Amazon fires: Record number burning in Brazil rainforest - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49415973 <comment><USER3> Gonna give my 2 cents, bear in mind I'm in Brazil and am involved in projects related to the Amazon forest.

My problem with all this are some things:

* One problem I have is that during the last years Amazon savagery was going uncontrollable, no one cared, especially BBC, now that a president was elected that is not aligned with their point of view was elected, this became a front news issue.

* Assuming this is all true (and bear in mind, it isn't always) that fire was in Brazil's frontier, not just Brazil, the article forgot that part.

* One more point is: the supposed German and Norway money to "help maintain the forest", if you need to learn anything from investigative journalism, is to follow the money. Norway had a mining operation in the middle of Amazon[0] - the thing they are supposed to prevent! Funny enough, that mining rig polluted all the area [1] and they settled down not paying the locals, that are still protesting. I really wonder if that Amazon fund was really to support and protect our forest or to pay off NGOs to ignore what they were doing over there. Bonus: this all happened in the previous "good" government administration.

I really worry about the forest and was in Sao Paulo when that happened two days ago, but I really suspect the politics around it.

[0] - [http://theconversation.com/the-world-protests-as-amazon- fore...](http://theconversation.com/the-world-protests-as-amazon-forests-are- opened-to-mining-83034)

[1] - [https://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/toxic-waste-from- norwegia...](https://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/toxic-waste-from-norwegian- hydro-amazon-water-brazil)

<comment><USER4> That's the problem right now in Brazil. Any criticism to the current administration is because "ideology", like that's a valid argument to invalidate anything that's said. The current president thinks there are communists in every corner.

The fires are happening, any satellite can confirm that. Easily. The the head of the public institution doing very scientific work to track that got fired because he wasn't a true "Brazilian" since he was obviously trying to hurt his country by reporting the truth.

It seems we have imported the dualism in politics from the US/Argentina and everything now now is "us" vs "them". It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about public policies without people resorting to hidden motives and conspiracy theories.

I've followed the international news about the Amazon fires and there's very little wrong facts in them. But unfortunately they don't help our current extreme right administration so.

I hope reasonable minds prevail in the next election and we're able to elect an administration that is rational. Unfortunately, due to the increasing duopoly in politics, we'll probably have a extreme left president. It's all very sad.

<comment><USER3> gtirloni, I agree that tying to administration is ridiculous and avoid real criticism. This just bugs me because the rate of deforestation was going up really high in the previous one (that was impeached, but not because of that).

The fires are happening, I agree, but I really disagree that there are little wrong facts, mostly people hide important stuff, like the Norway mining I rig, and I really bet you didn't know about that one, it barely made the news. Only the convenient news come up.

It's impossible to say about only reasonable minds when the arguments are so skewed towards politics and extreme actions.

<comment><USER5> That's because the Norway mining thing is totally irrelevant to the big picture?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The sad part of reading news like this is the feeling of paralysis and helplessness of watching it all unfold.

There are no actionable calls to action or advice laid out in articles like these.

Awareness is good though. Perhaps it inspires people to work directly on solving nature's greatest problems. A friend of mine made a GitHub curated list about tech companies working in this space.

[https://github.com/nglgzz/awesome-clean- tech](https://github.com/nglgzz/awesome-clean-tech)

<comment><USER7> Individual action is very limited. Collective action is the only way forwards, which means you're going to have to get political, and convince other people that it's real, important, and deserving of action.

<comment><USER8> Money talks, if companies can make billions of dollars from individual $10-20 subscriptions, I don't see why we can't do it for climate change/deforestation!

I personally use Project Wren ([https://projectwren.com/](https://projectwren.com/)) to offset my own footprint and a bit more!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Brasil needs to be heavily sanctioned by the international community, I'm talking Cuba-level stuff if we want to even have a chance at stopping the rise above 2 degrees, we only have 12 years which means that it's already probably too late.

More worrying is the rise of populism in the world supported by fake news, ignorance and social media that led to this.

How did someone as ignorant as Bolsonaro ever managed to get elected as president of a democratic country, and get away with some of the things he says?

<comment><USER10> I consider such approach rather oppressive and reeking of colonialism attitudes. It sounds like: "Fuck Brasil, let's ban them from using their natural resources, while we happily keep using ours". There is literally no reason why other countries countries couldn't plant more forests to enhance their carbon depositions, now Brasil thanks to their rainforests does more of biosequestration than any other country on Earth and don't they dare doing less and not pick other nations' slack...

Also 12 years is just another arbitrary alarmist number, similarly to recently heard 18 months [1]. But in reality there is no upcoming end of the world [2].

[1]: [https://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-48964736](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736)

[2]: [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/no- climate...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/no-climate- change-will-not-end-the-world-in-12-years/)

<comment><USER11> IT is colonialist, patronizing, and evil. The US and the "developed" world have set course for self annihilation and the US in particular has done nothing to solve its own path by leaving the Paris Agreement. But hey let's blame Brasil, easier than solving our own problems.

<comment><USER12> Why are you so defensive about all of this?

<comment><USER11> So defensive? It's the second time news like this have shown up and it's the second time people have suggested sanctions. Usually Americans living under a regime that is one of the few countries to pull out of the Paris Agreement. You don't see a problem with that? Why is Brasil having to shoulder the blame for CO2 mostly produced elsewhere?

There's a lot that can be done but really it's the usual thing for me - <USER2> you're going to criticise someone clean up your own house first.

<comment><USER12> I'm a Brazilian, living in Sweden and I'm going to push and get in touch with people I know who have connections or work at Riksdagen (the Swedish parliament) to start any kind of discussion on sanctioning the beef and mining industry in Brazil.

It's possible to criticise something even if you live in a glasshouse, even more when what's being done down there is senseless for the future of the whole country, like I mentioned on another comment: this is utterly myopic and stupid, extract and destroy now to have something for 5 years or do the proper thing and invest in educating society taking 1-2 generations (so about 20-30 years) and reap the benefits for the next centuries.

<comment><USER11> I am also Brazilian but yeah I'm not saying any of this is right. I just don't get the sanctions idea being so popular around here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How about the rest of the world buy the rainforest and put it in a trust? It could then be dealt with like Antarctica - an area that isn't a country.

Same applies with say the DRC and other rainforest areas.

</comment><comment><USER14> If we truly care about nature then Brazil should be made one of the most politically and economically stable countries in the world by the powers of the world.

If that seems like too much effort to give up our own resources to protect the environment then leading world powers should re-evaluate whether its in humanities best interest to have few stable places of living that don't come at the cost of the environment to deal with poverty and suffering.

If you or your country is not stable, the last thing you will be concerned about is the environmental impact on the world.

<comment><USER5> Your point implies that we need to deflorestate in order to be economically stable. No, our economy is not bad because of the environment, it's bad because of bad decisions of politicians of the past.

<comment><USER14> Think you misunderstood my point, I'm saying that deforestation is a result of a economic woes. If the economy was in better shape we would be seeing less deforestation.

The politicians make decisions against the environment because it's how they gain political points, being seen as the fiscally conservative leader is always a winner in uncertain times.

<comment><USER5> Not in our case. Our current president is a climate change denial, in favor of reducing protected areas, he's cutting funding to inspections and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It took me a few good seconds to realize that the title is not about Amazon burning cash or something, shows how entrenched in our lives Amazon (the company) is.

<comment><USER16> In *your life. I would indeed make myself few questions :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If environmental disasters are enough pretext for questioning sovereignty, shall we compile a list, together with the territory to be subtracted? I suggest with start with North America. I'll go first:

\- Deepwater Horizon platform; Gulf of Mexico, 2010.

<comment><USER3> This is downvoted, but it is a fair point, that is being used as politics weapon. The Amazon forest was savaged before, but the previous administration was seen as "good".

And more than that, those supposed good funds from Germany and Norway that were basically a form of bribe for the previous administration look to the other side on the mining atrocities these countries did in the forest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For some reason I've thought about the other Amazon. Even São Paulo didn't help the title to ring a bell.

</comment><comment><USER19> This hits at one ideological conundrum that I have been grappling with for a while.

All major developed nations did so on the back of dirty energy, exploiting resources and with huge climate change implications.

Now that the smaller developing nations are finally capable of doing so themselves, they are being discouraged by the same developed powers. The developed powers did the same, but got away with it because there was no oversight. I don't see why these underdeveloped nations are now being expected to take the moral high ground.

We wouldn't need the Amazon as much, if we weren't pumping as many pollutants into our air and water supplies.

Plenty of species went extinct when the now developed powers expanded with reckless abandon. Now that Brazil is doing the same, the outrage seems hypocritical.

Some may say that the Amazon is special and not a resource that Brazil can singularly exploit, when it has global implications. But, the same has been true of fossil rich nations that have pumped cheap gas into the market indiscriminately, while they all individually became billionaires.

This whole argument extended to new developing economies like India and Central Africa at large.

Just to be clear I am not advocating for the deforestation of the Amazon. It can be seen as a right wing talking point, but I myself am completely at my wits end and do not have a retort to the argument.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is anyone surprised? It's easy to be upset over this but most readers here live relatively privileged lives. The poor farmer lighting a fire is doing his best to improve his life by clearing more land.

