[Ment]

China: in that case, we can no longer certify your devices in China. Enjoy your other markets.

Apple's response will be to quietly build in a back door and lie to their customers instead of tackling the problem head on like BlackBerry does. Apple has never shown any respect for customer privacy, which is why they are being so bold about their approach to encryption now. But it's a red herring as they will share everything BUT what's encrypted at the drop of a hat, including all of the aggregated app use which is tied to your identity. Privacy is a lot more than encryption, and Apple socks at it by design.

Apple's answer is a dodge, which will not work in the long run, and may lead to the criminalization of encryption in many countries, which would be a step backwards for all of us. Companies cannot place themselves above the law and expect good result.

Posted via CB10

This isn't in the interest of the Chinese government as Apple is a huge employer thru the Chinese factories making Apple products. It would accelerate Apple's efforts to diversify its sourcing (factories in SE Asia and Brazil) as not to be dependent on the Chinese. Cloud services aren't zero-knowledge encrypted so the new Chinese law will still be able to get info from iCloud or any company having servers there, similar to FISA orders here in the US.

[tinochiko]

This isn't in the interest of the Chinese government as Apple is a huge employer thru the Chinese factories making Apple products. It would accelerate Apple's efforts to diversify its sourcing (factories in SE Asia and Brazil) as not to be dependent on the Chinese. Cloud services aren't zero-knowledge encrypted so the new Chinese law will still be able to get info from iCloud or any company having servers there, similar to FISA orders here in the US.

Lol what?

China wants to own it's own smartphone market, Xiomi, One Plus, Meizu etc.

Plus their current strategy is to move away from cheap labour and build sustainable economic growth by strengthening their firms at home, so whilst I take your point about Apple being a big employer, I think it could be in their interests though that's not to say that that's what they want

Posted via CB10

[tinochiko]

http://www.bof.stfi.re/2014/07/30/ho...ice/?sf=yonxor

Posted via CB10

[aha]

I am with Chen on this one.

Sometimes Governments want private information from citizens, they shouldn't get it automatically, but they should be able to submit a case to legal system and let the legal system decide whether they should get it.

BlackBerry won't help governments to gain personal info against the device owner's will. But they will do it if the court decides that it's the right thing to do.

So ultimately the court is the decision maker. And the legal system does not have a conflict of interest by design.

PassportSQW100-1/10.3.2.2639

[sonicpix]

So ANY Govt. can go to BlackBerry and say "yeah, John Doe is involved in illegal activity and we want his data". Now what may be considered illegal activity in some countries may not be here (speaking against the Govt., etc.). That's why I like Apple's stance on this. A company that says it will co-operate with Govt. requests for criminal activity is ripe for abuse.
Chen should go. Making the statements he made has put BlackBerry (A company supposedly committed to PRIVacy and security) in a bad light.

Not true. The government is or should be required to get a court order. There is a legal process to go through first. They can't just ask for it and expect to get it.

Posted via CB10

[crackbrry fan]

I am with Chen on this one.

Sometimes Governments want private information from citizens, they shouldn't get it automatically, but they should be able to submit a case to legal system and let the legal system decide whether they should get it.

BlackBerry won't help governments to gain personal info against the device owner's will. But they will do it if the court decides that it's the right thing to do.

So ultimately the court is the decision maker. And the legal system does not have a conflict of interest by design.

PassportSQW100-1/10.3.2.2639

If in reality it worked that way it would be great. Unfortunately mass surveillance is the "new " or not so new reality. Currently All electronic communication is being monitored, they are so good at it that they can Pin Point exactly where you are even without " location services" activated on your device. Personally I find it weak the argument that "I have nothing to hide ". There are oligarchs who currently use this to keep dissidents in check in various countries. I understand that fear will allow for the expansion of these systems of surveillance but won't want to live in a world where privacy, freedom of speech, expression is suppressed due to "big brother " monitoring free thought.

Posted via CB10

[Scott Rose]

Not true. The government is or should be required to get a court order. There is a legal process to go through first. They can't just ask for it and expect to get it.

Posted via CB10

I don't have faith in the legal process. The massive dragnet surveillance type of stuff we've been seeing has been authorized by rubber stamp secret courts that have no adversarial system. And if you want to fight it in public court, it is defeated without argument due to "state secrets."

I'm exceedingly disappointed by the stance Blackberry has taken here. I consider privacy a matter of human dignity and Blackberry has said I have none while I use the device. It is one of the major reasons I bought my first Blackberry 8 years ago. I prefer the Apple approach of "can't help you because we don't control that." (You'll never catch me with an iPhone in my hand, though.) I'm getting frankly fed up with the smart phone options that exist these days because increasingly it is becoming a "pick the least evil" option.

