Bill Gates: Tech Companies Are Inviting Government Intervention

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Bill Gates, who has plenty of antitrust experience from his time as CEO at Microsoft, warns that tech companies are going to get regulated if they continue abusing their monopolistic power and act as if they’re better and smarter than the government. Gates, for instance, suggests that the government should be privileged to certain communications, such as encrypted cell phone data.

Asked for an example, Gates pointed to the companies' "enthusiasm about making financial transactions anonymous and invisible, and their view that even a clear mass-murdering criminal's communication should never be available to the government." When I said he seemed to be referring to being able to unlock an iPhone, Gates replied: "There's no question of ability; it's the question of willingness."
 
Bright guy, but I think he’s wrong in this instance. That said, you reap what you sow. If people truly cared about their privacy they’d do a better job protecting it.
 
Last edited:
"their view that even a clear mass-murdering criminal's communication should never be available to the government"

The problem with giving this content to the government is that it means any content can be made available to the government. Governments have a long history of vilifying people who did nothing wrong, as well as recent revelations of casually snooping on everything they could get their hands on. If you care about the privacy of your customers, why would you want to be able to read their data, or make it available for the government?
 
"as if they’re better and smarter than the government." "Kentucky Governor Blames Video Games for Florida School Shooting"

Um, most like they are, billy boy.

Corporations take nothing and turn it into billions of dollars, government takes billions of dollars and turns it into nothing.
 
When you get all clever and stonewall a warrant, you're begging for trouble.

If you or I did it we'd be in prison, wealthy people don't generally go to prison let alone the wealthy executives of companies that can afford to lobby. The threat is there though, there may come a day when the bribes won't keep you out of the clink. I'm betting that a whole host of tools to unlock encrypted phones would become available when Steve Jobber 4.0 is looking at sitting in a cell until he or she provides them. I prefer the idea that a company comply with a warrant now and do the work for the authorities than be forced to provide a suite of more potent and versatile tools that will be open to abuse later.
 
Cats already out of the bag. If any company even leaked that all their encryption keys had backdoors that the government had access to, people would put their own layer of encryption on top of the phones in custom apps. Text messages with one time ppg pads, encrypted voice calls, etc. They already have access to way more than most people think they do, but now they want it out in the open too.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
When you get all clever and stonewall a warrant, you're begging for trouble.

If you or I did it we'd be in prison, wealthy people don't generally go to prison let alone the wealthy executives of companies that can afford to lobby. The threat is there though, there may come a day when the bribes won't keep you out of the clink. I'm betting that a whole host of tools to unlock encrypted phones would become available when Steve Jobber 4.0 is looking at sitting in a cell until he or she provides them. I prefer the idea that a company comply with a warrant now and do the work for the authorities than be forced to provide a suite of more potent and versatile tools that will be open to abuse later.
Click to expand...


If the encryption is doing it's job (y'know, MATH AND STUFF), then no. It's likely NOT possible

IF there are back doors in the encryption, there is no "Just for us" or "just for government work". It's "This is a flaw in the software open to EVERYONE, including criminals trying to compromise anyone running this platform."

And the second this gets out, even if just under the table to the government, the platform is DEAD.
 
It's a difficult issue to wrap your mind around honestly.

If someone launched a nuclear missile at your city, and it could be stopped by unlocking someone's personal computing device to obtain a kill code, would you support a tech company unlocking it then?

I don't know what's right or wrong in any of these situations, real or made up. I do think it is something that needs open and honest discussion.

At what point is privacy more important than human lives? Who gets the right to make that decision?
 
I hate government intervention in anything, but it would be great if companies like Intel could be brought to justice.
 
The issue with giving government access to "unlock" encrypted data is it wont accomplish anything. The bad guys will encrypt their data before the device/software encryption the government has the ability to "unlock" thus the only people exposed are unwitting people/the average Joe on the street. This is the same rehashed issue from back in the 1990's with the clipper chip. The Government isnt going to win this one..
 
I don't like the idea of criminals getting away scott free, because they can't access their phones. The government shouldn't have automatic access to your phone, but if ordered by court the tech companies should do everything to unlock the devices.
 
I expect a reasonable idea of privacy as a citizen and consumer.

However, anytime you give master keys to companies/GOV they tend to lose them. soooo... Guess I am for keeping my phone locked down and expect due process.
 
Chas said:
And the second this gets out, even if just under the table to the government, the platform is DEAD.
Click to expand...