I don't know to improve the situation but I feel like we also need to have empathy and understanding.

<comment><USER21> I can be proven wrong, but I don't think it's poor farmers who are responsible for the deforestation of the Amazon. It's mostly big latifund owners with lots of lobbying power.

<comment><USER3> Gonna scream that one here: mining, look at norwegian and international companies mining in the middle of the forest. Plus previous administrations actions, like a giant power plant that will divert one of the biggest rivers over there.

<comment><USER22> mining only equates for roughly 10% of the deforestation of the amazon rainforest, we should be looking at the meat industry, it equates for roughly 75% - 80% of deforestation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How much would one need to pay per square kilometer rainforrest for keeping it to be competitive against steak/soy-farming?

</comment><comment><USER24> Please stop.

It is not the fault of the current government. Burning happens every year in the Amazon, and everywhere across the world.

The leftist party is using international media to alarm against the current government.

There are also investigations being carried out on these burnings, as there are indications that several are criminals and were executed by NGOs in this region. Those are the same who have lost benefits (money) in recent weeks.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the current government to intervene, hold responsible and take steps to prevent this from occurring or diminishing its impact in the future. It is worth remembering that this government is only 8 months old.

People behave as if previous governments were constantly extinguishing fire and that in the last 16 days, "by the current government", the water has run out and started to set fire to everything.

The problem of Amazonian care comes from decades of neglect, and this government is only 8 months old. There should be no external intervention. Other countries (first world or not, there are no excuses) should reforest as much as they can for the global good and not just point the finger at this region (important, of course).

NGOs in Brazil are almost totally corrupt, they are cancer here in Brazil. As well as much of politics.

Many forget or do not know that former President Lula [1] assumed in interviews that his government lied about important statistical data, such as hunger and misery in Brazil to impact abroad and then present the true numbers as the savior of this country. Pure manipulation.

The current government is revisiting all research departments through a thorough process to check all numbers that were presented as true and many are questionable.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5bOtqmvJHE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5bOtqmvJHE) (in Portuguese only, sorry)

<comment><USER25> Just so you know guys, this sounds like a typical Bolsonaro voter. Even implying that the multi-hundred-percent increase in deforestation just this year was fabricated by the communist scientists and that Lula somehow has anything to do with it. Or that it's good that Bolsonaro is "reorganizing" the research departments to get rid of the commies that dare to present evidence against his corrupt children or about his family's relationships with Rio militias. Or just plain firing scientists and managers from organs like INPE (National Institute of Space Research) and IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) that dared to speak out against his anti-environment speech, policies or even environmental infractions.

<comment><USER25> BTW, the multi-hundred-percent increase was referring to a single month compared to the previous year.

<comment><USER24> As I said, these burns are being investigated because they look criminal, made on purpose.

You can see in _EVERY_ NASA report/study about Amazon's deforestation, this has been going on for decades[1] and the alarm from the international media has always been mediocre.

And no, I'm not a Bolsonaro voter.

[1] [https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/landsat/news/40th- top10-a...](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/landsat/news/40th- top10-amazon.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Agile Certification: Love it or hate it, but deal with it - <AUTHOR> http://agilesoftwaredevelopment.com/blog/peterstev/agile-certification-love-it-or-hate-it-deal-it <comment><USER2> It's certification in general that people are skeptical of. We've all met Microsoft Certified Professionals and Sun Certified Java Enterprise Solutions Architects (or whatever they're called) who couldn't code or admin their way out of a wet paper bag - and we've all met people without a single cert who are near godlike in their technical skill. If I see a cert on a CV when I'm interviewing, I always think, why did this person think they needed that? What're they hiding?

<comment><USER3> It's even worse with the Scrum crap -- your "Scrum Master" certificate literally represents a payment to a "Certified Scrum Trainer", whose certificate represents $7500/year to the Scrum Alliance.

Is it any surprise that there is management douchebaggery behind courses about same?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > _The sooner there is an accepted XP certification, the better!_

Does this clown have any idea what differentiates XP from his cash cow?

</comment><comment><USER4> What is a Scrum Master?...

<comment><USER5> "What is a Scrum Master?"

It is a name for someone who sits through a 2 day seminar conducted by someone who doesn't know how to develop software but presumes to teach other people how to. ;-)

Seriously though becoimng a "scrum master" is _only_ about attending a 2 day seminar! The guys who dreamed up this marketing scheme (that is all it is) made millions off it so you have to give them due credit.</comment></comment>


Next Sesame Street Is Digital: Michael Levine On 21st Century Learning - <AUTHOR> http://techdrawl.com/News-Post/Fresh-Voices/The-Next-Sesame-Street-Is-Digital-Michael-Levine-On-21st-Century-Learning <comment><USER2> This is great, but where are the examples of successful implementation?</comment>


Rural America Turning to Grocers, High-Fee ATMs as Banks Leave - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/rural-america-turning-to-grocers-high-fee-atms-as-banks-leave <comment><USER2> I can't remember the last time I paid an ATM fee, because for many years I've had an account that reimburses them. If you're here and you still pay fees because you didn't know you had a choice, now you know.

<comment><USER3> Same here but there's incentive to not waste money on fees as my bank also pays a small dividend each year. My workaround was to get cash back when buying groceries but Kroger recently added fees to cash back on purchases!

The Family Dollar has NO CASH BACK!! signs on every terminal because like Kroger they must have discovered razor thin margins aren't sufficient to cover transaction fees. For the same reason the city in the article may discover Dollar Tree has the same attitude about cash back transactions.

Short of government incentives there is no reason for a savings and loan to remain in a small unprofitable town and outside of North Dakota there are no government-owned banks. As much a it goes against the political climate these days you probably do need government regulation and incentives to keep banking accessible to these towns.

<comment><USER4> What banking services do these people need? Most banks offer mobile check deposit, and many offer a wide network of fee-free ATMs. Most of these ATMs don't take deposits, so that may be an issue for those who need it.

I use Ally Bank and they offer $10 reimbursement for ATM fees every month _and_ they have a wide network of fee-free ATMs (at most 7-11s and a few other common stores). If you look harder, you can find accounts without any limits (e.g. Charles Schwab), and many credit unions support deposits in co-op ATMs (probably not helpful if there aren't any in rural towns). The only reason I go to banks is to withdraw cash in specific denominations for paying our baby sitter, but you can usually get the same thing if you ask nicely at a grocery store.

I don't see much of a reason why people need physical banks anymore. Withdrawals can happen with an ATM, deposits can happen in mobile or mail, and loans are increasingly available online. The only thing I can think of is business owners needing to make deposits and withdrawals frequently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On a recent trip to the US (San Francisco), I was surprised by how much ATMs charge. The ATM in my hotel was the lowest I found, charging only $4. Compare this to Europe where in most countries ATMs do not have a fee (small convenience stores are often the exception), and you can use the ATM of a competitor bank without incurring extra fees.

<comment><USER6> > On a recent trip to the US (San Francisco), I was surprised by how much ATMs > charge. The ATM in my hotel was the lowest I found, charging only $4

If you use your bank's ATM, they won't charge you a fee ( aka waive the fee ). If you use another bank's ATM or a non-bank ATM, then it's highway robbery. So the only time I ever use an ATM is if it had my bank's logo on it.

> Compare this to Europe where in most countries ATMs do not have a fee

Wow. Does this apply even if you use another bank's ATM?

<comment><USER7> > Wow. Does this apply even if you use another bank's ATM?

It varies but typically ATMs prefer charging the card issuer rather than the customer. So if you're using a bank that doesn't charge when you withdraw money out of its network, then it's essentially free. That's very common with online banks.

<comment><USER4> The same is true in the US. Ally Bank automatically reimburses fees up to $10/month, and Charles Schwab reimburses without any limit. Each back obviously has its own network and policies for out of network withdrawals, but I can't remember the last time I actually paid an ATM fee (I use Ally Bank).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My last visit to a bank was 8 years ago. I do all my banking online and if I have a problem I write an email (and sometimes call).

The fact that one wants to pay for bank services and agrees on a bank to force them to come (vs having mechanisms for remote access) is something I do not understand.

There is a population which does not have access to Internet, or is computer illiterate. The efforts should go into helping them to learn and legally force banks to make online banking easy.

<comment><USER9> This is the answer. Who needs a large amount of cash if you're computer (or phone) literate? Do all of your banking online and use something like CashApp for the rare person to person transfers.

I think it's fear of the unknown for many.

<comment><USER10> There are many, but here is a personal anecdote. For background, I am a relatively high income software professional. Many years ago, I moved states, and in the process had to switch banks, so I closed my old account before moving.

Somewhere there was an automatic debit on one my bills for 30-50 US bucks that my bank paid, but since my account was already closed, it basically went into default. When I tried to open a bank account in my new state, I was denied.

It ends up there's something like the credit reporting agencies, but for banks, and because of my $50 dollar accidental default, I ended up on this system. There are almost no consumer protections on it, so I couldn't contest it, and I didn't have any way to pay it or get it removed.

