4 ms·

I used to downvote people a couple of years ago who were shedding doubt on Apple’s commitment to privacy. Boy. I was so wrong. I fell for the Marketing and it

I used to downvote people a couple of years ago who were shedding doubt on Apple’s commitment to privacy. Boy. I was so wrong. I fell for the Marketing and it made sense at the time “Their business is selling hardware and services, not ads. Ofcourse they are privacy advocates”. Pass laws and legislation. I admit I was wrong and it’s refreshing to see this whole thing unfold before my eyes. It just solidified my opinion about open source hardware.

dehrmann 5y ago
I'm just surprised they did it for CP and not terrorism.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  I think it's terrorism, and CP. I have a feeling the CIA, or FBI, had a little chat with Tim Cook, and Tim caved into the pressure. Who knows they might have some very embarrassing info about the man, and used it to get what they wanted. I guarantee government, including the IRS, Immigration, etc. will be accessing Apples severs. At least we won't have to listen to Apple privacy commercials anymore.
  - echelon 5y ago
    "It would be a shame if your company had to be split up for antitrust reasons." The sad thing is that it does need to be split up, but this was probably the stick used by the FBI/CIA to get their way. And as long as Apple does what they want, they'll let it go about its merry way.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    > I guarantee government, including the IRS, Immigration, etc. will be accessing Apples severs. Not sure if I'd go that far, but if they're using fingerprinting to identify CP, no reason they can't/wouldn't use ML to classify iMessages client-side as terrorist/not-terrorist.
jodrellblank 5y ago
Is it not weird to have people argue that Apple should be above the laws of places like Saudi Arabia and China, but this should be dealt with by "pass laws and legislation" and then expect Apple must obey those? ...?
- LanceH 5y ago
  I think people imply Apple should refuse to do business if it means following unjust laws contrary to their core values. Instead, it is a revelation that their core values aren't to protect the individual, but themselves.
at_a_remove 5y ago
That's part of downvote culture -- rather than verbally disagreeing, just press a button. It's easy. You don't have to present a counter-argument, you just begin to bury the opposing side. Everyone adds a shoveful of dirt and eventually that thing is just ... gone. Wished into the cornfield. And it feels good, too. You've done your part, helping to make that sort of thing vanish. Now you've seen how it works. That's why real engagement is so very important, it allows us to communicate and specify. What would a real commitment to privacy look like? Now we know that it isn't just a press release and a bunch of shiny happy faces (carefully chosen) holding Apple products. Now we can start talking about what a real commitment to privacy looks like in the world. I know you think laws and legislation are a good idea, but my guess is that this is a big no, or we will get them but with all kinds of loopholes for three-letter agencies, or no penalties specified for infraction. We know we won't get any kind of legal punishment, that recent ebay case is a fantastic example of the golden parachute you get. Perhaps commitment looks like a bond held in escrow. If my Apple TV is found to be exfiltrating the filenames of everything in a network share, the five million in that escrow account gets kicked over to the EFF. Stocks could be held out in reserve. Essentially, commitment looks like the Sword of Damocles, held over the heads of these corporate actors, and scissors are to be held by people who do not like them much.

dehrmann 5y ago

I'm just surprised they did it for CP and not terrorism.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
I think it's terrorism, and CP. I have a feeling the CIA, or FBI, had a little chat with Tim Cook, and Tim caved into the pressure. Who knows they might have some very embarrassing info about the man, and used it to get what they wanted. I guarantee government, including the IRS, Immigration, etc. will be accessing Apples severs. At least we won't have to listen to Apple privacy commercials anymore.
- echelon 5y ago
  "It would be a shame if your company had to be split up for antitrust reasons." The sad thing is that it does need to be split up, but this was probably the stick used by the FBI/CIA to get their way. And as long as Apple does what they want, they'll let it go about its merry way.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > I guarantee government, including the IRS, Immigration, etc. will be accessing Apples severs. Not sure if I'd go that far, but if they're using fingerprinting to identify CP, no reason they can't/wouldn't use ML to classify iMessages client-side as terrorist/not-terrorist.

jodrellblank 5y ago

Is it not weird to have people argue that Apple should be above the laws of places like Saudi Arabia and China, but this should be dealt with by "pass laws and legislation" and then expect Apple must obey those? ...?

LanceH 5y ago
I think people imply Apple should refuse to do business if it means following unjust laws contrary to their core values. Instead, it is a revelation that their core values aren't to protect the individual, but themselves.

at_a_remove 5y ago

That's part of downvote culture -- rather than verbally disagreeing, just press a button. It's easy. You don't have to present a counter-argument, you just begin to bury the opposing side. Everyone adds a shoveful of dirt and eventually that thing is just ... gone. Wished into the cornfield. And it feels good, too. You've done your part, helping to make that sort of thing vanish. Now you've seen how it works. That's why real engagement is so very important, it allows us to communicate and specify. What would a real commitment to privacy look like? Now we know that it isn't just a press release and a bunch of shiny happy faces (carefully chosen) holding Apple products. Now we can start talking about what a real commitment to privacy looks like in the world. I know you think laws and legislation are a good idea, but my guess is that this is a big no, or we will get them but with all kinds of loopholes for three-letter agencies, or no penalties specified for infraction. We know we won't get any kind of legal punishment, that recent ebay case is a fantastic example of the golden parachute you get. Perhaps commitment looks like a bond held in escrow. If my Apple TV is found to be exfiltrating the filenames of everything in a network share, the five million in that escrow account gets kicked over to the EFF. Stocks could be held out in reserve. Essentially, commitment looks like the Sword of Damocles, held over the heads of these corporate actors, and scissors are to be held by people who do not like them much.