Microsoft was caught doing it an year ago: a backdoor was put inside a Windows component and access was granted to the government. The backdoor leaked and was used to make one of the most widespread security treats in history.

Windows is not dead. And apparently it is impossible to create a truly private and secure platform using Intel + windows using today's hardware and software.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Cats already out of the bag. If any company even leaked that all their encryption keys had backdoors that the government had access to, people would put their own layer of encryption on top of the phones in custom apps. Text messages with one time ppg pads, encrypted voice calls, etc. They already have access to way more than most people think they do, but now they want it out in the open too.
Click to expand...

Tech savvy people might, the average user would whine for a few minutes and then live with it. People are lazy.
 
M76 said:
I don't like the idea of criminals getting away scott free, because they can't access their phones. The government shouldn't have automatic access to your phone, but if ordered by court the tech companies should do everything to unlock the devices.
Click to expand...

I think that is fair. No open access, but if court ordered.
 
Chas said:
If the encryption is doing it's job (y'know, MATH AND STUFF), then no. It's likely NOT possible

IF there are back doors in the encryption, there is no "Just for us" or "just for government work". It's "This is a flaw in the software open to EVERYONE, including criminals trying to compromise anyone running this platform."

And the second this gets out, even if just under the table to the government, the platform is DEAD.
Click to expand...

I absolutely get where you're coming from. It should never be up to a private citizen to "earn" her privacy by giving up her right to privacy.

My issue is that Apple contacted the FBI about opening up Devin Kelley's phone hours after he shot up that church. The FBI failed to respond because they seemed to want to make encryption itself a complicit villain. Apple's offer would indicate that they have the capacity to get into Kelley's data, at least in some form. The FBI seems to be more concerned about the meta game than any individual case, they want a permanent set of tools they can access at any time. The case is being built, bit by bit, to erode yet another corner of a private citizen's protection from (formerly) unlawful search and surveillance. The last year-and-a-bit has been an absolute bonanza for America's federal agencies and their ever increasing powers of warrantless surveillance and search. In previous cases by not complying with legally obtained warrants, companies have put machinery into action that will take away their control of their clent's data. It's not about right or wrong, it's about accelerating inevitability.

As for the platform being dead if there are back doors? Absolute and complete poppycock. Most people don't even lock their phones and most passwords are "password1" or "default", that indicates just how little they care about their privacy and security. It might be dead to you, but you're on the [H], we don't think about security quite the same way as the unwashed masses.

Trying to teach my daughters about security and privacy has been one of the most frustrating processes of my life. They just didn't get it. There was no such thing to them.
 
I think here in the U.S. we have the problem that where hings have become so polarized that from one administration to the next it's become difficult to have faith in a middle ground of laws to govern anything beyond a personal agenda and not the greater good. One person's hero is another's villain and so on. Those who want no government, well best wishes because in my experience those in crisis with no help are the first to cry for government assistance, while those feeling self empowered want less or none so they continue to separate themselves from the rest of the population do what they want with no accountability to the anyone, that is at least until their the ones in need and feeling powerless. Not saying I've never encountered anyone who stayed committed to that line of thinking no matter the consequences just that for me it's been pretty rare. Many more who like to jump on the bandwagon w/o any real commitment to what it truly means.

That being said, I agree privacy is a complex question. The thing I think worries most of us is that the people with the least ethical agendas seem to have the greatest ability in invading while those who might protect are becoming less able to do so. Not arguing that those might protect are not compromised in some fashion either it's just that at the moment it seems like a very lopsided situation. I don't see an easy answer since most of this points back to us as a species and not any particular government. We need to evolve if we want our laws to, not the other way around.
 
lostin3d said:
I think here in the U.S. we have the problem that where hings have become so polarized that from one administration to the next it's become difficult to have faith in a middle ground of laws to govern anything beyond a personal agenda and not the greater good. One person's hero is another's villain and so on. Those who want no government, well best wishes because in my experience those in crisis with no help are the first to cry for government assistance, while those feeling self empowered want less or none so they continue to separate themselves from the rest of the population do what they want with no accountability to the anyone, that is at least until their the ones in need and feeling powerless. Not saying I've never encountered anyone who stayed committed to that line of thinking no matter the consequences just that for me it's been pretty rare. Many more who like to jump on the bandwagon w/o any real commitment to what it truly means.