The end result is that I was unable to open a bank account for the next 5 years without a co-signer, even though my credit score was in the 700s and I had a six figure income. I was able to get credit cards, but couldn't easily pay the bill without an account to write checks from. I had to go to check cashing places to get money orders (most banks won't give you money orders or cashiers checks without an account), I had to cash my paychecks at the one office my employers bank had in town, and I could only receive checks for banks I could travel to. When I rented my apartment, I paid the security deposit in cash, but then had to drive around town when I got it back after moving out to try and find a branch of my landlords bank while I was on my way out of town. It was a nightmare.

There's a whole system I fell into that I wasn't even aware existed until that happened to me, and I consider myself a highly educated consumer compared to your average person. There are plenty of reasons to want cash in our society, even if you are not doing anything illicit or that you want to keep hidden. If, for any reason, banks are not available to you, life gets very difficult very quickly.

<comment><USER9> I still don't see that as a reason for wanting cash - that's a reason for wanting both laws to make the banking system act more like the credit system with more consumer recourse and "postal banking". They could go as far as denying access to paper checks and being able to opt out of letting banks get you into overdraft situations by denying all payments that would result in overdraft.

Also, you should be able to decide which order payments go in - highest first or lowest first. Highest first can easily result in 4 small overdrafts instead of 1 large overdraft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Welp, I've reached my free article limit from Bloomberg, so I'm working off the title alone.

Last year a spate of articles appeared about how grocery stores had bailed out of small-town/rural America, leaving maybe a Dollar General or something. For years, we've heard about telecom monopolies providing less than realistic service to small-town/rural America. Remember all the hand-wringing over a "digital divide"?

1\. Isn't this just market forces at work? Since we're all free market fundamentalists, why does this bother us? 2\. This is the result of deregulation, unchecked consolidation, and the populace migrating to cities. Monopolies, or even firms with a lot of monopoly power in oligopolistic markets don't have to meet every need, they just need to keep turning what they consider as an obscene profit. This strikes me as a 2nd order effect of allowing banks to consolidate. 3\. Small and medium towns are losing population as well, and may be on the bubble for this sort of thing as well. 4\. There's certainly an outsized amount of hand-wringing over the fate of rural America. I'm going to guess that there are urban areas with vastly greater population, that have much the same problems. Don't we usually agree that 15% of Americans are un-banked? This seems like an "electoral college" for concern about rural Americans.

<comment><USER12> Free article limit? Anyone can get around these limits. For example by blocking certain types of javascript--with something like the advanced mode of Ublock Origin.

As for my situation I live in a town of 300 people--with a bank branch but no ATMs anywhere.</comment></comment>


Older Macbook webcams can be remotely activated without any sign - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2013/12/18/macbook-webcams-can-be-remotel.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Link to the paper: [https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2...](https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/36569/camera.pdf?sequence=1)

The paper says it targets older iSight cameras, found in models until 2008. Anyone know if modern cameras better protection?</comment>


China's Ranking of Cryptocoins – EOS in First Place - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@VidrihMarko/chinas-ranking-of-cryptocoins-eos-in-1st-place-8589894f3bf9 <comment><USER2> This looks very strange. Do you have a link to the official ranking?</comment>


Answers to your questions about Apple and security - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/ <comment><USER2> This FAQ has more than 1000 words, but these are the words that matter:

      The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn't abused
      and doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.

Can a court force a company or an individual to create something that does not exist?

China required Google to actively censor search results about sensitive topics, and Google quit China. (They may now be heading back [1].)

Bing stayed in China and silently replaced their organic results with government-approved propaganda [2].

The best way to prevent governments from oppressing their citizens is to refuse to create tools that enable oppression.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why- go...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit- china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/)

[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/11/bing- censo...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/11/bing-censors- chinese-language-search-results)

<comment><USER3> > This FAQ has more than 1000 words, but these are the words that matter:

> > The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn't abused and > doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to never create it.

And of course, that's also wrong. The only way to guarantee that such a powerful tool isn't abused it and doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to make it impossible for such a tool to exist, not to refuse to create it.

Right now, today, Apple has the ability to create such a tool. Some finite number of human beings at Apple have the ability to create such a tool on their own initiative, e.g. were they disgruntled.

It should be _impossible_ for Apple, or disgruntled Apple employees, or any nation state, to create such a tool.

Otherwise, it will eventually be created, because if something is possible then is eventually probable.

<comment><USER4> The real answer is to do a Putin -- buy a typewriter.

If you're doing something that will attract negative political attention, mail a letter.

<comment><USER5> USPS logs all mail, i.e. metadata. [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail- mai...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html)

<comment><USER4> So what?

It's pretty trivial to obscure that metadata, and frankly the content of your correspondence is more important than the metadata.

Your mail has fairly robust legal protection, and you can spend more money (i.e. Registered mail) to provide a higher level of tamper evidence and accountability in transit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing that I don't think has been covered enough in this whole debate about forcing Apple to unlock the iPhone is that "Farook and his wife destroyed their personal iPhones, and the hard drive from their computer was removed and has never been found"[1]. The iPhone the FBI is after is one that was issued to him by his employer. It seems to me to be very unlikely that Farook and his wife would go to the trouble to destroy all their other electronics but somehow forget to destroy his work phone (assuming his work phone had incriminating information on it in the first place).

[1]: [http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/18/apple- court...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/18/apple-court-order- iphone-fbi-syed-farook-editorials-debates/80572492/)

<comment><USER7> I am guessing they have the call records from the phone company and found something interesting enough to go through all this effort.

We dont know what they found in the lake.

<comment><USER8> What would they get? Best case, there is a contact name associated with a phone number they think is suspicious? Wouldn't that have been backed up on iCloud?

Also, what's the endgame? They want to convict the dead guy? They want to convict the neighbor who sold them guns, maybe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks. "

Actually - the master key, the backdoor, already exists. The master key is Apple's ability to sign a new version of IOS, and update the software on a locked phone.

The Federal government isn't asking Apple to create a backdoor. Their asking apple to use the backdoor that already exists.

<comment><USER10> > The Federal government isn't asking Apple to create a backdoor. Their asking > apple to use the backdoor that already exists.

Basically. Unfortunately, most of the reporting is focused on the payload Apple is being asked to create and doesn't draw enough attention to that "existing backdoor" that will allow such a payload to be successfully installed.

Eliminating that "existing backdoor" should be a priority. I see some, here, expressing the thought that Apple might be working on that. I think Apple needs to be pressed, hard, on that very subject.

<comment><USER11> Supposedly, the backdoor has already been fixed by the Secure Enclave, which was included in newer models of the iPhone.

<comment><USER12> Supposedly, and also supposedly the Secure Enclave doesn't defend against this, depending on who you ask and how they're speculating. I've yet to see anything authoritative on this from someone in a position to know for sure.

The good news is that if you have a good password, not just a simple numeric passcode, you should be safe against this sort of thing regardless, unless the authorities can coerce or trick you into revealing your password.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The question I'm most interested in is whether newer iPhones are still subject to this attack. Unless I missed it, no answer to that question is presented here.

It sure feels to me like Apple is dancing around that issue. I'm betting that newer iPhones are still vulnerable, and Apple is a bit embarrassed at dropping the ball there. (The Secure Enclave stuff doesn't necessarily protect against this attack, it depends on how it's implemented and the official documentation doesn't quite say.)

If nothing sooner, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the fall when iOS 10 and the iPhone 7 presumably will ship, along with a new version of Apple's iOS security guide. Diffing that with the 2015 edition could prove quite educational.

<comment><USER13> I am not a security expert, but my understanding is that the main problems for the FBI are: a) There is a timed delay for trying new passwords after enough unsuccessful attempts and b) The phone will wipe itself after 10 unsuccessful attempts.

It's pretty much only sufficient to have (a) since the delays will make it take years to guess the password by brute force.

I just ctrl-f'd for "delay" in the security guidelines[0], which claim that the secure enclave is the one that enforces the timed delay[1], so I guess the only attack vector would be if you could somehow backdoor code onto the chip. I can't find anything in the guide from a quick skim, but I'd suspect the code is on a ROM chip or is somehow prevented from an upgrade without an unlock?

[0] [https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf](https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf) [1] Page 12

<comment><USER12> > I can't find anything in the guide from a quick skim, but I'd suspect the > code is on a ROM chip or is somehow prevented from an upgrade without an > unlock?

This is the big unanswered question. I suspect the same, but so far have not been able to find anything that actually says so. The code is not in ROM, as it can be updated, but it could wipe data if updated without an unlock. But I can't find anything saying whether it actually _is_. The mere fact that it's possible isn't enough, and their silence is a bit odd.

<comment><USER13> Seems like it'd be a pretty huge oversight if that vector were open, but I agree with you that it's not very confidence-inspiring if nothing about this is out there.

