3 ms·

The company shouldn't have your plaintext data in the first place.

by leppr 5y ago

girvo 5y ago
No company should, but we don't live in that world (for a number of reasons), and if they do then they must follow instructions given by the government via warrants. One of the issues I have is that those warrants are rubber-stamped out. We should change how the judiciary approaches that, raise the bar law enforcement has to meet to be able to request that data, while also encouraging the use of encryption at every level. Until we make those changes (which I'm of the opinion the wider society does not have an appetite for the legal and usability trade-offs that come with the even if I personally do), I guess I'm confused by what we're demanding when we point out that a company based in the US cooperates with valid legal requests from the US government.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  We're already in a zero-sum game, society won't 'like' any of the things that come next. What goes up must come down, and I get the feeling that we grossly underestimate how much data is in the hands of third-parties, private holdings and sovereign governments with their own interests. That dam will burst, it's just easier to tell the audience that the Internet is a Titanic: too big to fail, right? The sentiment towards Apple is just disappointment today. Their 'ecosystem' approach has had detrimental effects on the consumer electronics market, and has given them a frightening amount of power over the flow of information. Apple's treatment has been generally irresponsible, though: they do nothing to assuage the general public of what's running in their OSes, rather choosing to occasionally throw out unverifiable whitepapers of how these systems might work, but we've got no way to verify that. For a company that claims 'privacy is a human right', I was really hoping to dig into something more profound. The biggest issue is that we're taking Apple at face-value. They're documented liars, and their insistence on being right contrasts with their tacit rejection of transparency. They operate without accountability, and the only people keeping them in check have a mutual interest in creating a monopoly. Their factories are staffed by political prisoners, and they're the only FAANG company who's comfortable operating in China's homeland. It's crazy how people forget this with nothing more than a little marketing and some diversity in their iPhone commercial. I expect better from a company with more money in the world than anyone else. But maybe this is yet another reminder that shareholders don't care about your security, privacy or peace-of-mind.

The company shouldn't have your plaintext data in the first place.

by leppr 5y ago

The company shouldn't have your plaintext data in the first place.

No company should, but we don't live in that world (for a number of reasons), and if they do then they must follow instructions given by the government via warrants. One of the issues I have is that those warrants are rubber-stamped out. We should change how the judiciary approaches that, raise the bar law enforcement has to meet to be able to request that data, while also encouraging the use of encryption at every level. Until we make those changes (which I'm of the opinion the wider society does not have an appetite for the legal and usability trade-offs that come with the even if I personally do), I guess I'm confused by what we're demanding when we point out that a company based in the US cooperates with valid legal requests from the US government.

smoldesu 5y ago
We're already in a zero-sum game, society won't 'like' any of the things that come next. What goes up must come down, and I get the feeling that we grossly underestimate how much data is in the hands of third-parties, private holdings and sovereign governments with their own interests. That dam will burst, it's just easier to tell the audience that the Internet is a Titanic: too big to fail, right? The sentiment towards Apple is just disappointment today. Their 'ecosystem' approach has had detrimental effects on the consumer electronics market, and has given them a frightening amount of power over the flow of information. Apple's treatment has been generally irresponsible, though: they do nothing to assuage the general public of what's running in their OSes, rather choosing to occasionally throw out unverifiable whitepapers of how these systems might work, but we've got no way to verify that. For a company that claims 'privacy is a human right', I was really hoping to dig into something more profound. The biggest issue is that we're taking Apple at face-value. They're documented liars, and their insistence on being right contrasts with their tacit rejection of transparency. They operate without accountability, and the only people keeping them in check have a mutual interest in creating a monopoly. Their factories are staffed by political prisoners, and they're the only FAANG company who's comfortable operating in China's homeland. It's crazy how people forget this with nothing more than a little marketing and some diversity in their iPhone commercial. I expect better from a company with more money in the world than anyone else. But maybe this is yet another reminder that shareholders don't care about your security, privacy or peace-of-mind.