That being said, I agree privacy is a complex question. The thing I think worries most of us is that the people with the least ethical agendas seem to have the greatest ability in invading while those who might protect are becoming less able to do so. Not arguing that those might protect are not compromised in some fashion either it's just that at the moment it seems like a very lopsided situation. I don't see an easy answer since most of this points back to us as a species and not any particular government. We need to evolve if we want our laws to, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Privacy is not a complex question. You want it (you as in yourself), others want to spy on you (literally everyone else) but they don't want to be spied on.
A lack of security/privacy cost hillary the election. It should have gotten to the point where even the politicians understand the need for it.
I think the FBI is just playing a game. They already have access to the sensitive data, it's just not admissible in court because they can't claim getting it in any legal means. By claiming they have access to a backdoor, even if the backdoor is BS, they can use easy evidence to make themselves look good.
 
geok1ng said:
Microsoft was caught doing it an year ago: a backdoor was put inside a Windows component and access was granted to the government. The backdoor leaked and was used to make one of the most widespread security treats in history.

Windows is not dead. And apparently it is impossible to create a truly private and secure platform using Intel + windows using today's hardware and software.
Click to expand...


A back door into an application is a bit different than a back door into the underlying encryption.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I absolutely get where you're coming from. It should never be up to a private citizen to "earn" her privacy by giving up her right to privacy.

My issue is that Apple contacted the FBI about opening up Devin Kelley's phone hours after he shot up that church. The FBI failed to respond because they seemed to want to make encryption itself a complicit villain. Apple's offer would indicate that they have the capacity to get into Kelley's data, at least in some form. The FBI seems to be more concerned about the meta game than any individual case, they want a permanent set of tools they can access at any time. The case is being built, bit by bit, to erode yet another corner of a private citizen's protection from (formerly) unlawful search and surveillance. The last year-and-a-bit has been an absolute bonanza for America's federal agencies and their ever increasing powers of warrantless surveillance and search. In previous cases by not complying with legally obtained warrants, companies have put machinery into action that will take away their control of their clent's data. It's not about right or wrong, it's about accelerating inevitability.

As for the platform being dead if there are back doors? Absolute and complete poppycock. Most people don't even lock their phones and most passwords are "password1" or "default", that indicates just how little they care about their privacy and security. It might be dead to you, but you're on the [H], we don't think about security quite the same way as the unwashed masses.

Trying to teach my daughters about security and privacy has been one of the most frustrating processes of my life. They just didn't get it. There was no such thing to them.
Click to expand...

Basically, within a certain amount of time, they can use a fingerprint (or facial recognition). But, I think, after 24 hours or so of idleness, it forces password entry.
 
JSumrall said:
It's a difficult issue to wrap your mind around honestly.

If someone launched a nuclear missile at your city, and it could be stopped by unlocking someone's personal computing device to obtain a kill code, would you support a tech company unlocking it then?

I don't know what's right or wrong in any of these situations, real or made up. I do think it is something that needs open and honest discussion.

At what point is privacy more important than human lives? Who gets the right to make that decision?
Click to expand...

Nope, even if it was headed for my city.

The government is a give them an inch and they take a mile institution.

The scenario you're suggesting it is highly unlikely that anything could be done in that amount of time so it is moot.

Would you be okay if you were mistaken for a criminal, they unlocked your phone and found something they could arrest you for?
 
Chas said:
Basically, within a certain amount of time, they can use a fingerprint (or facial recognition). But, I think, after 24 hours or so of idleness, it forces password entry.
Click to expand...

I still believe that in a situation that really was important, at least as far as the FBI was concerned, they'd get your password. At least if you're alive, or mostly alive.
security.png

The fight against encryption really isn't about "important stuff", in my opinion. It's about being able to infiltrate the lives of people who haven't done anything wrong "yet". Companies getting cute over warrants is encouraging the dawn of legislation that will remove their control. We face the potential of either mandatory back doors, or a ban on encrypted personal information.

All of a sudden everyone who encrypts their data or closes those doors actually is a criminal because encryption itself becomes criminal offence. I know that's tinfoil hat level paranoia, but the digital space seems to be ripe fruit for exploitation, by everyone.
 
Bill CONVICTED ABUSIVE MONOPOLIST Gates should know. Also, the only reason Bill got convicted was because he wasnt kicking any money to Washington D.C.
 
The problem with the desire to get access to encrypted phone calls, is that it is a smoke screen.