<comment><USER12> Depends on your threat model. It's possible that the Secure Enclave was just intended to be a defense in depth against malware and common criminals, not something that could keep Apple themselves out. If so, I'm sure they're re- evaluating that now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can someone ELI5 a typical opinion in support of the Government's case? I've read through various comments and I haven't seen a concise opinion in favor and am genuinely curious.

Does it boil down to (1) trust that the Government won't abuse the existence of the tool and (2) trust that the tool will never be leaked?

Or is it more fundamental - that the target data is so valuable that the ends justify the means?

I know it's more nuanced than that, but I think - in particular -someone's view on the All Writs component just follows their view on the above in most cases.

[edit]: I'm considering this a research sub-thread, not a debate sub-thread. Trying to understand, not convince. So forgive me for not responding one way or the other.

<comment><USER15> I'm staying with a friend who is is retired LEO, and he strongly believes Apple should/must comply. He wants big jail time if they don't.

He thinks a it's a matter of safety because terrorists. 14 people were killed, therefore the ends justify the means as you say.

We got into it the other night, and I think the case boils down to if we should be allowed to have secrets from the - secrets the government can never unlock, no matter what. he feels strongly that we should not be permitted to do so, because when a legal warrant is written, the government must have access to everything.

He also doesn't believe the Snowden leaks, and thinks that when it comes to the pursuit of justice, the government should be trusted with everything.

<comment><USER16> A case I heard recently is that if a undercover CIA operative was captured in e.g. China (with an iPhone), should Apple be compelled to break the security if demanded by the Chinese government?

<comment><USER17> I think people would argue that since Apple is not a Chinese company they'd be ok with Apple ignoring the request.

<comment><USER18> I'm sure Apple could just set up its iPhone production lines somewhere else in no time at all, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In all likelihood, the NSA has already created this hacked version of iOS that does exactly what the FBI is requesting. The government can probably already get the data off of the phone if that's all they're after. But it probably isn't. I imagine all of this is so the government can try to set precedent in order to publicly use that technology in courtrooms and investigations instead of having to keep it hidden from the world.

<comment><USER20> What would the NSA's motivation be for creating this? They are mainly SIGINT. This software is only useful when you are in physical possession of a phone.

<comment><USER21> Some of the Snowden leaks showed that the NSA was intercepting servers in transit and installing firmware with a backdoor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _> >The government says your objection appears to be based on concern for your business model and marketing strategy. Is that true?

> Absolutely not. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is and always > has been about our customers._

so it _is_ about marketing :-)

All joking aside though, I agree strongly with this document and I'm both a bit surprised and very happy about their detailed arguments and about the passion they put into this issue.

As a customer I'm happy to see that they are really fighting for me and not giving in, even to the point of refusing a comparatively reasonable request out of fear of producing a precedent.

<comment><USER23> >so it is about marketing

I read that line the same way. Under everything, their business isn't privacy; it's making money. They just happen to take a strong public stance on customer privacy. That seems really difficult to explain to readers without patronizing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Is it technically possible to do what the government has ordered?

>>Yes, it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to undermine our security features as the government wants.

So... something to fix in the next release. Apple could be doing this all along. Maybe they've already done it in the past via a FISA warrant.

My point is, if you rely on software for security, and that software can be "upgraded" at any time by the manufacturer, it's a problem. This is the definition of a back door. They could design their OS so that it has to be unlocked to "upgrade", but they didn't...

<comment><USER25> What you said. They do not address this in this letter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This letter comes off very strongly. It's as if they treat the government as just another customer. The way they describe their process for assisting law enforcement almost reads like their process for providing developer support:

> _We also provide guidelines on our website for law enforcement agencies so > they know exactly what we are able to access and what legal authority we > need to see before we can help them._

The concerning portion of this letter is:

> _Yes, it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to > undermine our security features as the government wants._

I have a feeling Apple is currently working on preventing updates to the Secure Enclave ROM from happening while a phone is locked (or at least ensuring the keys are wiped if it does happen while a phone is locked).

<comment><USER27> > We also provide guidelines on our website for law enforcement agencies so > they know exactly what we are able to access and what legal authority we > need to see before we can help them.

Why is that sentence objectionable? Every tech company has guidelines like that on their website.

<comment><USER28> He didn't say it was objectionable. He just said it treats the government like a customer. I, for one, would like to live in a country where the government is a servant, not a master.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> One thing I don't understand is, what prevents the FBI (or Apple or anyone else) from duplicating the contents of the iPhone in question to a virtual machine, then trying the 10,000 possible 4-digit unlock combinations on virtual machines until they find the correct one?

I assume that since this seems like a fairly easy solution that it's not possible, but what makes it not possible?

<comment><USER16> Not sure if 100% applies to the iPhone in question, but the secure enclave was designed to prevent this sort of thing. Here's an intro to it:

[https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-02-19-what- is-...](https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-02-19-what-is-the- secure-enclave.html)

<comment><USER30> This applies to later models of iPhone; the 5c doesn't have a secure enclave. All password attempt limiting and erasure of data is implemented by the operating system.

<comment><USER12> The 5c still has the secret UID baked into the chip.

The escalating artificial delays are implemented by the OS and can be circumvented, but the secret UID is designed to make it impossible to extract.

Without that UID, then you're brute-forcing a 256-bit AES key, not a 4-6 digit passcode. Practically, the brute forcing can only be done on the actual iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> When Apple says that they've never unlocked a device for the authorities one should keep in mind that the authorities have and use the power to force entities to respond this way.

<comment><USER32> They have the power to force people to keep quiet, but not to lie.

<comment><USER33> But lies of omission are fairly easy to construct, and the government seems particularly adept at coming up with them.

In this case, I'd feel much better if there were some sort of ToS canary or something. Does Apple have anything like that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> One question for the FBI: why so much investigation over a crime committed by someone who is dead?

Based on the nature of the crime, I'm guessing there weren't many accomplices. The one guy who helped him get the guns is probably where they need to be focusing their investigation and interrogation. If ISIS helped him, how? He took a gun to work and killed people. That's not an elaborate scheme.

It does not benefit the FBI to lose goodwill with the American people over this case.

<comment><USER35> Something about law enforcement causes practitioners to stop seeing themselves as peers of the citizenry. It is probably similar to the paternalism physicians exhibit toward patients despite the fact that they recognize the problem and train themselves against it.

<comment><USER36> Also see: Stanford prison experiment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Could Apple alter the icloud account in question such that a login succeeds with any password or session key? I wonder if there is some variant of that which would allow the remote backup strategy to work.

<comment><USER38> I imagine the issue is that the iPhone has non-backed up information on it. From what I've read Apple has already turned over the latest backup from ~6 weeks before the shooting. Getting a current backup would require the phone's hardware to cooperate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was surprised to learn that iOS 4 - 8 permits updating the firmware without first entering the PIN.

Device Firmware Update mode [https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/DFU_Mode](https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/DFU_Mode)

This technical factoid is relevant to the current discussion. I did not understand how creating a custom firmware was useful.

To further ground the discussion, I found this informative:

Legal Process Guidelines U.S. Law Enforcement

[https://ssl.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process- guidelines-...](https://ssl.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines- us.pdf)

Whereas before I was firmly against Apple helping to crack the San Bernadino iPhone, I'm now merely mostly against.

I don't understand how this action can help FBI. What additional, unique information could possibly be on this phone that they couldn't discover by alternate means?

I don't understand how an error by FBI obligates Apple to clean up their mess.

My understanding is that iOS 9 changed things so that this kind of forensics backdoor is no longer possible, mooting this discussion.

FBI should take their lumps and learn from their mistakes.

<comment><USER40> > My understanding is that iOS 9 changed things so that this kind of forensics > backdoor is no longer possible, mooting this discussion.

The question Apple would like to avoid is if, in the future, creating such a backdoor-resistant OS will be illegal. iOS 9.2.1 (the latest pre-ruling release) is legal; however, any future releases of the OS with this capability may be considered a circumvention of or non-compliance with the ruling.

<comment><USER39> Aha.

I just reread the letter. I would like them to use your direct language.

The use of encryption is a human right (to privacy). I utterly oppose any measure to curtail my right to privacy.

Arguing about the technical whatnots, and who did what when, as I've done here, is a trap, to better obscure the fundamentals. And I fell for it.

So thank you. I know it feels like restating obvious. But I needed to be reminded what's at stake here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > Yes, it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to > undermine our security features as the government wants. But it's something > we believe is too dangerous to do. The only way to guarantee that such a > powerful tool isn't abused and doesn't fall into the wrong hands is to never > create it.

Is this just security through obscurity, then?

<comment><USER42> No? Not if it requires a key to sign the software.

<comment><USER43> I think the argument here is that stealing a private key isn't fundamentally more difficult than stealing this iOS backdoor (were Apple to create it). Under this model, Apple's refusal to create a backdoor is in some sense an appeal to security through obscurity because it implies that engineering knowledge is the main obstacle to adversaries, whereas the true obstacle is the ability to steal protected information from Apple (the key or the backdoor). If the key and backdoor were equivalently useful, the existence of a backdoor wouldn't impact the safety of customers because the key already exists.

