4 ms·

> "They've turned your device into a dragnet for content the powers that be don't like. It could be anything. They're not telling you" They're pretty explicitl

> "They've turned your device into a dragnet for content the powers that be don't like. It could be anything. They're not telling you" They're pretty explicitly telling us what it's for and what it's not for. > "And you're blindly trusting them to have your interests at heart, to never change their promise. You don't even know these people." You should probably get to work building your own phone, along with your own fab, telecoms, networks, - basically the entire stack. There's trust and policy all over the place. In a society with rule of law we depend on it. You think your phone couldn't be owned if you were important enough to be targeted?

echelon 5y ago
> They're pretty explicitly telling us what it's for and what it's not for. Nobody should blindly trust Apple. As an organization, they already love secrecy and shadows--what better place to sneak in and test this kind of feature, free from employee ethics and scrutiny? They've been cooking this up without telling anyone, which is also indicative of how above board they are. Who knows what else they're doing with this now or will do in the future. The CIA, FBI, MI6, Mossad, FSB, CCP, et al. will use this to learn more about their targets.
salawat 5y ago
Yes. All the fabs and stuff we have now shoufd be devoted to implementing a surveillance state. This must happen. It cannot be any other way. This is what you sound like. The problem here isn't the tech. It's that Big Tech has deluded society into believing privacy and personal ownership of devices doesn't exist because it would inconvenice Big Tech. Law enforcement echoes it because they were spoiled by the brief period that they tasted ClearNet, and they don't want to return to having to investigate the old fashioned way. Every other major industry has increasingly started doing the same thing. It is not okay. We have no right to sell out future generation's privacy. It's cowardly, selfish, and does more harm to them in the long run.
- fossuser 5y ago
  I’m not making statements about the way things ought to be, I’m being pragmatic about the way things are. We’re trusting a lot of the stack. Apple’s policy as described is reasonable. If you distrust it because of the things they could do, that same logic applies to the entire stack. The nature of modern software distribution is that the majority of the stuff we use from centralized corporations is governed by policy, not technical capability or controls, and you don’t get to know the details. You don’t own the OS you use, you don’t own the important parts of your phone. This can be different. Decentralized applications via protocols are interesting (DeFi blockchain stuff like Audius or other apps on Ethereum). If the UX can get figured out. Urbit is interesting too - if you want to actually own your stack, use Urbit: https://media.urbit.org/whitepaper.pdf https://media.urbit.org/whitepaper.pdf Outside of decentralized protocols you’re ultimately just trusting policy somewhere. It seems dumb to me to arbitrarily be upset at Apple’s policy here, when the specifics are reasonable (and allow for e2ee).
  - xdennis 5y ago
    > Apple’s policy as described is reasonable. Apple is performing warrantless searches, and somehow people see it as okay because Apple is not the government (even though it functions as a state agency in this regard).

echelon 5y ago

> They're pretty explicitly telling us what it's for and what it's not for. Nobody should blindly trust Apple. As an organization, they already love secrecy and shadows--what better place to sneak in and test this kind of feature, free from employee ethics and scrutiny? They've been cooking this up without telling anyone, which is also indicative of how above board they are. Who knows what else they're doing with this now or will do in the future. The CIA, FBI, MI6, Mossad, FSB, CCP, et al. will use this to learn more about their targets.

salawat 5y ago

Yes. All the fabs and stuff we have now shoufd be devoted to implementing a surveillance state. This must happen. It cannot be any other way. This is what you sound like. The problem here isn't the tech. It's that Big Tech has deluded society into believing privacy and personal ownership of devices doesn't exist because it would inconvenice Big Tech. Law enforcement echoes it because they were spoiled by the brief period that they tasted ClearNet, and they don't want to return to having to investigate the old fashioned way. Every other major industry has increasingly started doing the same thing. It is not okay. We have no right to sell out future generation's privacy. It's cowardly, selfish, and does more harm to them in the long run.

fossuser 5y ago
I’m not making statements about the way things ought to be, I’m being pragmatic about the way things are. We’re trusting a lot of the stack. Apple’s policy as described is reasonable. If you distrust it because of the things they could do, that same logic applies to the entire stack. The nature of modern software distribution is that the majority of the stuff we use from centralized corporations is governed by policy, not technical capability or controls, and you don’t get to know the details. You don’t own the OS you use, you don’t own the important parts of your phone. This can be different. Decentralized applications via protocols are interesting (DeFi blockchain stuff like Audius or other apps on Ethereum). If the UX can get figured out. Urbit is interesting too - if you want to actually own your stack, use Urbit: https://media.urbit.org/whitepaper.pdf https://media.urbit.org/whitepaper.pdf Outside of decentralized protocols you’re ultimately just trusting policy somewhere. It seems dumb to me to arbitrarily be upset at Apple’s policy here, when the specifics are reasonable (and allow for e2ee).
- xdennis 5y ago
  > Apple’s policy as described is reasonable. Apple is performing warrantless searches, and somehow people see it as okay because Apple is not the government (even though it functions as a state agency in this regard).