In the recent shootings, the FBI had enough information to place him under observation with due reason. And yet, it still happened. They didn't need encrypted phone conversations to be able to avoid this situation, it's just asking for more than they really need, so it can be abused by those that call the shots.

Namely, not us.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I still believe that in a situation that really was important, at least as far as the FBI was concerned, they'd get your password. At least if you're alive, or mostly alive.
security.png

The fight against encryption really isn't about "important stuff", in my opinion. It's about being able to infiltrate the lives of people who haven't done anything wrong "yet". Companies getting cute over warrants is encouraging the dawn of legislation that will remove their control. We face the potential of either mandatory back doors, or a ban on encrypted personal information.

All of a sudden everyone who encrypts their data or closes those doors actually is a criminal because encryption itself becomes criminal offence. I know that's tinfoil hat level paranoia, but the digital space seems to be ripe fruit for exploitation, by everyone.
Click to expand...


First, the "Beat him with hammers" doesn't work on dead would-be terrorists.

But yes. It's about trying to make simple use of encryption an apparently criminal offense.
 
M76 said:
I don't like the idea of criminals getting away scott free, because they can't access their phones. The government shouldn't have automatic access to your phone, but if ordered by court the tech companies should do everything to unlock the devices.
Click to expand...

I dont like criminals getting away either. But what I like less is oppressive governments that find excuses to convict citizens. Having a good set of checks against the government is a GOOD thing.

Also pretty much everyone, including you, is a "criminal" these days. I guarantee that you probably have broken at least one law every week, if not every day, since you turned 18. You may not know it but youve done it.
 
M76 said:
I don't like the idea of criminals getting away scott free, because they can't access their phones. The government shouldn't have automatic access to your phone, but if ordered by court the tech companies should do everything to unlock the devices.
Click to expand...
If the only evidence that allows a murder to go free is in their phone and law enforcement can't unlock it, then it's a pretty damn shitty case with little to no evidence.
 
Gigus Fire said:
If the only evidence that allows a murder to go free is in their phone and law enforcement can't unlock it, then it's a pretty damn shitty case with little to no evidence.
Click to expand...
You think evidence is just laying around for the grabs in every case? In many cases the conviction is done by very little, because most of the evidence is already destroyed.

Why the fuck would you want to let off a murder if there is evidence on his phone of the act? What kind of fucked up reasoning is this? Even If there is evidence on the phone of the accused doing who knows what kind of fucked up shit, you'd still let them go because your innate hatred of the government?

This is very simple if there is nothing damning on the phone what harm will come to the accused by unlocking it? And if there is, aren't we better off with the person being put away rather than let off?
 
kju1 said:
I dont like criminals getting away either. But what I like less is oppressive governments that find excuses to convict citizens. Having a good set of checks against the government is a GOOD thing.

Also pretty much everyone, including you, is a "criminal" these days. I guarantee that you probably have broken at least one law every week, if not every day, since you turned 18. You may not know it but youve done it.
Click to expand...
WHAT?

So finding damning photos on the citizens phone is an excuse to put them away?

Again with the messed up reasoning. We should let off murderers, and rapists because everyone jaywalked at least once in their lives so we're all criminals? This is not double, but triple facepalm worthy.
 
M76 said:
You think evidence is just laying around for the grabs in every case? In many cases the conviction is done by very little, because most of the evidence is already destroyed.

Why the fuck would you want to let off a murder if there is evidence on his phone of the act? What kind of fucked up reasoning is this? Even If there is evidence on the phone of the accused doing who knows what kind of fucked up shit, you'd still let them go because your innate hatred of the government?

This is very simple if there is nothing damning on the phone what harm will come to the accused by unlocking it? And if there is, aren't we better off with the person being put away rather than let off?
Click to expand...
What would be on the phone that wouldn't be gotten by getting a warrant and going to the phone company? You can get phone positions, phone numbers, text messages, etc. It's highly unlikely you'd be able to get an unsent email on the phone stating the guy did it.
Most of the time they just want it to look for other crimes to pressure someone into confessing.
Same thing with emails. Court order, go to google, yahoo, whatever and get access to their email account.
That's the silliness with this. Explain what's so special about direct access to a phone.
It's not as if officers want to scan your phone on traffic stops: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/m...action-devices-aclu-objects/story?id=13428178
Ohh wait.
 
M76 said:
WHAT?