Of course, whether stealing a backdoor is actually as hard as stealing a key is a legitimate question, but (I thought) Apple had the option to unlock the phone in-house, which would at least keep the backdoor out of FBI hands (the legal precedent, however, could still pose a real threat to user security).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The contradict themselves:

> Is it technically possible to do what the government has ordered? … Yes, it > is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating system to > undermine our security features as the government wants.

And yet:

> We have done everything that's both within our power and within the law to > help in this case.

If it's possible for them to do it, then it's within their power, and it's perfectly within the law for Apple to write a custom OS and deploy it onto a device with the device's owner's permission (in this case, the owner is the County of San Bernardino).

They don't want to do it. Heck, _I_ don't want them to be able to do it. But they can, because they designed a system which they can backdoor.

<comment><USER44> > Heck, I don't want them to be able to do it.

Why? Having talked to a lot of people who hold this position, the only underlying thought I've been able to discern is that you can't conceive of any time someone else holding encrypted data could hurt you.

If this phone instead belonged to a living rapist or paedophile instead of a terrorist, and was the only evidence proving their guilt, would you feel the same?

<comment><USER45> Let's not pretend that this is a new issue for American society. We have almost 250 years of making these sorts of decisions.

For example, we know that bad guys use guns to commit crimes, yet we're very very reluctant to ban guns. Bad guys use cars, but we don't require cars to come with remote kill switches.

Bad guys use encryption. Shall we therefore ban it? Or destroy its effectiveness? Do any good guys use encryption? And should we take those uses in to consideration as we think about public policy?

The President of the U.S. uses an iPad. Millions of federal employees, including FBI agents, use iPhones. Let's think about the implications of punching a hole in the security of those devices.

It's very easy to make decisions when one ignores the broader context and consequences. That doesn't mean it's the right way to make decisions.

<comment><USER15> (To play devils advocate, coming from the perspective of my retired LEO friend)

legal warrants can we written to seize guns which can then be tested and information extracted from them.

Legal warrants can be written to search and seize cars, so they can be searched and extensively examined to extract information/evidence from them.

The argument goes that right now, warrants can be written to gain access to basically everything a criminal has/owns/has been in contact with so that it can all be gobbled up and analyzed.

People supporting the government in this believe the same is true for digital data - they don't care that it's on a phone or laptop or "online", they just think a warrant should let the government access it. If Apple can do it, then they must.

(Note I don't personally agree with that, but I understand it)

<comment><USER3> > If Apple can do it, then they must.

Which is why they ought to ensure that they _cannot_ do it. And it's why we should resist any law mandating that they be forced to include a pre-emptive backdoor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> They could have/should have circumvented all this by not allowing firmware to be forced onto a locked phone without it wiping its own key store.

Admittedly users could also solve the issue for themselves by using much longer passwords instead of short passcodes.

<comment><USER47> That would have eliminated their ability to fix bugs in the firmware, though. They literally did this last week with the "Error 53" patch.

There are tricks to allow this, but broadly no: what we're talking about here is Apple engineering a snoop-proof architecture that remains resistant when the _attacker is Apple itself_.

And that's just not going to happen in any practical way. Eventually, if the government wants to compel an backdoor in iOS encryption there will be a backdoor to iOS encryption. Arguing otherwise is just fooling ourselves.

And it's a silly issue anyway. If you want snoop-proof encryption on your personal device, install Linux, select "encrypt my drive", and memorize a secure pass phrase. Done. Relying on a third party hardware vendor to do it for you won't ever work.

<comment><USER46> Well, it would have to wipe the keys to update the firmware. Alternatively the update process could ask for the password/passcode.

I agree with you, but even if you install something open source you're still trusting the hardware, so at the moment there's basically no practical method of not trusting any hardware vendor at all. Obviously when you get all your hardware and software from the same vendor then it makes a move on the government's behalf much more practical for them.

<comment><USER47> > even if you install something open source you're still trusting the hardware

Not for the encryption. That's done in software. A seized linux laptop with an encrypted partition using a strong key is effectively snoop proof by the definition we're using here.

It's true that hardware could have other attack vectors: a key logger to intercept the pass phrase would be an obvious one. But again, that's just my point: Apple is in no privileged position here. If they get compelled to backdoor the iPhone then _no amount of security architecture_ along the lines you posit is going to help us, because they can just be compelled to defeat it.

<comment><USER46> > Not for the encryption. That's done in software. A seized linux laptop with > an encrypted partition using a strong key is effectively snoop proof by the > definition we're using here.

You can't run the software without hardware, so it has to be trusted. Don't misunderstand me, this is obviously considerably more far fetched than the Apple attacking their own software/hardware combo. However, assuming (a big assumption) that we trust what Apple are telling us at the moment, a seized iphone with a strong password would currently be just as snoop proof. In fact, this includes the phone that has spawned this conversion.

They can be compelled to defeat their own security if you're accepting continued updates to your phone. Under the security architecture I've (loosely) described they can't attack it without the user accepting an update. Of course, you're totally correct in practice because you're most likely just going to have to trust Apple updates as they come out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> >The digital world is very different from the physical world. In the physical world you can destroy something and it's gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.

They leave out the fact that Apple would need to sign (literally, using their private key) every time it is used.

>Unfortunately, we learned that while the attacker's iPhone was in FBI custody the Apple ID password associated with the phone was changed. Changing this password meant the phone could no longer access iCloud services.

Why can't Apple change the password back, reset the flag that says the password was changed, and have them turn it on again?

<comment><USER49> They don't really leave it out of the equation, though they don't explicitly state how it factors in. The issue is that a high profile case that people want to be prosecuted to the fullest extent is being used as a wedge to force a large undertaking (producing the unsecure firmware) to be made. Future requests from law enforcement on much smaller cases would then _only_ require the smaller undertaking (signing the existing firmware), and resisting that court order would be significantly more difficult.

<comment><USER48> If the court decides that they're obligated to comply, then that should apply in all similar cases. Resisting that order would be more difficult because they already lost the battle, not because they already created the tool.

<comment><USER49> My point is that it would also apply in a _smaller_ cases for a different reason than simple precedent: it would require no significant work not already undertaken.

This is the crux.

<comment><USER50> But why would that be bad? It _shouldn 't_ require significant additional work, even in smaller cases. If the FBI is getting warrants to access things without actual probable cause, then we need to be outraged about _that_ issue, not how they get access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> My primary concern here is that there are 14 people dead and the powers that are asking for this obviously failed to protect them. To me the arguments people are making for Apple to comply are like abstinence education. Despite all facts pointing to the effect that with all that they ALREADY have on us they are completely useless at "protecting the American public" why are they using that as an argument here? Obviously because people are still buying it, but at some point shouldn't we point back to fact that they were unable to stop 14 people being massacred?

</comment><comment><USER52> > _" hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this > case."_

Only hundreds?

It's not "unlocking" anyway, it's exposing the phones to an opportunity of cracking them open. A non-trivial time-consuming task, hardly the domain of opportunistic hackers with stolen iPhones.

> _" government-ordered backdoor._"

"Backdoor" is not what is being asked for, so they shouldn't use the word "backdoor".

Encryption is not under threat by this request. If raw computing power can break the encryption, then Apple should improve their encryption. Use more bits, more salt or whatever. Make it so a computer needs 50 years to crack a password, even with electronic brute force. Then it wouldn't matter whether the self-destruct kicked in or not.

And no mention of the compromise offer for Apple to keep the alternative OS on their premises and destroy it after.

Apple are trying just a bit too hard to "not put customers at risk". The risk is almost zero.

If Apple's security was as good as they claim, then not even Apple, no matter what they did to help, could crack the phone. That's where we want to be. At the point where it simply doesn't matter what the FBI asks for, the phone is uncrackable. Sounds to me like we're not there yet. Apple helping crack this phone will help us get there. And that's why I don't agree with Apple's position here. Let's see this phone cracked open, and then evolve the security to a point where a similar request would be impossible to achieve no matter what Apple or anyone did.

<comment><USER53> > It's not "unlocking" anyway, it's exposing the phones to an opportunity of > cracking them open. A non-trivial time-consuming task, hardly the domain of > opportunistic hackers with stolen iPhones.

Semantic nit picking aside, it takes a trivial amount of time for a computer electronically submitting passwords to crack a 4 digit code.

> "Backdoor" is not what is being asked for, so they shouldn't use the word > "backdoor".

More semantic nit picking. They're asking for Apple to write software to disable the very security features that make the 4 digit passcode secure.

> Make it so a computer needs 50 years to crack a password, even with > electronic brute force. Then it wouldn't matter whether the self-destruct > kicked in or not.

Says the armchair security expert.

> Apple helping crack this phone will help us get there.

No, it won't. All it will do is open a new security hole where one didn't exist previously.

<comment><USER52> Are you suggesting a 4 digit passcode is secure? News flash: it's not.

Any 4 digit passcode is insecure by its own nature. It's security depends on another unrelated system. This is an inherent weakness.

If you're stamping your foot demanding that your 4 digit passcode not be compromised by the FBI or anyone else, may I suggest a smarter option: choose a longer passcode.

