Microsoft's Brad Smith on encryption: Let the politicians decide

The problem people have with the privacy and security issue is that the US government is not an honest actor.

They are quite happy to ignore their own rules when it suits them, so why would they hold to the rules of foreign lands?

> ... there is no authority greater than moral authority.

Mathematics don't care one jot for authority, however.

"The answer lies in focusing on "timeless values," which include freedom of speech and privacy."

I wholeheartedly agree - so maybe dial down the telemetry a bit, mmmkay?

"Let the politicians decide"?

That sounds like a punchline to a terrible/terrifying joke. Let the politicians decide? Have you been watching the primaries, there Brad? Do any of those folks seem like the kind of people who are swayed by "facts"? Have you seen any dump trucks and tubes lately? Brad, have you paid *any* attention, at all, to how over government works...ever?

He may very well have said, "I'm bought and paid for, so treat my opinion accordingly", because honestly? That's all I heard.

He also noted that Microsoft has sued the US government three times on related issues, making a pointed reference to the US government's effort to force Microsoft to hand over data held on their servers in Ireland.

And yet the late great Caspar Bowden was sacked (fired?) by Microsoft when he dared to raise legal issues surrounding FISA (years before Snowden and possibly after Microsoft started helping the NSA via PRISM).

Brad Smith has zero credibility IMO.

Must not be possible...

We need to make technological solutions that make it technically impossible for the government to do what it wants. We need to couple that with severe legislation that provides harsh penalties for anyone attempting to circumvent measures people take to ensure their privacy.

It is possible to design a system that does not depend upon trusting one single particular bad actor. We could have mechanisms that make it technically feasible to unlock some things, but only with an m of n number of actors who can mutually distrust one another.

The exposure of current systems is well beyond anything reasonable and we are coming to grief on an ongoing basis because of it.

Bottom line, as can be seen by other comments here: You absolutely *cannot* trust the government with this.

Let the politicians decide

Spoken like a man whose politicians haven't engaged in an obvious cover up of a child abuse investigation.

Let the politicians decide

As a group I can think of few who would be less qualified to even have an opinion on this matter.

I smell a rat

Could it be that Gates & friends are a bit more on the fence on this because they are still shareholders of an entity that is ALREADY handing off data?

Given Win10, not entirely impossible IMHO.

Well that's Microsoft's stance on privacy out in the open then; as if we couldn't tell from the telemetry.

Personally, I'd already made the decision on W10 (never!); so didn't really need another showstopper.

So he wants to let the one group of people who have been loudly proving in the press for months that they don't understand either maths or the basics of the issues; to decide on the future of the field. Nah, let's not do that.

"decisions are best made by people that are elected by people."

Wow!

Does anybody really think that our elected representatives are safe to be allowed to make decisions on any level greater than what to have for breakfast?

Is Brad thinking of running for office soon?

This won't be popular to say....

But he's kind of right tbh.

Politicians are, in theory, accountable to the general public. Apple/Microsoft/Google/whoever are not accountable to the general public; they're only accountable to their own shareholders. So yeah, it's meant to be the politicians' job to decide on this, not Apple/MS/Google - even if Apple/MS/Google's decision is better than the one that the politicians come up with.

The fact that US politics is hopelessly delinquent and makes little effort to follow the popular will (to the point where Donald Trump looks electable to a significant portion of the population) doesn't really change the fact that private corporations aren't supposed to be in the business of deciding what the law ought to be. If Apple decide that they don't need to follow encryption laws, then they may also decide that they don't see why they should follow antitrust laws, or health and safety laws, or bother filing honest accounts.

Of course, we might point to the fact that Apple/MS/Google/whoever seem to spend an awful lot of money lobbying to get a say in what other laws are. But I'd say that it'd be better to make that particular practice illegal (since the US political system is now basically just legalized bribery) rather than pointing to one problem with the present system and using it to justify allowing corporations to make up whatever laws they happen to fancy following today, tbh.

I think that the US government is hugely overstepping it's bounds here in a dangerous and unconstitutional manner which threatens privacy on a global scale, and I think Apple are firmly in the right by saying that they shouldn't be made to help crack encryption on personal phones... but just because their motives are 100% right doesn't mean that the principle of refusing to do so is also right. It is ultimately the job of politicians to decide this. If you don't like the answer that those politicians come up with, well, you can vote to replace them every 4 years. Why not try doing that instead of continuing to vote them in and then complaining that you hate every choice they make.

It's a small picture and he looks tiny, but to my eyes - is he shirtless and wearing a motorcycle helmet???

"Smith reflected Bill Gates' comments about there being a necessary balance between securing conversations and making sure that law enforcement can do its job."

Huh. Didn't realize it was Microsoft's job to make law enforcement's job easier.

And to be clear, I know he was saying possible, not easy. But funny thing, police were able to do their jobs before smartphones were around. Suggesting that police can't operate without access to smartphone data is several kinds of fallacy.

Not a fan of Apple's walled garden approach. But will take them over Microsoft any day.

...and (presumably) paying no tax in any of the locations mentioned...