[p01926]

You can almost hear the Guardian's business leader writers rubbing their hands at the prospect. Which is as shameful and shortsighted as it is atypical for the Guardian. I would guess the team behind this article are acutely aware of the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon. Perhaps they're looking for a lifeboat with the Apple-despising Financial Times?

[vidarh]

> the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon.

The Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian Media Group had about 1.1 billion pounds net assets, of which the vast majority are liquid, as of end of March 2015 (after they've over the last few years sold of shares in various regional newspapers and AutoTrader, shoring up their balance sheet massively).

The sole purpose of The Scott Trust is to secure The Guardian in perpetuity.

There may be layoffs at some point. There may not be. But losing money for years on end is in itself not a problem for The Guardian. They'll want to at some point trim the loss down a bit to not eat to much into the capital, but at current rates then have quite literally decades of runway.

[p01926]

See this FT article [1] (a admittedly biased competitor) from late last month. Their cash shrank from £840M to £740M in the last year, and they're planning to cut "costs" by 20%.

That's a tragedy at such a great newspaper, but it does color their analysis regarding the companies most responsible for their decline.

[1] http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/25/guardian-to-cut-costs-by...

[matthewmacleod]

I'm missing what statement you're trying to make here – the point of the article is that the tech sector, which has traditionally be very unregulated, is starting to bump up against issues around wider social impact and state regulation.

That may or may not be true, but I don't really understand why you've reacted so negatively to what seems to be a quite valid view to take.

[dave_sullivan]

> the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year.

> Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing

> That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule.

> What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”

> This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means.

People may be taking offensive to the author not outright denouncing the FBI. He also doesn't sound like a fan of the tech industry (which is certainly ok). But there's a definite tone conveyed in just a few paragraphs.

[matthewmacleod]

I don't think I am seeing the same tone as you. These quotes don't sound anti-tech, they are discussing difficulties and issues in the sector – that's quite distinct!

[studentrob]

They are anti-tech. Anything anti-encryption is anti-tech: tech doesn't exist without encryption.

> the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year.

It isn't hard. The case is a right to privacy, which also happens to be a huge part of ANY tech company's business. The reason we use so much tech these days is because of the privacy controls. Also, Snowden and others pointed out the FBI probably has all useful the information it could retrieve about this terrorist anyway, so the work phone is relatively useless.

> Technology companies may not create oil spills, but their effects on modern life are suddenly spreading across a gamut of topics – privacy, tax, regulation, safety, even housing

Translation - "tech companies are creating problems in modern life akin to oil companies' oil spills"

> That’s why the San Bernardino case could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The FBI knows that the publicity from this battle won’t be favourable to Apple, whichever way the courts rule.

- "Tech companies are in a weak position and will probably lose this battle"

> What if the next case involves taxis and short lets used for child trafficking? Or tax avoidance turning out to fund terrorism? Those may sound farfetched, but they’re only a form of Kranzberg’s first law: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”

"What if" sounds like the author is warning of impending doom on the tech sector. The suggested cases are not far-fetched, but yeah, tech doesn't traffic people, people traffic people.

> This week, the tech business is learning, to its reputational cost, just what that really means.

I don't know how you can read that as anything but anti-tech. I believe tech business understands encryption deeply, and has even striven to understand the government's position and comply whenever possible. It is the government who needs to come to the table and sincerely listen and understand the implications of what it is asking, that a) their solution will hurt IT in the US and future innovation of humanity and b) their solution won't work since criminals will simply find another encryption app or device to use

[matthewmacleod]

I can't help but feel you are being extraordinarily uncharitable to what I think is anything but a slavish attack on the tech sector, and rather a fairly accurate description of some of the issues it is going to face. This article does not in anyway advocate against encryption, and instead point out – completely correctly – that the increasing influence of tech companies in day-to-day life is going to mean they start coming under pressure in ways they have traditionally avoided.

tech doesn't exist without encryption.

The Guardian is not arguing against encryption. It's pointing out, completely correctly, that in increased availability of strong encryption raises issues that we have no yet dealt with.

It isn't hard. The case is a right to privacy, which also happens to be a huge part of ANY tech company's business. The reason we use so much tech these days is because of the privacy controls. Also, Snowden and others pointed out the FBI probably has all useful the information it could retrieve about this terrorist anyway, so the work phone is relatively useless.

I don't agree – it is a difficult case to make. I happen to agree that access is not justified in this case, but it's hardly completely obvious that this is the case.

Translation - "tech companies are creating problems in modern life akin to oil companies' oil spills"

No – this states, again quite correctly, that increased presence and use of the products provided by tech companies means that the decisions they make have wider impact. It's a traditionally unregulated, not-really-seen-as-worthy-of-regulation sector, but as the decisions and events surrounding these companies gain more public awareness, there will be increased pressure to deal with the outcomes.

"Tech companies are in a weak position and will probably lose this battle"

Again, just no. This argument clearly points out that the FBI case has brought a simmering matter to a bit of a head, and that it's difficult to see a way in which Apple will come out of it looking good. Either they are "helping to shield terrorists" or they are "signing away customers' privacy".

"What if" sounds like the author is warning of impending doom on the tech sector.

That's not an anti-tech, though. It's a good point – what happens when something unambiguously bad happens in the future? The Guardian is not saying "we can't have encryption because this might happen" – it's saying "This might happen in the future, how will tech companies cope?"

[Silhouette]

This article ... point out ... that the increasing influence of tech companies in day-to-day life is going to mean they start coming under pressure in ways they have traditionally avoided.

It's also worth keeping in mind that this greater scrutiny of practices in the tech industry and how ethical and/or legal they are is probably no bad thing in general. In this particular case I expect most of us on HN would see the wider implications and side with Apple. However, the fact that Apple and other big tech firms are having to make these kinds of changes in the first place, to actively defend their customers' security and privacy and thus protect their own reputations as trusted suppliers, is itself a consequence of greater scrutiny in recent years and the tech industry no longer having carte blanche to make its own rules.

[studentrob]

Your interpretation of the article is different from mine and the above commenters, and that is okay

I was just trying to help you see how it could be perceived as anti-tech. You seemed eager to learn why others felt that way.