Choose 11 digits and then it doesn't matter if someone at Apple or FBI or Mr Robot goes bananas and decides to write some software that compromises your phone's passcode retry limit. 11 digits is not trivial to crack via electronic means.

If you're relying on a combination of a 4 digit passcode and faith in your phone's manufacturer that the retry and self-destruct methods can't be hacked, well that's your own irresponsible position. Keep it if you like, but it sounds like an Apple passcode fanboy party waiting to be crashed.

As long as encryption remains solid without back doors, that's all that matters. The rest is a matter for Apple to choose whether to cooperate with an investigation into serious crime. They choose not to, citing "back doors" and "protecting users". No surprises there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Isn't the solution for Apple to have the phone also sign the firmware update so that the user has to enter their passcode to accept the update and sign the signature of their key.

If the firmware isn't signed by both keys (the users public key being stored in the secure enclave) then the phone should refuse to boot.

That way even if Apple is compelled to sign a rogue firmware, it still requires the user must also be compelled to accept it.

<comment><USER55> It would then be impossible fix to boot issues like the recent Error 53 problem.

<comment><USER54> In the specific case of the Error 53 problem I don't see a problem. In the case fingerprint sensor has been replaced with a non standard version I really want to the phone not to boot because there is a fair chance its been compromised.

(That said I think Apple's handling of the issue was terrible and it should have given a much more specific error and Apple should have been much less douchebaggy about replacing the sensor with an official version)

<comment><USER55> That error was factory test error code -- it was never meant for end users. It was a bug, that's all. Any other kind of bug could exist that prevents a device from booting (like the recent Jan 1 1970 issue).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I would like to know the technical limitation law enforcement is facing when trying to decrypt data in iOS 8.

I assume the data is encrypted using a key derived from the user's passcode, and that that key is purged from device memory after an idle period. Brute force attempts to guess the passcode are throttled, and too many attempts cause the device to delete the encrypted data.

Can someone confirm I'm on track so far?

Then, law enforcement would be limited to trying to circumvent the passcode entering throttling logic on the device, which Apple has physically engineered to be a destructive operation, thus it's outside the capabilities of even the most sophisticated technology labs in the US government?

Am I still on track?

<comment><USER57> Although focussed on the Secure Enclave, this may be of interest: [https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-02-19-what- is-...](https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-02-19-what-is-the- secure-enclave.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> To me this post explained a lot of the legal side of the issue: [http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645) I think it may have been on HN earlier.

</comment><comment><USER59> If corporations are people, would requiring a corporation to produce work product constitute a form of slavery? Or if writing code is a form of speech, would forcing them to write code violate their constitutional right to free speech?

</comment><comment><USER60> Our forthright discussion on this issue on HN, while valuable, will not help the broader problem of educating the voting public. It's kind of like John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden[1]. This issue needs to be translated into "pics of my junk" and become a sort of meme. Is the issue being framed wrong more of a problem than it not being framed at all?

1\. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M)

</comment><comment><USER61> Maybe I shall starting offer 1m USD dollars for leaking this said software to me. O.k. I am just kidding, but just imagine how much some organizations are willing to offer to get hands on this. Will you ever trust Apple again if it known this software is leaked? What if such software is leaked to a competitor corporate? What is such software is leaked to an enemy spy agency? Apple will be very doomed.

<comment><USER50> That's a lot of money to pay for a piece of software that only works on one phone that you don't even have access to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> i want to believe. but i'm having a hard time.

according to the new york times, for whatever they are still worth

> Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. > But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode > to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke > on condition of anonymity.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook- be...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a- bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html)

is the nyt reporting correct? i know they tend to side with natsec bullshit. i fear this being a really big pr stunt.

also, the nsa siding with apple is just an expression of rivalry, no?

</comment><comment><USER63> The only two reactions to this news seems to be cynicism and praise. I think both voices in response to Apple's letters are valid and useful for improving user security in the future, and yet incomplete by themselves.

Sure, Apple should be praised for refusing to give government agencies the ability to unlock an iPhone, but a significant part of their motivation is not altruistic. It's in Apple's self-interest to make a stand in this case, but we can't always trust corporations to prioritize customer privacy over caving to government pressure.

Similarly, Apple has already admitted that a backdoor exists for all iPhones. In my opinion, this is an inexcusable security hole at best, and at worst an implication that Apple intended at some point to comply with government requests for encrypted information. However, the fact that the FBI has made this request in the first place, and that Apple is in a position to decline (at least initially) and make it public, is a good sign that the three-letter agencies may not be as all-knowing as some may fear.

<comment><USER64> > _and at worst an implication that Apple intended at some point to comply > with government requests for encrypted information_

Apple's backdoor is for straightforward business reasons - they want to retain digital ownership of people's devices to take a cut from app distribution. Plus, keeping control is _harder_ than giving up control. Keeping control allows total flexibility, like the flexibility to undermine security that's under discussion. Removing control requires careful planning to avoid later problems with no flexibility to fix them.

<comment><USER63> I'm not sure I see what you're arguing. Implementing a more secure system is never convenient, but that obviously has nothing to do with whether it's justified.

As for my quoted statement, how can you really disagree? Having a system where "only the good guys" (i.e. Apple, right?) can break the security of any device is _precisely_ what law enforcement has been asking for for years, and what HN users and the tech-savvy in general have been railing against. Now that Apple has completely admitted that this system exists, users are downvoted here for pointing it out?

<comment><USER64> I'm merely disagreeing on Apple's motives. Yes, the voyeurs want backdoors, and yes Apple has built a backdoor. But I don't think Apple has created this backdoor _for_ law enforcement. I think it's simply due to them, like any other company, having a hard time giving up control and creating open platforms.

Don't sweat the downvotes. There seem to be a lot of Apple customers that don't have a technical clue about what guarantees other systems actually provide or what capabilities are theoretically possible. I surmise they view computing systems solely in terms of productized offerings from companies, and thus Apple is the leader of the pack for privacy and this case is key to preserving that privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> If it wasn't for Tim Cook...all the other tech giants are failing ethically.

</comment><comment><USER66> Thing that bugs me most is the url `/customer-letter`. Is this the one and only "Customer Letter" they're ever going to write?

</comment><comment><USER67> Certainly claims to be a different Apple than the one that released the iPhone3 that claimed it encrypted Exchange 2007 data (when it did not).

</comment><comment><USER68> Can they not just clone the disk and bring it up in a vm? Is there anything that would prevent them from building some tooling for that?

</comment><comment><USER69> I dislike Apple as a matter of principle, but I really love them when they are kicking and screaming for the right cause.

</comment><comment><USER70> Why can the FBI just create a modified operating system?

I haven't seen this question answered anywhere.

<comment><USER71> It needs to be signed by Apple in order for it to be loaded.

<comment><USER70> Why couldn't the FBI subpoena Apple's signing key?

That way the FBI isn't asking Apple to create any software, it's only asking for something that already exists.

Obviously that would be bad for Apple and computer security in general, but is there precedent that prevents it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Disclaimer: kind of glad that Apple's making noise, but kind of frustrated that it's about this specific case.

The answers to these questions has some pretty deceitful phrasing....

>First, the government would have us write an entirely new operating system for their use.

Only "new" in the sense of not being exactly the same as the current one. Implies much more work than we know to be the case.

>Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks.

The master key analogy falls apart because the order specifically calls for making a version that only works on a targeted phone. At best it would be the equivalent of Apple being asked to make many individual keys. Unless, of course, they want to make a version of iOS with the exploit that would work on any iPhone.

> Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where > all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked > by hackers and cybercriminals. A

This is implying hackers could do anything with a version of iOS that is made to only work on one phone. You could absolutely release the update file that the FBI is asking for and have no risk of compromising anything because (again) this is for a specific phone.

>Has Apple unlocked iPhones for law enforcement in the past? >No.

(The answer then proceeds to say "Actually yes we have, just not past iOS 8)

>For devices running the iPhone operating systems prior to iOS 8 and under a lawful court order, we have extracted data from an iPhone.

>We feel strongly that if we were to do what the government has asked of us — to create a backdoor to our products

Using a backdoor already existing in your product...

>One of the strongest suggestions we offered was that they pair the phone to a previously joined network, which would allow them to back up the phone and get the data they are now asking for. Unfortunately, we learned that while the attacker's iPhone was in FBI custody the Apple ID password associated with the phone was changed. Changing this password meant the phone could no longer access iCloud services.

Seriously FBI?

I know this letter isn't for me. I want to be on Apple's side based off of how they present the case. But if you look at the court order, off of the fact that the FBI got a warrant for a specific device, off of the fact that they're asking for an unlock of a specific phone, off of the fact that its technically feasible to do this without compromising all iPhones thanks to digital signage...

My impression is that Apple's position is that its technically infeasible to make this exploit, which isn't really true.

There's the other "but with this, we'll have to do a bunch of phones" argument... is there a term for being overburdened with writs from the court? What's the constitutional protection against that? That feels like the only valid defence at this point for them (from a legal standpoint)

<comment><USER73> Ultimately the point is that if we allow the government to compel companies to perform work, where's the line? If the AWA is upheld by all the courts, how do we prevent the government from just dictating to companies continuously the work they must perform on the government's behalf?

