4 ms·

That was a great 'free' PR boost for them actually, which less informed people take as Apple's great stand on privacy. Apple helped FBI in every possible way fo

That was a great 'free' PR boost for them actually, which less informed people take as Apple's great stand on privacy. Apple helped FBI in every possible way for months in their investigation (had also unlocked dozens of phones for them before), even gladly gave away the suspect's iCloud data (so much for customer privacy). It's only when FBI made their next request (to create a backdoor/loophole in brute-force unlocking) public instead of private, when Tim Cook 'had to' show they cared about users' privacy. [0][1] [0] "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" : https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-became-a-bulwark-for-digital-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/technology/how-tim-cook-b... [1] : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behind-the-scenes-fight-between-apple-and-the-fbi https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-20/the-behin...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
simonh 9y ago
But in the article you link to as [0] it also says Apple had already refused to comply with an All Writs Act request in an unrelated case several months previously. It doesn’t seem that the under seal request would have made any difference to their actual decision, which they’d already made. This pretty much kills dead any suggestion that they somehow changed their mind for PR reasons, in fact they pretty clearly didn’t want to publicise it hence the seal request. Also the PR boost from this is far from free. Aside from the huge cost of engineering all this security into the system, to the point of delaying major new features by years in order to get the security architecture into place, its also costing them a chunk of the Chinese market. The Chinese government is absolutely not happy with this sort of consumer privacy stance and has been cracking down on security services and features on the iOS platform. They’ve banned VPN software and features, banned communications apps, even screwing with Apple by barring the iTunes media business, and stalling Apple Pay. Going up against the US government arguably does Apple no harm, but setting themselves directly at odds with core Chinese government political goals such as pervasive monitoring and censorship of all forms of communications is going to be a real battle. If they just wanted a marketing advantage, they’d just build in some anti add-tracking features and be done. Security and privacy is so appallingly bad on Android even a perfunctory effort there would put them miles ahead at little cost. The extreme lengths they’re going to goes way beyond anything remotely necessary for a marketing advantage. Finally, Apples stance on accessibility shows just how serious they are about serving their users. The cost of their accessibility efforts must be dramatically higher than any possible financial or marketing benefit and they’ve been doing it for decades across platforms to little or no fanfare.
- piyush_soni 9y ago
  If they were that serious about users' privacy, they would have fought with the order of giving the iCloud data too. Also I don't see a direct relation between their accessibility efforts and efforts on privacy. That way, we can link anything with anything else.
  - simonh 9y ago
    Apple isn’t a sovereign state. It’s subject to US law. Sure it can challenge those laws if there’s a realistic chance of winning, but when there isn’t and they’re faced with a court approved demand based on settled law, not so much. They’re a consumer products company not an insurgency against the US system of government. Are you really saying you can’t see that distinction? The link with accessibility is just evidence that when Apple says they do something to benefit their users because it’s their right thing to do and not for financial gain, that they have history on that to back them up.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

simonh 9y ago

But in the article you link to as [0] it also says Apple had already refused to comply with an All Writs Act request in an unrelated case several months previously. It doesn’t seem that the under seal request would have made any difference to their actual decision, which they’d already made. This pretty much kills dead any suggestion that they somehow changed their mind for PR reasons, in fact they pretty clearly didn’t want to publicise it hence the seal request. Also the PR boost from this is far from free. Aside from the huge cost of engineering all this security into the system, to the point of delaying major new features by years in order to get the security architecture into place, its also costing them a chunk of the Chinese market. The Chinese government is absolutely not happy with this sort of consumer privacy stance and has been cracking down on security services and features on the iOS platform. They’ve banned VPN software and features, banned communications apps, even screwing with Apple by barring the iTunes media business, and stalling Apple Pay. Going up against the US government arguably does Apple no harm, but setting themselves directly at odds with core Chinese government political goals such as pervasive monitoring and censorship of all forms of communications is going to be a real battle. If they just wanted a marketing advantage, they’d just build in some anti add-tracking features and be done. Security and privacy is so appallingly bad on Android even a perfunctory effort there would put them miles ahead at little cost. The extreme lengths they’re going to goes way beyond anything remotely necessary for a marketing advantage. Finally, Apples stance on accessibility shows just how serious they are about serving their users. The cost of their accessibility efforts must be dramatically higher than any possible financial or marketing benefit and they’ve been doing it for decades across platforms to little or no fanfare.

piyush_soni 9y ago
If they were that serious about users' privacy, they would have fought with the order of giving the iCloud data too. Also I don't see a direct relation between their accessibility efforts and efforts on privacy. That way, we can link anything with anything else.
- simonh 9y ago
  Apple isn’t a sovereign state. It’s subject to US law. Sure it can challenge those laws if there’s a realistic chance of winning, but when there isn’t and they’re faced with a court approved demand based on settled law, not so much. They’re a consumer products company not an insurgency against the US system of government. Are you really saying you can’t see that distinction? The link with accessibility is just evidence that when Apple says they do something to benefit their users because it’s their right thing to do and not for financial gain, that they have history on that to back them up.