2 ms·

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

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).

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).