3 ms·

> Apple fully complies with all warrants and decrypts all icloud data and hands it over You say this like it's some kind of gotcha, rather than Apple, a major

> Apple fully complies with all warrants and decrypts all icloud data and hands it over You say this like it's some kind of gotcha, rather than Apple, a major corporation, refusing to actively break the law of the country where they're headquartered.

jazzyjackson 4y ago
> refusing to actively break the law of the country where they're headquartered. it is not illegal to allow users to hold their own keys such that Apple would have nothing to hand over to the government Apple chooses to run icloud in such a way that they can provide data on request.
- danaris 4y ago
  Apple chooses to run iCloud in basically the same way every mainstream cloud company does, plus some additional privacy features. Expecting them to operate a service like iCloud like a tech-expert-focused privacy-first-even-before-usability service is just utterly unrealistic.
dotnet00 4y ago
The same Apple that had gotten into a feud with the FBI over refusing to sign software for unlocking a mass-shooter's phone?
- danaris 4y ago
  Well...yes, the same Apple. Because there's a world of difference between responding to a lawful warrant to produce data you have stored on your servers, and agreeing to create a special version of your software specifically to give the FBI carte blanche to unlock any phones they want (at least within that particular model).
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    The special version of the software was also 'compelled' via a legal order: https://epic.org/documents/apple-v-fbi-2/ https://epic.org/documents/apple-v-fbi-2/ By contesting it they were going against a court order, not just refusing an informal request by the FBI.
pessimizer 4y ago
Taking every legal means to resist a warrant is your right, not actively breaking the law. At the very least, it's obviously passively breaking the law, unless you consider refusing to obey an activity.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Sloppy excuse. Breaking the law seems to be no problem for any form of security service. The case of privacy has long been an issue outside of the law. Of course I don't expect companies to break the law, it is to no benefit to them, but we should not pretend that the rule of law has much value when it comes to government surveillance. And I would argue that to protect your privacy the legality of the means are secondary.

jazzyjackson 4y ago

> refusing to actively break the law of the country where they're headquartered. it is not illegal to allow users to hold their own keys such that Apple would have nothing to hand over to the government Apple chooses to run icloud in such a way that they can provide data on request.

danaris 4y ago
Apple chooses to run iCloud in basically the same way every mainstream cloud company does, plus some additional privacy features. Expecting them to operate a service like iCloud like a tech-expert-focused privacy-first-even-before-usability service is just utterly unrealistic.

dotnet00 4y ago

The same Apple that had gotten into a feud with the FBI over refusing to sign software for unlocking a mass-shooter's phone?

danaris 4y ago
Well...yes, the same Apple. Because there's a world of difference between responding to a lawful warrant to produce data you have stored on your servers, and agreeing to create a special version of your software specifically to give the FBI carte blanche to unlock any phones they want (at least within that particular model).
- dotnet00 4y ago
  The special version of the software was also 'compelled' via a legal order: https://epic.org/documents/apple-v-fbi-2/ https://epic.org/documents/apple-v-fbi-2/ By contesting it they were going against a court order, not just refusing an informal request by the FBI.

pessimizer 4y ago

Taking every legal means to resist a warrant is your right, not actively breaking the law. At the very least, it's obviously passively breaking the law, unless you consider refusing to obey an activity.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Sloppy excuse. Breaking the law seems to be no problem for any form of security service. The case of privacy has long been an issue outside of the law. Of course I don't expect companies to break the law, it is to no benefit to them, but we should not pretend that the rule of law has much value when it comes to government surveillance. And I would argue that to protect your privacy the legality of the means are secondary.