I feel like the main issue with this article was a failure to adequately define "computer" and "information processing". There were some good points. In particular the fact that a given experience will likely cause completely different changes in the brains of any two individuals is poignant in the face of Kurzweil's claims. If the claim of the article was "Kurzweil is way to optimistic" then it would have been much better. Instead it works from an entirely too specific and poorly defined understanding of what a computer is to argue a point that is fairly difficult to defend.
Since you are making this claim, I'll assume you've read the entire codebase of iOS. Is there anything stopping Apple from sending out an update that uploads the fingerprint?? Is there anything stopping the NSA from requiring Apple to do this?? It's not paranoia anymore.
From an Occam's Razor POV: it would be simpler for some agency to require a backdoor or transfer the character-based unlock, which they could apply whether the phone has a finger-reader or not. Since I haven't read the entire codebase of any of the operating systems I use, my paranoid self says "Expect root-ation!" while my normal self says "Get back to work, quit reading and writing internet commments!"
Given the fact that we've seen no evidence of such updates previously, and rather we've seen Apple take many steps to protect privacy and even seen NSA leaked slides detailing how they need access to PCs to read iPhone backups, I think it's extremely unlikely that they would ever take the risk of pushing an customer-wide software update.
If you are worried about being specifically targeted, you shouldn't use an off the shelf cellphone at all, and this discussion is moot.
Is it possible for software to even read the fingerprint from the sensor, as opposed to only asking the sensor if this fingerprint matches a previous fingerprint????
The processing happens on the A7 chip, but separated from the OS. Of course, the question is whether it's possible for Apple or someone else to update the fingerprint software to give back more data than just the yes/no, or if you could reconfigure the hardware so that the OS can talk to the sensor directly.
But again, I'm much more concerned about all the other information my cell phone operator, so this is quite simply just hysteria, and undermines the rightful concern us techies have about surveillance.
My theory is the hardware is isolated precisely to prevent a software bug (update) from being able to access the raw fingerprints. "Children's game steals fingerprints" is exactly the headline Apple doesn't want to see. But that's just speculation, maybe it is accessible.
The outrage is because objectivism is a fantasy that rich people use to convince them selves they are better than others. Just because I am fortunate enough to be a software developer doesn't mean I think that's fair.
Why is an article that basically says "I'm a randian objectivist and I think capitalism is just great at the top of Hacker News. So you're an naive idiot who thinks Steve Jobs was a great innovator and probably has never heard of Dennis Ritchie. Why do I care?
Should anyone care? Once someone launches a DDoS, their argument is invalid. And reporting the grievance might just encourage them.
I don't know anything about any of Github's attackers, but from other incidents I know of at other services, it could be anything. A billing dispute. Anger that something was taken down... or not taken down in response to an unreasonable request. Anger that an account was suspended... or that some feud-rival's account wasn't suspended. People throwing "do it my way or I'll take your site down" tantrums may not make sense to anyone other them themselves.