[z10Jobe]

If you want ultimate privacy, then don't use a smart phone..... or the internet..... or credit cards.... bank cards....etc etc

Posted via CB10

[Ment]

Lol what?

China wants to own it's own smartphone market, Xiomi, One Plus, Meizu etc.

Plus their current strategy is to move away from cheap labour and build sustainable economic growth by strengthening their firms at home, so whilst I take your point about Apple being a big employer, I think it could be in their interests though that's not to say that that's what they want

Posted via CB10

Chinese brands are doing well in China as well as Apple. How helpful is it to them for their expansion footprint for China to create a trade barrier by banning Apple devices. The US Congress with the rising nationalistic sympathies would like nothing more to have an excuse for trade retaliation.

My take on what China will do. Require all iCloud servers for Chinese residents to be in China, Apple is already doing this for China Telecom subscribers so its not a big change. This will allow the 'legal' framework access to iCloud data. China won't press on iMessage. No change for device encryption either.

[tinochiko]

Chinese brands are doing well in China as well as Apple. How helpful is it to them for their expansion footprint for China to create a trade barrier by banning Apple devices. The US Congress with the rising nationalistic sympathies would like nothing more to have an excuse for trade retaliation.

My take on what China will do. Require all iCloud servers for Chinese residents to be in China, Apple is already doing this for China Telecom subscribers so its not a big change. This will allow the 'legal' framework access to iCloud data. China won't press on iMessage. No change for device encryption either.

But.. China owns over $1.2 trillion of US debt, that's a heck of a bargaining chip

Also if China passes a law and Apple refuses to follow that law then the perspective from China is its not our fault if your companies won't obey our laws, not respecting sovereignty, which wouldn't help the US

I don't even know the particulars of the law, but I know that it wouldn't be crazy for China to make it harder for foreign companies to do business, heck it's one of the toughest markets to enter anyway...

Posted via CB10

[Ment]

But.. China owns over $1.2 trillion of US debt, that's a heck of a bargaining chip

Also if China passes a law and Apple refuses to follow that law then the perspective from China is its not our fault if your companies won't obey our laws, not respecting sovereignty, which wouldn't help the US

I don't even know the particulars of the law, but I know that it wouldn't be crazy for China to make it harder for foreign companies to do business, heck it's one of the toughest markets to enter anyway...

Posted via CB10

China owning lots of T-bonds has no influence on US politics. They are bought because they are stable and have guaranteed returns. What are they going to do, sell them on the open market at depressed prices, hurting themselves?

[tinochiko]

China owning lots of T-bonds has no influence on US politics. They are bought because they are stable and have guaranteed returns. What are they going to do, sell them on the open market at depressed prices, hurting themselves?

True, but it has an influence on the way people think and how they feel, which is arguably more powerful

Posted via CB10

[Ment]

True, but it has an influence on the way people think and how they feel, which is arguably more powerful

Posted via CB10

The psychology of it goes the other way tho. JoeBlo thinks China owning T-bonds means China owns the US government so another provocation like this would only push politicians to react. Can only imagine the vitriol someone like Trump would gin up.

[TgeekB]

If you want ultimate privacy, then don't use a smart phone..... or the internet..... or credit cards.... bank cards....etc etc

Posted via CB10

Exactly. You can't be part of the world but expect 100% privacy. Just like living in a house with others. There has to be concessions, otherwise go live on an island by yourself without any contact with the outside world.

[tinochiko]

The psychology of it goes the other way tho. JoeBlo thinks China owning T-bonds means China owns the US government so another provocation like this would only push politicians to react. Can only imagine the vitriol someone like Trump would gin up.

You're correct, and all I'm saying is it could go either way, there are both negatives and potentially positives for China making it more difficult for Apple and other foreign manufacturers to trade in China, so it's not definitely something they wouldn't want to do (whether obviously or subtly, the later being more a Chinese style- a lot of behind the door stuff)

Posted via CB10

[Scott Rose]

Exactly. You can't be part of the world but expect 100% privacy. Just like living in a house with others. There has to be concessions, otherwise go live on an island by yourself without any contact with the outside world.

I agree that one cannot live within a society without compromising their privacy in some manner. One has to interact with human beings at some point. But with a human being, one knows this interaction is taking place and has voluntarily sought it out for a specific purpose. We no longer live in a world where one easily knows they are surrendering their privacy. In the film camera days, one takes a picture and it exists on the camera until it is developed. You could do this process yourself or surrender the contents to a third party to do it for you. These days, how can one be sure the picture you've taken on an internet connected camera is not transmitted elsewhere? You need deep packet inspection and an isolated WiFi network in a faraday cage. In other words, it is beyond the technical means of most individuals. Privacy is not the default, it requires a PhD level thesis to prove (and even then a single silent software update could fundamentally alter this proof.)

