      You don’t see him lobbying to modernise tax laws.
    1. NewD's Avatar
      NewD -
      Wow... This thread stayed ON TOPIC for just 1 post - then went down the rabbit hole.. [emoji12] New record..
    1. Purple Minion's Avatar
      Purple Minion -
      This whole idea of finding a way to decrypt only the bad guy's phones seems to me a lot like asking for guns that kill only bad guys, or for locks that can be opened only by good guys.

      Yea--good luck with that!
    1. psxcancer's Avatar
      psxcancer -
      I think the only solution (if they have to do it), they have to physically have the device in hand and bring it to a division within Apple, with the proper court order to use this magical access key.

      And this tool would have to be connected with a cable to work. That would limit wifi, Bluetooth and carrier access.
    1. SpiderManAPV's Avatar
      SpiderManAPV -
      Quote Originally Posted by psxcancer View Post
      I think the only solution (if they have to do it), they have to physically have the device in hand and bring it to a division within Apple, with the proper court order to use this magical access key.

      And this tool would have to be connected with a cable to work. That would limit wifi, Bluetooth and carrier access.
      Still creates too much precedence. Apple would have LEOs lining up at their door to get into various iPhones.
  • Connect With Us

  • Twitter Box

  • Facebook