<comment><USER74> I'm struggling to a think of a subpoena that wouldn't involve being compelled to work. Subpoenaing unencrypted customer data still requires work on the company's part. When does a subpoena become a burdensome amount of work?

Furthermore the government already forces companies to preform work. For example, paying taxes, providing insurance for employees, complying with industry regulations.

<comment><USER73> "When does a subpoena become a burdensome amount of work?" This is certainly an important part of the question. I don't have a well-formed opinion on how to define limits.

"Furthermore the government already forces companies to preform work. For example, paying taxes, providing insurance for employees, complying with industry regulations." These are well-defined items with known elements about how to implement them. At this point, everyone knows that when they start a company, taxes, insurance, and regulations are part of the game.

But when law enforcement shows up making random demands, or convinces a court to issue an order for random demands, there must be limits. If there are no limits, there will be no end to random government requests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > I, for one, would like to live in a country where the government is a > servant, not a master.

Would you? Why not Somalia?

<comment><USER28> I don't see the point you are trying to make. I'm simply suggesting that "treating the government as no better than a customer" is probably a healthy attitude. In general, I think society is a lot better off when the government has to beg for data, fight for it in court, and loses more often than not. Government should only be "powerful" in the sense that it has great power to protect the liberty of the citizens who own it.

I recognize this as an idealistic attitude. I've always leaned libertarian.

<comment><USER44> > I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Somalia is a country where the government are beholden to the citizenry.

> I'm simply suggesting that "treating the government as no better than a > customer" is probably a healthy attitude

I see no evidence for that. Being able to treat a search warrant as if it's a polite request would help pretty much nobody.

> I recognize this as an idealistic attitude. I've always leaned libertarian.

By typical libertarian logic, Apple would be justified in torturing and executing the FBI agents on their property, as property is private and the Government is subordinate. The FBI agents violated the Non Aggression Principle by attempting to coerce Apple's employees to act.

Where have I mistaken your logic there?

<comment><USER28> 1 - To whom do you suggest the government should be accountable?

2 - I believe a search warrant is a completely valid and enforceable way to compel information, including in this case. But if Apple cannot comply without endangering every iPhone owner, then the other owners of iPhones have a stake in the outcome. The government's right to investigate this crime doesn't expand to the right to endanger millions of people's privacy and security.

3 - Torture would be a crime against the individual agents, and punishable as a crime unto itself. Libertarian philosophy doesn't suggest that you have a right to hurt other people, unless in self-defense.

<comment><USER44> > 1 - To whom do you suggest the government should be accountable?

Other governments and ultimately the citizenry as a whole.

> if Apple cannot comply without endangering every iPhone owner, then the > other owners of iPhones have a stake in the outcome

They do not. No more than owners of doors when the FBI executes a warrant.

> The government's right to investigate this crime doesn't expand to the right > to endanger millions of people's privacy and security.

No plausible mechanism has ever been put forward where this would be the case.

> Libertarian philosophy doesn't suggest that you have a right to hurt other > people, unless in self-defense.

Right, they attempted to coerce your staff on your premesis into acting against their own interests. This is a violation of the NAP and therefore any level of violence in self defence is justified.

This is one of the most core Libertarian beliefs.

<comment><USER28> I am reminding myself of this XKCD comic: [https://xkcd.com/386/](https://xkcd.com/386/), but at the risk of wasting our time...

You said that in Somalia, the government is accountable to the citizenry. Yet you suggest that that's legitimate ("...ultimately to the citizenry as a whole..."). If I personally object to a law, do I have any recourse? What if my town does? My state? My region? At what point does it become immoral for the government to ignore change requests?

The door analogy is clever, but inaccurate. It is not possible to transmit door keys (or battering rams) via email, and use them to simultaneously bash open the doors of millions of people. Creating a method by which a phone can be cracked weakens the security of the phone for all users, including innocent users. So the FBI is asking to weaken the security of all phone users. The "plausible mechanism" would be "hacker pays off an apple dev for a copy of the hackable OS".

The last point doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, in a hypothetical libertarian legal system, corporations would not have a right to self-defense, or any other rights, as they are not humans. Even in individual cases, any level of violence in self defense is definitely __not __justified. When you said "...Apple would be justified in torturing and executing the FBI agents on their property...", that's saying that trespassing warrants murder, which I do not claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > Should we put in place ubiquitous video and audio surveillance in every > square foot of the country just in case the FBI ever wants to review > something that happened?

In public areas that are often visited? Absolutely yes, an unbiased source of evidence available to the public? Excellent.

> Law enforcement has apparently lost the ability to do on the ground > investigation work in favor of whiz bang-ery

Apple has provided a child porn trading network protected by the very principles of mathematics and their refusal to cooperate with the FBI.

What they're doing is precisely what any law enforcement agency would.

<comment><USER75> Can we not drag this down to the media scare tactic that is child pornography?

For every sicko who's trading child porn there's dozens, if not hundreds, more who're trying to escape an abusive partner, leaving gangs, getting away from sexual slavery, or whistleblowing on government or companies breaching the law.

Additionally, should the millions of us engaged in perfectly legitimate activities have a dossier created on our lives just in case? Imagine what could happen to that information, you could be facing secret blacklists like the UK.

If Apple create this ability its use will extend past the immediate issue and affect people who genuinely need this security. In the digital world, as Apple said, you cannot destroy something or lock it away once it's used.

<comment><USER44> > Can we not drag this down to the media scare tactic that is child > pornography?

You mean can we not use the crime Apple has essentially made impossible to secure a conviction on? No, I'm sorry. Kids being raped matters.

> For every sicko who's trading child porn there's dozens, if not hundreds, > more who're trying to escape an abusive partner, leaving gangs, getting away > from sexual slavery, or whistleblowing on government or companies breaching > the law.

None of which is remotely related to phones being unbreakable _by law enforcement_.

> If Apple create this ability its use will extend past the immediate issue > and affect people who genuinely need this security

A fallacious slippery slope. If you let the Police search my house, they will search everyone's house without a warrant and therefore it's bad to have any searching ever.

<comment><USER76>
      > No, I'm sorry. Kids being raped matters.

And I'm sorry, no _it doesn 't matter to this argument_. Civil liberties are civil liberties, whether we are talking about investigating the theft of a stick of chewing gum, the theft of millions of dollars, a slap in the face, the breaking of an arm, the rape of a child, or the murder to thousands of civilians by terrorists.

Bringing up the most horrible of crimes to justify a particular argument for increasing the powers of law enforcement is an obvious attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than to experience.

If your argument is any good, it will be just as good when talking about why the police should be able to search your phone for evidence of tax evasion as it is for talking about why the police should be able to search your phone for evidence of child rape and terrorism.

Otherwise, we go to a place where we say, "Well, the shouldn't summarily execute people who steal cigars from convenience stores, but when it comes to terrorists, we shouldn't let laws get in the way of their need to do what's expedient."

<comment><USER44> > Brining up the most horrible of crimes to justify a particular argument for > increasing the powers of law enforcement is an obvious attempt to appeal to > emotion, rather than to experience.

No it's actually an appeal to both. The increase in powers here if any exists whatsoever is minimal. I'm advocating Apple comply with them.

> If your argument is any good, it will be just as good when talking about why > the police should be able to search your phone for evidence of tax evasion > as it is for talking about why the police should be able to search your > phone for evidence of child rape and terrorism.

If they can search your home for it, they should be permitted to search your phone for it. Both should have the exact same expectation of privacy and the exact same judicial oversight.

> Otherwise, we go to a place where we say, "Well, the shouldn't summarily > execute people who steal cigars from convenience stores, but when it comes > to terrorists, we shouldn't let laws get in the way of their need to do > what's expedient."

There is no evidence that there is any legal protection for Apple here and strong evidence that indeed the FBI can compel them. Nobody is advocating breaking the law or even going around it.

<comment><USER76>
      > If they can search your home for it, they should be permitted to search
      > your phone for it. Both should have the exact same expectation of
      > privacy and the exact same judicial oversight.

They _are_ permitted to search your phone for it. The problem here is that they are saying:

 _We wish to search this home, as is our legal right. The home contains a safe that we claim we cannot open, and we wish to compel the manufacturer of the safe to assist us to search the safe. The manufacturer does not wish to do so, but we insist that they be forced to do so by threat of imprisonment._

 _Furthermore, we wish to do so by compelling the manufacturer of the safe to create technologies that could open all safes, without the knowledge of the safe owners. We claim we only want to open this one safe, but we have this long track record of opening as many safes as we can, using secret courts and hearings to obtain the right to search those safes without the owners of those safes having the opportunity to argue against us, which is a different level of judicial oversight than being applied to searching this one house._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > The issue is the precedent that is made

That searching the effects of a dead terrorist is acceptable? I really don't find this objectionable in any way whatsoever.

> Apple could no longer argue they had to create something to fulfill the > warrant, since it was already created.