I don't think it is an unreasonable request to not be tracked every waking hour, not have every message I send read and analyzed by third parties, to not be constantly advertised to, and to not be dictated to about how a device I own is used. But it is wholly incompatible with every major smartphone option. The only option is to digitally isolate yourself (flip phone anyone?) It doesn't have to be this way. This isn't a concession that HAS to be made. There's no technical reason for it, except that these gigantic companies that make these devices do not have our backs.

[TgeekB]

I agree that one cannot live within a society without compromising their privacy in some manner. One has to interact with human beings at some point. But with a human being, one knows this interaction is taking place and has voluntarily sought it out for a specific purpose. We no longer live in a world where one easily knows they are surrendering their privacy. In the film camera days, one takes a picture and it exists on the camera until it is developed. You could do this process yourself or surrender the contents to a third party to do it for you. These days, how can one be sure the picture you've taken on an internet connected camera is not transmitted elsewhere? You need deep packet inspection and an isolated WiFi network in a faraday cage. In other words, it is beyond the technical means of most individuals. Privacy is not the default, it requires a PhD level thesis to prove (and even then a single silent software update could fundamentally alter this proof.)

I don't think it is an unreasonable request to not be tracked every waking hour, not have every message I send read and analyzed by third parties, to not be constantly advertised to, and to not be dictated to about how a device I own is used. But it is wholly incompatible with every major smartphone option. The only option is to digitally isolate yourself (flip phone anyone?) It doesn't have to be this way. This isn't a concession that HAS to be made. There's no technical reason for it, except that these gigantic companies that make these devices do not have our backs.

I agree somewhat but also think you're exaggerating a bit. Most people know if they're taking a photo on a smartphone if it's being shared or kept private. You don't need a PhD to know that. Also, social networking is just that, a conscious decision to build social connections with others who share similar interests. The world has changed and we are not as isolated as before. I understand this is uncomfortable for some people. No one should be forced to take part but, let's face it, it's difficult to avoid it 100%. Just you and I discussing this on Crackberry means we have chosen to give up a bit of privacy. I don't think there's a perfect answer that covers everyone. We just have to be careful and make smart decisions.

[Scott Rose]

I agree somewhat but also think you're exaggerating a bit. Most people know if they're taking a photo on a smartphone if it's being shared or kept private. You don't need a PhD to know that. Also, social networking is just that, a conscious decision to build social connections with others who share similar interests. The world has changed and we are not as isolated as before. I understand this is uncomfortable for some people. No one should be forced to take part but, let's face it, it's difficult to avoid it 100%. Just you and I discussing this on Crackberry means we have chosen to give up a bit of privacy. I don't think there's a perfect answer that covers everyone. We just have to be careful and make smart decisions.

Not everyone does know this. I had a friend with an Android phone who was shocked to discover 6 months of personal photos had been automatically made public on Google+. It was just the default setting. But I am speaking to something more nefarious. A film camera is private in it's design. You can easily verify this with simple logic. I cannot easily verify that a piece of software is not uploading my data elsewhere if it has no user facing setting. It's a matter of trust. Do I trust the software's designer to keep my data private? Even if I do trust the software designer, I may have other issues. You see this all the time in the PC world with malware. Mobile malware is on the rise and I don't think it will be very long before we are in a similar position in the mobile space as we are in the PC space. Nowadays javascript can and has been used to silently highjack computers without user input by just visiting a page. Usually it's delivered by ad networks but a recent attack used ad block detectors to deliver the malware payload.

I trust myself to make smart decisions. I trust others to make the best decisions for themselves with the appropriate information. What I worry about is that control to make those decisions for ourselves is slipping away. Whether it is under force of law (as in metadata collection programs or hidden back doors to devices), illegal means (as in malware), or just because it makes business sense (user data is worth much more than the slim margins made on hardware). I desperately seek a smartphone manufacturer I can trust, and Mr. Chen isn't filling me with confidence that Blackberry is that manufacturer.

[Alain_A]

Not everyone does know this. I had a friend with an Android phone who was shocked to discover 6 months of personal photos had been automatically made public on Google+. It was just the default setting. But I am speaking to something more nefarious. A film camera is private in it's design. You can easily verify this with simple logic. I cannot easily verify that a piece of software is not uploading my data elsewhere if it has no user facing setting. It's a matter of trust. Do I trust the software's designer to keep my data private? Even if I do trust the software designer, I may have other issues. You see this all the time in the PC world with malware. Mobile malware is on the rise and I don't think it will be very long before we are in a similar position in the mobile space as we are in the PC space. Nowadays javascript can and has been used to silently highjack computers without user input by just visiting a page. Usually it's delivered by ad networks but a recent attack used ad block detectors to deliver the malware payload.

