5 ms·

s/Chinese/any government representing a material amount of their revenue/ Don't be deceived; the San Bernardino case was a very intentionally public op to conv

by caeril 5y ago

s/Chinese/any government representing a material amount of their revenue/ Don't be deceived; the San Bernardino case was a very intentionally public op to convince us that they will "fight" for our right to privacy, but the not-so-public track record since has demonstrated their absolute willingness to lick the boots of virtually every government whose citizens impact their top line materially. This isn't a slag on Apple, specifically. Facebook, Google, et al will declaim "Russian Propaganda" all day long and then immediately roll over for Russian demands to censor political opposition, for instance. They all do it. It's all a show. You have no privacy with any of Big Tech, regardless of where you live.

redprince 5y ago
> but the not-so-public track record since has demonstrated their absolute willingness to lick the boots of virtually every government whose citizens impact their top line materially. Is there any public information that supports this claim?
- smoldesu 5y ago
  https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ See for yourself.
  - redprince 5y ago
    They comply with the law to the extend that they can. Apple by design locked themselves out of the capability to provide people's data in many circumstances. So the fact that requests exist says very little about what was actually provided.
dwaite 5y ago
> but the not-so-public track record since has demonstrated their absolute willingness to lick the boots of virtually every government whose citizens impact their top line materially. What sort of percentage of the entries on that unprinted list can be summarized as "they follow the law in the places where they do business?"
- kamray23 5y ago
  Nearly all of them, most likely. What motivation would there to do otherwise? It's just that the vast majority of these governments, the US included, have laws mandating access to nearly everything accessible. If that data is subpoenaed and Apple can theoretically access it, it's illegal for them not to hand it over.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the San Bernardino case was a very intentionally public op to convince us that they will "fight" for our right to privacy You’ve reversed cause and effect. Apple’s surprise at the backlash to their position on San Bernardino is well documented. It directly led to the softening of their stance on privacy.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
I have basically zero worries of all my criticisms of all my rantings against the bloated and corrupt American government getting me sent to prison for life and potentially having my organs harvested for a party elite. So I think that's one reason it's a tad bit different.
- markenqualitaet 5y ago
  That's a fallacy. The argument is not about "legitimacy", but Apple's compliant with government interference.

by caeril 5y ago

redprince 5y ago

> but the not-so-public track record since has demonstrated their absolute willingness to lick the boots of virtually every government whose citizens impact their top line materially. Is there any public information that supports this claim?

smoldesu 5y ago
https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ See for yourself.
- redprince 5y ago
  They comply with the law to the extend that they can. Apple by design locked themselves out of the capability to provide people's data in many circumstances. So the fact that requests exist says very little about what was actually provided.

dwaite 5y ago

> but the not-so-public track record since has demonstrated their absolute willingness to lick the boots of virtually every government whose citizens impact their top line materially. What sort of percentage of the entries on that unprinted list can be summarized as "they follow the law in the places where they do business?"

kamray23 5y ago
Nearly all of them, most likely. What motivation would there to do otherwise? It's just that the vast majority of these governments, the US included, have laws mandating access to nearly everything accessible. If that data is subpoenaed and Apple can theoretically access it, it's illegal for them not to hand it over.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> the San Bernardino case was a very intentionally public op to convince us that they will "fight" for our right to privacy You’ve reversed cause and effect. Apple’s surprise at the backlash to their position on San Bernardino is well documented. It directly led to the softening of their stance on privacy.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

I have basically zero worries of all my criticisms of all my rantings against the bloated and corrupt American government getting me sent to prison for life and potentially having my organs harvested for a party elite. So I think that's one reason it's a tad bit different.

markenqualitaet 5y ago
That's a fallacy. The argument is not about "legitimacy", but Apple's compliant with government interference.