So finding damning photos on the citizens phone is an excuse to put them away?

Again with the messed up reasoning. We should let off murderers, and rapists because everyone jaywalked at least once in their lives so we're all criminals? This is not double, but triple facepalm worthy.
Click to expand...

You entirely missed the point. You want to include the ability for any government (because these things are used around the world) to access your phone as long as they can convince the court that you MIGHT be a criminal? Because you know you arent until you are proven guilty? You do know that right? Here in the USA its innocent until proven guilty. And yes other governments WOULD use those photos to slap you in jail if say you were vocally opposing their president etc.

Nobody is saying if someone commits a verifiable crime that the courts shouldn't order a legal search of everything pertinent to the case at hand IF the government has a reasonable and articulate suspicion that the search will turn up additional evidence. What we are arguing is that we should not build in a "bypass" for any government to use that FORCES its way past protections. Thats just four facepalms of stupidity right there. Besides that point its very unlikely that any unique evidence resides on the phone that is unobtainable by other means.

What YOU are suggesting is that anytime someone is accused of a crime the government should have unfettered access to everything in their life. Period, full stop. Sooo if I call the police and accuse you of raping my daughter then the government is justified in searching everything you have on the off chance you might have taken a picture of her thus proving my allegations? So you're guilty until proven innocent now? There are countries like that.

If someone refuses to comply with a reasonable search that has been court ordered, such as refusing to open their phone, then they are in contempt of court and can sit in jail.

And yes I would rather let a murder, rapist, whatever get away than to give the government the ability to access anything they want. Same as I feel about convicting an innocent person: I would rather see 10 criminals walk than convict one innocent. We arent "letting" anyone off, we are simply accepting that in a free society we may not be able to stop every criminal because it is so important to us to protect our rights. We accept that as a social burden in exchange for increased freedom.
 
kju1 said:
And yes I would rather let a murder, rapist, whatever get away than to give the government the ability to access anything they want. Same as I feel about convicting an innocent person: I would rather see 10 criminals walk than convict one innocent. We arent "letting" anyone off, we are simply accepting that in a free society we may not be able to stop every criminal because it is so important to us to protect our rights. We accept that as a social burden in exchange for increased freedom.
Click to expand...
I don't see a plausible scenario in which preventing access to a phone would let any murder, rapist or whatever get away with a crime that couldn't be obtained through other legal means.

I'm just going to assume this is a strawman argument for giving the government direct access to the everyday lives of the citizens under a "for your protection" clause that would be immediately misused and abused.
 
Gigus Fire said:
I don't see a plausible scenario in which preventing access to a phone would let any murder, rapist or whatever get away with a crime that couldn't be obtained through other legal means.

I'm just going to assume this is a strawman argument for giving the government direct access to the everyday lives of the citizens under a "for your protection" clause that would be immediately misused and abused.
Click to expand...

Oh I am sure that's exactly what it is outside of the one in a million that might randomly occur. Even if such a case existed my argument against the "for your protection" clause would remain. Its simply not worth it.

I am an adult I dont need a government that wants to be a nanny...I think too many people forget that and want that nanny to tell them how to live.
 
Gigus Fire said:
What would be on the phone that wouldn't be gotten by getting a warrant and going to the phone company? You can get phone positions, phone numbers, text messages, etc. It's highly unlikely you'd be able to get an unsent email on the phone stating the guy did it.
Click to expand...
As long as we have no access to the phone who knows what's on it? Let's be honest most people are not criminal masterminds. He might even have a selfie with the dead body.

Most of the time they just want it to look for other crimes to pressure someone into confessing.
Click to expand...
If someone confesses to crime A because they find evidence of crime B, then he's really really dumb. And if they find evidence of wrongdoing, why shouldn't he be punished for that? After all Al Capone was also done in for tax evasion as well.

Same thing with emails. Court order, go to google, yahoo, whatever and get access to their email account.
Click to expand...
Then why do you have a problem with "court order, go to apple, samsung, whatever and get access to their phone"?

That's the silliness with this. Explain what's so special about direct access to a phone.
Click to expand...
There is nothing special about it, it's just another avenue worth pursuing when looking for evidence.

It's not as if officers want to scan your phone on traffic stops: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/m...action-devices-aclu-objects/story?id=13428178
Ohh wait.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'd get a court order for every person on the spot. Oh wait, it's a completely different thing. Let me refer you to #10 on the regressive agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top