3 ms·

I see what you're getting at but that decision has little/nothing to do with Apple's stance on privacy. * iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for message

I see what you're getting at but that decision has little/nothing to do with Apple's stance on privacy. * iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China. * iPhones sold in China still utilize Secure Enclave for privacy/encryption. * Aggregate data still uses differential privacy in China. The government made a request of them which did not compromise their user's security, and they obliged. Compare that to when the US government requested backdoor access pass Secure Enclave and they absolutely denied that request. I agree that it's unfortunate for Chinese users that their government is placing additional limits on the available software in that ecosystem (as well as other ecosystems, I'm sure). But so long as the government is not asking Apple to compromise its users privacy I don't see any strong relation to corroborate the idea: "privacy matters, unless it's in your fastest-growing market".

sigmar 9y ago
>* iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China. Do you think Apple would refuse to swap out the public keys if ordered to by the government? Have you ever wondered why iMessage doesn't allow out-of-band key verification?
- cmsimike 9y ago
  This is my fear. Apple nicely shows all devices on my account, but how do I trust there aren't some invisible NSA devices on my account that also get all my iMessages?
ewzimm 9y ago
This also shows that if we care about the preservation of privacy, we can't depend on technology to solve the problem on its own. No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. A company can refuse to cooperate up to a point, but a government can always force it to either comply or cease doing business. The Verge's recent technology survey showed that at least its audience believes that Google and Amazon are better protectors of personal privacy than Apple, so their strong stance on encryption and privacy is not yet completely effective in differentiating them from competitors. Hopefully articles like this will enhance the perceived value of privacy, because we need both private and public entities to agree on privacy for it to be effective.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  Perhaps The Verge would like to re-run it’s survey now, after yesterday’s rash of users being banned from Google Docs that we’re shared with them.
- njarboe 9y ago
  "it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law" That is true, but in the US a big problem is that part of the government is breaking the law with its surveillance. In that situation technology can help quite a bit. The constitution states that the government needs a warrant to search ones private papers. Encryption works great against illegal government snooping. When the intelligence agencies and Congress starts talking about requiring back doors, like the Clipper Chip or the Apple request, society can hear about it and push to keep the back doors out. Worked with the Clipper Chip at least.
- s3r3nity 9y ago
  Yeah I tend to agree with you - if Tim Cook refused China's request and subsequently got all iPhone sales banned in China, the stock would tank and there would be chaos / folks calling for Tim to resign, etc etc.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. For now. I argue that there will be a technology corporation more powerful than the reach of any nation-state within 50 years.
  - ewzimm 9y ago
    I agree with you. I'd even bet that in 10-20 years, the primary purpose of nation-states will be technology management, if that isn't already the case. Administration by software seems inevitable, with the main problem being ensuring that the software is acting in our interests. We'll likely encode policies into something like Ethereum contracts once we have more reliable infrastructure.
exitreturn123 9y ago
You make a/the compelling counter-argument. I still think there is a market driver (China TAM) that motivates the behavior as much as anything here. I guess we'll see if the slope is slippery or not.

sigmar 9y ago

>* iMessage still uses end-to-end encryption for messages in China. Do you think Apple would refuse to swap out the public keys if ordered to by the government? Have you ever wondered why iMessage doesn't allow out-of-band key verification?

cmsimike 9y ago
This is my fear. Apple nicely shows all devices on my account, but how do I trust there aren't some invisible NSA devices on my account that also get all my iMessages?

ewzimm 9y ago

This also shows that if we care about the preservation of privacy, we can't depend on technology to solve the problem on its own. No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. A company can refuse to cooperate up to a point, but a government can always force it to either comply or cease doing business. The Verge's recent technology survey showed that at least its audience believes that Google and Amazon are better protectors of personal privacy than Apple, so their strong stance on encryption and privacy is not yet completely effective in differentiating them from competitors. Hopefully articles like this will enhance the perceived value of privacy, because we need both private and public entities to agree on privacy for it to be effective.

CodeWriter23 9y ago
Perhaps The Verge would like to re-run it’s survey now, after yesterday’s rash of users being banned from Google Docs that we’re shared with them.
njarboe 9y ago
"it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law" That is true, but in the US a big problem is that part of the government is breaking the law with its surveillance. In that situation technology can help quite a bit. The constitution states that the government needs a warrant to search ones private papers. Encryption works great against illegal government snooping. When the intelligence agencies and Congress starts talking about requiring back doors, like the Clipper Chip or the Apple request, society can hear about it and push to keep the back doors out. Worked with the Clipper Chip at least.
s3r3nity 9y ago
Yeah I tend to agree with you - if Tim Cook refused China's request and subsequently got all iPhone sales banned in China, the stock would tank and there would be chaos / folks calling for Tim to resign, etc etc.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. For now. I argue that there will be a technology corporation more powerful than the reach of any nation-state within 50 years.
- ewzimm 9y ago
  I agree with you. I'd even bet that in 10-20 years, the primary purpose of nation-states will be technology management, if that isn't already the case. Administration by software seems inevitable, with the main problem being ensuring that the software is acting in our interests. We'll likely encode policies into something like Ethereum contracts once we have more reliable infrastructure.

exitreturn123 9y ago

You make a/the compelling counter-argument. I still think there is a market driver (China TAM) that motivates the behavior as much as anything here. I guess we'll see if the slope is slippery or not.