Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> But I sympathize with Apple for making transparent what I assume happens behind closed doors anyway.

Using your devices' CPU and battery seems more egregious than doing it on their servers. If they want to help law enforcement, then they should pay for it. Of course they want to help law enforcement by forcing other people to pay the costs.

Imagine if Ford came out with a cannabis sensor in their cars that automatically called the cops on you if it detected cannabis inside the car. The sensor is allegedly only active when you're renting a Ford vehicle, not if you purchase it outright. Not a perfect analogy, but how comfortable would you find this situation?



Let's do a more realistic example. Ford introduces a "driver safety" mechanism where the car requires a clean breathalyzer reading in order to start. If it fails it pops up a message that reminds you that drunk driving is illegal but doesn't actually stop you from starting the engine. It then sends Ford the results in an encrypted payload along with 1/30th of the decryption key.

After 30 reports someone at Ford opens the payloads, looks at the results and, decides whether to contact the police based on how damning the evidence is.

Because all the tests are performed locally you're never giving up any of your privacy unless you actually are driving drunk or are the 1/billion and get 30 false positives. I feel like this is a much stronger than the "if you have nothing to hide" meme because local testing like this lets you can have everything to hide while still revealing specific bad behavior.

Like if the TSA had scanners that somehow could only reveal banned items and nothing else I’m not sure I would even consider it a privacy violation.


That's not a realistic analogy because driving is a privilege you must earn, not a human right.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: