John Oliver encryption video

John Oliver encryption video. This is a brilliant argument and video from John Oliver. It does have some errors but it provides thoughtful analysis of the Apple encryption debate.

Certainly there is not an easy answer to this debate. If there were then someone would have proposed a solution. When the system is based on no access, giving access is of course problematic. It is unfortunate that some crimes may never be learned through the iPhone but perhaps they will get solved in some other way.

If encryption were controlled and were essentially bio-metric that would be a method around this problem. If for example, our eye print or fingerprint plus something else could be used then this would be a dead debate. I can’t imagine what else that thing could be. Maybe a relaxed brain wave pattern? Like how your brain looks when you think of someone you love for example? That should be unique and reproduce-able. Making a device that is easy for people of all skills levels and intelligence is quite a challenge. It is really remarkable that there isn’t more hacking and crime with the current system.

I guess what bothers me most in this entire debate is the polarization of both sides. Both sides are guilty of not completely truthful statements. The government for example says that Apple could destroy the code once it was used, which isn’t going to happen. Apple says that giving access is opening a Pandoras box. Certainly true, but there has to be a way to address the criminal element in any technology as well. Apple should come up with way to detect illegal use and automatically shut it down. Apple and other businesses profit from criminal use, and this should not be allowed.

Why can I say that? It is common for gangs and other organizations to steal and resell iPhones/apple equipment overseas. The current system allows them to do this. When my own iPhone was stolen I have no doubt that it ended up overseas. It is simple greed that kept the wireless carrier and Apple from preventing that. They could have easily made a system when a phone is taken out of the country from an account that has never traveled before. For those people who do travel with their phone a simple notification and password check would allow them to use it overseas. This is not rocket science, but Apple/Wireless carriers would rather sell a new phone then protect owners who purchase a phone.

Too many times business say they are not in the business of enforcing the law. They make it an excuse even if they have laws regulating them. They blame rogue workers, when it is the system that contributes to this. There is no reason why criminals can’t be identified in a way that preserves peoples rights and our privacy. Apple may not be responsible for crime, but they are responsible for setting up a system that profits from it.

Guy defends his car worth $500 and loses two toes

Guy defends his car worth $500 and loses two toesGuy defends his car worth $500 and loses two toes. People make interesting choices don’t they? This guy defends his older Passat worth $500 and loses two toes.

He put his life in danger, the life of others in danger, and damaged his almost worthless car. In addition he says it’s because of the principle of the thing.

I am not judging him or his choices in life. It is his choice what he wants to do. What is interesting is when people make impulse choices and don’t consider the possible consequences. I knew long ago that if anyone ever threatened me, they could have whatever I had. I would never defend anything that I have if someone wanted it. I have been the victim of a grab and run where someone took my iPhone and aside from surprise I felt sorry for the person who stole from me. It was a minority and maybe he didn’t have food or was in a bad situation.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not excusing crime. Everyone has the burden of their choices and the consequences. What I am exploring is that when people make choices often the consequences are surprising and disastrous.

For example, people often do things that their IT team asks them not to do. Many companies test their software to work with a certain version of windows, and they standardize on that version. Anything outside of that version isn’t supported because it may not work. Too often, people think that computer things are simple, and that they can upgrade the software. So end-users upgrade the software, and then things stop working. Then it costs money for the company to fix the software back to its original condition.

This not listening to IT is pretty constant at every company I’ve worked at. I think people like to break software just to see if they can use it the same way they do their computer at home. Or they think that the limitations that IT have proposed is arbitrary or for some reason that prevents them from being efficient. It’s a distrust of IT I think that causes users to challenge the way things are done.

Of course things can always be improved in IT, and it requires teamwork for that to happen.

Related Post