I trust myself to make smart decisions. I trust others to make the best decisions for themselves with the appropriate information. What I worry about is that control to make those decisions for ourselves is slipping away. Whether it is under force of law (as in metadata collection programs or hidden back doors to devices), illegal means (as in malware), or just because it makes business sense (user data is worth much more than the slim margins made on hardware). I desperately seek a smartphone manufacturer I can trust, and Mr. Chen isn't filling me with confidence that Blackberry is that manufacturer.

the remedies for that is to stop using all wireless electronic devices. Eventually your trust will be breached..

[TgeekB]

Not everyone does know this. I had a friend with an Android phone who was shocked to discover 6 months of personal photos had been automatically made public on Google+. It was just the default setting. But I am speaking to something more nefarious. A film camera is private in it's design. You can easily verify this with simple logic. I cannot easily verify that a piece of software is not uploading my data elsewhere if it has no user facing setting. It's a matter of trust. Do I trust the software's designer to keep my data private? Even if I do trust the software designer, I may have other issues. You see this all the time in the PC world with malware. Mobile malware is on the rise and I don't think it will be very long before we are in a similar position in the mobile space as we are in the PC space. Nowadays javascript can and has been used to silently highjack computers without user input by just visiting a page. Usually it's delivered by ad networks but a recent attack used ad block detectors to deliver the malware payload.

I trust myself to make smart decisions. I trust others to make the best decisions for themselves with the appropriate information. What I worry about is that control to make those decisions for ourselves is slipping away. Whether it is under force of law (as in metadata collection programs or hidden back doors to devices), illegal means (as in malware), or just because it makes business sense (user data is worth much more than the slim margins made on hardware). I desperately seek a smartphone manufacturer I can trust, and Mr. Chen isn't filling me with confidence that Blackberry is that manufacturer.

I do understand the dilemma. A film camera still works fine and is a viable option. It is not part of networking in any way. But if we are going to make a choice of networking then there will be drawbacks. I guess my question is, is it really possible to make a usable smartphone that is totally secure? Isn't that the problem Blackberry finds itself in? It's no longer just about secure email, the smartphone does so much more. If we want those "mores", we accept there is some risk with it. Just like driving in heavy traffic at rush hour vs. driving on a country road.

I don't claim to know the answer, I think that's for every individual to make. You can still use a film camera, you just can't share those photos as easily.

[bap3221]

This article about Apple's position on the changes to UK legislation that would allow for government backdoors into communications highlights a stark contrast to that of BlackBerry, where Chen was recently quoted as saying they would comply with government orders for access to data.

Apple unsettled by the UK's draft surveillance bill

Companies don't have a choice. Didn't you hear Google and microsoft are strong against releasing the publics private info to the government?

The fbi (or cia) fines them everytime they refuse to give information and basically force them to release all the info to them.

Posted via CB10

[GenghisKahn2011]

This article about Apple's position on the changes to UK legislation that would allow for government backdoors into communications highlights a stark contrast to that of BlackBerry, where Chen was recently quoted as saying they would comply with government orders for access to data.

Apple unsettled by the UK's draft surveillance bill

Mr Chen made it very clear BlackBerry would comply ONLY with warrants issued through proper judicial channels when individual cases are related to criminal activity.

I believe he stated well there would be no back doors in BlackBerry products enabling general snooping.

Apple has made no unequivocal statement.

BlackBerry Passport Silver Edition 10.3.2.2876 on T-Mobile

[Litigator08]

Mr Chen made it very clear BlackBerry would comply ONLY with warrants issued through proper judicial channels when individual cases are related to criminal activity.

I believe he stated well there would be no back doors in BlackBerry products enabling general snooping.

Apple has made no unequivocal statement.

BlackBerry Passport Silver Edition 10.3.2.2876 on T-Mobile

Actually both companies have indicated they will comply with lawful judicial warrants, so such compliance isn't the issue. What Apple said was that they do not have the capacity to decrypt information which is encrypted on devices, so while they will comply with all judicial warrants, they don't have the ability (by design, I'm sure) to decrypt encrypted data.

[David Tyler]

You realize BlackBerry uses a single encryption key for ALL BBM users, right? Not so with iMessage. Apple claims to not be able to read the messages.

Not so with BBM Protected.



Passport SE: All the snooty prestige of a device with a precious metal in the name at less than half the price!

[ssbtech]

Not so with BBM Protected.

And how does that help end-users not on a BES server?