2 ms·

You're deliberately ignoring the use case, which makes your argument look silly. Scenario 1: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart child abuse in the Unit

You're deliberately ignoring the use case, which makes your argument look silly. Scenario 1: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart child abuse in the United States. Scenario 2: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart Chinese dissidence. Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world? Apple *has* to take an orthogonal approach to giving China the surveillance capacity it desires. It can't openly enable a regime that just covered up and obfuscated investigation into perhaps the greatest human tragedy of our generation. Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation... but it will deploy mass on-device privacy invasion for people who aren't even suspects to thwart child abuse? Ask yourself: What changed? If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control, I don't know what to tell you...

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world? Your claim is that somehow scenario one makes scenario two suddenly palatable. Like people will say "oh, they ran an allegedly limited surveillance program for the US, so who cares if they run an unlimited one for China?" >Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation.. Apple willingly offered to help unlock that iPhone. They're methods were blocked due to police mishandling of the device, and they were unwilling to pay to develop a backdoor for their own product. >If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control, This thread is about the FBI getting Apple to continue allowing easier access to devices. You brought up the example of the FBI trying to force Apple to allow them to access their devices. And the most recent event is Apple's surveillance of American devices. Yet somehow, you think the only possible reason Apple may be changing their stance is China.
- jiocrag 5y ago
  Grammatical and spelling errors aside, I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    1. Your claim that A allows B is nonsense. 2. Apple has always been less pro-privacy than you claim. 3. Everything mentioned here involves the US wanting more access. You claim that is proof of Chinese influence, rather than the obvious US influence. I'm not seeing a multitude of spelling or grammar mistakes either, though I will admit that one sentence was poorly constructed. And I see a wrong "they're" I blaim on auto complete, though still my fault.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world? Your claim is that somehow scenario one makes scenario two suddenly palatable. Like people will say "oh, they ran an allegedly limited surveillance program for the US, so who cares if they run an unlimited one for China?" >Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation.. Apple willingly offered to help unlock that iPhone. They're methods were blocked due to police mishandling of the device, and they were unwilling to pay to develop a backdoor for their own product. >If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control, This thread is about the FBI getting Apple to continue allowing easier access to devices. You brought up the example of the FBI trying to force Apple to allow them to access their devices. And the most recent event is Apple's surveillance of American devices. Yet somehow, you think the only possible reason Apple may be changing their stance is China.

jiocrag 5y ago
Grammatical and spelling errors aside, I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  1. Your claim that A allows B is nonsense. 2. Apple has always been less pro-privacy than you claim. 3. Everything mentioned here involves the US wanting more access. You claim that is proof of Chinese influence, rather than the obvious US influence. I'm not seeing a multitude of spelling or grammar mistakes either, though I will admit that one sentence was poorly constructed. And I see a wrong "they're" I blaim on auto complete, though still my fault.