3 ms·

You're suggesting that Apple's motivation was "precisely" to enable general widespread government surveillance? Why would Apple have an interest in doing that?

You're suggesting that Apple's motivation was "precisely" to enable general widespread government surveillance? Why would Apple have an interest in doing that? What evidence do you have that this is their motivation, how do you know what motivates them?

Aunche 5y ago
An SRE friend told me that they're pretty confident that a three letter organization have attempted a serious breach at a data center. There's a good chance that Apple has negotiated a deal so they'll stop attempting hacks in the future.
- jdlshore 5y ago
  “A SRE friend” is “pretty confident?” That’s a very bold claim to make on hearsay. Does your friend work at Apple? Are they just speculating, or do they have actual evidence? Why do you believe them? C’mon, people, I know this is a knee-jerk issue, but exercise some basic critical thinking skills.
  - Aunche 5y ago
    Basic critical thinking skills would tell you that Apple would spend millions of dollars developing something that isn't making them any more money. The most obvious explanation is that the government is pressuring them to somehow. As far as the attack goes, I have a few more details, but I'd rather no reveal them since I could be violating confidentiality somehow. I understand why you'd be skeptical.
- meroes 5y ago
  So the gov't it got exactly what it wanted and instead of getting Congress to actually pass a law, they just effected a much simpler solution by force. Winning!
lijogdfljk 5y ago
I would suspect because governments repeatedly want this surveillance and as the GP comment correctly pointed out, this gives governments what they want while Apple sits on the side and acts innocent. Given pressure from governments for this type of surveillance is, i think, well agreed upon - Apple giving in while avoiding direct responsibility seems quite the incentive in my view.
poisonborz 5y ago
> Why would Apple have an interest in doing that? To follow the law? You can already read a bagful of stories where it caved in on law enforcement pressure. It already follows much invasive legal systems in China or India like any other major tech company. The measures there are being presented as "anti-terrorism", maybe a less marketable term in the US currently.
_trampeltier 5y ago
I also wonder about it. Maybe the agencys had something in there hands to make pressure to the apple people who decided this. Maybe optimised taxes, maybe lovers, we will never know. For sure there had to be a lot of pressure. I don't believe Apple did just because it was a beautiful morning once.
- meroes 5y ago
  Makes me think further...are there any documented cases of a three letter agency being on the board of any company? I'd guess they tried it once or twice, and it was too slow so they went for more forceful means. This just reasoning from what they've already done in the past.

Aunche 5y ago

An SRE friend told me that they're pretty confident that a three letter organization have attempted a serious breach at a data center. There's a good chance that Apple has negotiated a deal so they'll stop attempting hacks in the future.

jdlshore 5y ago
“A SRE friend” is “pretty confident?” That’s a very bold claim to make on hearsay. Does your friend work at Apple? Are they just speculating, or do they have actual evidence? Why do you believe them? C’mon, people, I know this is a knee-jerk issue, but exercise some basic critical thinking skills.
- Aunche 5y ago
  Basic critical thinking skills would tell you that Apple would spend millions of dollars developing something that isn't making them any more money. The most obvious explanation is that the government is pressuring them to somehow. As far as the attack goes, I have a few more details, but I'd rather no reveal them since I could be violating confidentiality somehow. I understand why you'd be skeptical.
meroes 5y ago
So the gov't it got exactly what it wanted and instead of getting Congress to actually pass a law, they just effected a much simpler solution by force. Winning!

lijogdfljk 5y ago

I would suspect because governments repeatedly want this surveillance and as the GP comment correctly pointed out, this gives governments what they want while Apple sits on the side and acts innocent. Given pressure from governments for this type of surveillance is, i think, well agreed upon - Apple giving in while avoiding direct responsibility seems quite the incentive in my view.

poisonborz 5y ago

> Why would Apple have an interest in doing that? To follow the law? You can already read a bagful of stories where it caved in on law enforcement pressure. It already follows much invasive legal systems in China or India like any other major tech company. The measures there are being presented as "anti-terrorism", maybe a less marketable term in the US currently.

_trampeltier 5y ago

I also wonder about it. Maybe the agencys had something in there hands to make pressure to the apple people who decided this. Maybe optimised taxes, maybe lovers, we will never know. For sure there had to be a lot of pressure. I don't believe Apple did just because it was a beautiful morning once.

meroes 5y ago
Makes me think further...are there any documented cases of a three letter agency being on the board of any company? I'd guess they tried it once or twice, and it was too slow so they went for more forceful means. This just reasoning from what they've already done in the past.