Good, Apple's desires to not be subject to the laws of nations where they do business has historically hurt their customers. Even now people argue that Apple are doing this to protect their customers of which there's no evidence whatsoever.

<comment><USER77> Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being deliberately obtuse?

The criminal act being investigated is irrelevant. They want data on a device in their possession that they have permission to search. That is all that matters. It could just as easily be a drug investigation or, as Comey said last week in front of congress, investigating a car accident.

<comment><USER44> > Do you really not understand how precedent works or are you being > deliberately obtuse?

Please do not insult people on HN. This false dichotomy is offensive to me.

> The criminal act being investigated is irrelevant. They want data on a > device in their possession that they have permission to search. That is all > that matters.

Then why are you concerned about precedent? They have met all of the requirements to search this device. Apple is impeding them for no good reason purely to advance their corporate interests.

<comment><USER78> You would prefer not to be queried as to the limits of your understanding, but we would prefer you stop commenting assertively on the basis of your ignorance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> There comes a time where the only competition for a huge corporation is the government. And you can't win that one (AT&T) -- even when you do (Microsoft).</comment>


Ask HN: Web app to store user's profiles - <AUTHOR>

I've created a web app for our company that stores a profile for our contracted employees. The profile stores address, phone, email, shirt size, preferred positions, etc.
The original app was built in Rails but I'd like to try a different language to build the new one.
Any suggestions?
Cheers! <comment><USER2> Check out Meteor: [https://www.meteor.com/](https://www.meteor.com/)

Super easy, Super fast and all JavaScript.

<comment><AUTHOR> That looks awesome! Going to look into it more

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Boring/right answer - the language other employees know and can support when you get hit by a bus?

<comment><AUTHOR> There isn't any other employees that know any bit of coding. We're a small business

<comment><USER3> In that case: python/flask, python/pylons, rust/iron, js/node, ...

<comment><AUTHOR> I was just looking into js/node. Seems like thats what I'll end up using.

<comment><USER2> Meteor is based on Node, and is reactive with sweet plugins for accounts and database stuff. I can imagine the default templating engine would be helpful for your task too.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the musician's uncertainty principle - <AUTHOR> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/uncertainty.html <comment><USER2> The uncertainty principle shouldn't be regarded as the fact that you cannot exactly and simultaneously know both the position and momentum of a particle. It should be regarded as the fact that such a concept doesn't even make sense, the same way that the concept of "instantaneous spectral content" of a signal doesn't even make sense.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. I remember asking a prof in undergrad what the spectrum of a single time sample would be. He didn't give me a straight answer, but I realized later that question was equivalent to asking what the average age of a single person was.

<comment><USER4> Hm... I think I get what you're saying, but isn't computing the average age of a person over their lifetime pretty straightforward? integral of their age divided by their total lifespan, which would be their (total lifespan)/2.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. It's misworded. It's more like, given a particular person, and a given instant in time, compute the average of an ensemble of people. It makes no sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you know the shape of the wave you can do a lot better: for example, for a sine wave you can measure the distance between (interpolated) zero crossings. That's what I do for [https://www.jefftk.com/bass- whistle](https://www.jefftk.com/bass-whistle)

I think you can do even better than that by noticing the shape of the wave, and then you're only limited by the precision of your hardware.

<comment><USER6> Isn't that basically just doing signal processing on the Fourier transform, because you know the Fourier series in advance?

<comment><USER5> Using zero crossings (which only works for pure tones) doesn't involve any Fourier transform at all. You literally just look at where the signal crosses zero.

<comment><USER6> Yes, you don't need doing any fourier transform, but it seems to me to be equivalent to doing signal processing after a fourier transform with the knowledge that it's a pure tone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Indeed, the uncertainty principle arises directly from the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem! [0]

[0] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3135](https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3135)

<comment><USER8> You don't need to do a fourier transform to measure a frequency, though. It doesn't really need anything special to measure the frequency of a 440 Hz tone to six digits or so given a single cycle. With some trickery you can get right down to 10-20 ps resolution, which would give you approximately eight digits from a single 440 Hz cycle. There is no frequency-domain effect here that would prevent you from measuring the time interval of a single cycle more accurately, except that it simply gets difficult on an electrical level when we are talking about resolving sub-ps intervals.

<comment><USER9> Measuring the half wave length of some physical process is literally performing the Fourier transform and pulling out the dominant coefficient

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Pauli Exclusion principle also fascinating with regards to music, if you consider that waves must be engaged, but only some intensities and some phases will do.

Hollow cavities and their acoustics explain the living potential of sound, much like how electrons become the living potential of the electron cloud. Does it make sense to consider electron clouds of smooth/continuous volume/loudness? Or are we certainly limited by the electron states?

<comment><USER11> Do you have any resources on this? Sounds interesting but I couldn't find any writing on the links between these ideas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The line "The momentum of a photon (or anything else) is p = h/λ so, multiplying the above equation by h gives Δp.Δx > ~1"

Multiplying both sides by h, should this read "Δp.Δx > ~h" or am i missing something?</comment>


Knuth updated DLX algorithm for new chapters - <AUTHOR> http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/programs/dlx1.w <comment><AUTHOR> You have to weave this into a pretty format if you want to really ready it. I don't know if that is something I can legally just do and host somewhere, if it is, I'd be glad to.

Main callouts for me, are he tried his idea of not using left/right links for the rows and found it didn't actually save any time. Always fun to see him hit a surprise. (I had tried this, but assumed I just wasn't doing it right when I found no real difference.)

He also has a section where he mentions that he convinced himself one order of operations was not important, only to realize it was. I love that he is exploring it.</comment>


Kickstarter comparison of the new GDPR-compliant Policy [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://d3mlfyygrfdi2i.cloudfront.net/kickstarter-privacy-policy-changes-may-2018.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> I can't help but note some "interesting" removals.

"Protecting your information—and being transparent about the ways we use it—is one of the core commitments we make to you. You entrust us with your information, and we take our responsibility to protect that trust to heart."

"We do not and will not sell your data."</comment>


How I converted my React app to VanillaJS - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/how-i-converted-my-react-app-to-vanillajs-and-whether-or-not-it-was-a-terrible-idea-4b14b1b2faff#.xg39346tl <comment><USER2> This is a very sane exercice to do, while obviously not something to recommend for production code - but I guess it's not the point.

We often take our tools for granted, without thinking about how they were designed. Doing such exercice allows both to get insights into the possible solutions for a problem one of our tools solves (allowing us to understand our tools better), and also is proper training for architecturing our own tools.

Thanks for sharing your discoveries.

<comment><USER3> And thanks for presenting it as an exploration and not the, "I am a _real_ carpenter, so I don't use a hammer, I just pound in nails with my dick!" inanity a lot of these articles are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting read, although the shtick got a bit old near the end. I really wonder how this compares to inferno.js as that has some real optimisation magic to make it super small and super fast while also being, close to, compatible with React.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice work. Enjoyed the step by step process. Want to do something similar, but in an Elm style.

A fun read as well.

</comment><comment><USER6> Can someone explain this interesting snippet?

      const h1 = () => makeElement(`h1`);

<comment><USER7> It Uses "fat arrow" functions (lambdas) to define function. It is "equivalent" (there are several differences here, like "const" and the context of the function) to:

       var h1 = function() {
         return makeElement(`h1`);
       }

_Edited to reflect the valid point brought up in the comments_

<comment><USER8> Not really an equivalent, because "this" would be different - unlike with function(){}, there is no automatic this-context binding with arrows, so just switching to a fancier syntax in existing code may break things.

Also, no "arguments" (there are ...rest parameters that allow for variadic functions).

<comment><USER9> > no automatic this-context binding with arrows,

I thought the arrows were now binding to surrounding context? (e.g. [https://babeljs.io/blog/2015/06/07/react-on- es6-plus](https://babeljs.io/blog/2015/06/07/react-on-es6-plus))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This post reminds me of the book, _Build your own AngularJS_

It's a little old now, but still worth a read.

[https://teropa.info/build-your-own-angular/](https://teropa.info/build-your- own-angular/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Creating frameworks by reversing the works of others is something I'd call art. I really enjoyed your article, and I'll surely use some of it for a personal framework that I'm currently writing.

Great work.

</comment><comment><USER12> TL;DR : Even though ReactJS (or any other JS framework) is 'heavy', Web Devs still need them to be able to code in a sane way for real world products.

<comment> vladimir-y Correct. Self made framework is a good thing for pet projects and in terms of education. But if you work in a team on the long-term project it's better to use standard tools since there will be a need to expand the team and it's better new members are already aware of the used tools/frameworks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> More like, "How I wrote my own framework in VanillaJS"

<comment><USER14> Doesn't code automatically look like a framework when you structure it?

<comment><USER15> You can e.g. hide that fact within a DSL!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I guess I'm NOT the only person not sold on React/Angular. Unfortunately, all the companies hiring in my area are. :(

<comment> yoz-y At the end of the article the author admits that while this is a worthy exercise and might sometimes be useful, using a framework such as react does have a lot of benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "replacement" \- not even close.</comment>