3 ms·
In practice this distinction is meaningless. In fact I trust Apple more than my own government. To take your argument to an absurd logical conclusion, I don’t o
by schrodinger 4y ago
In practice this distinction is meaningless. In fact I trust Apple more than my own government. To take your argument to an absurd logical conclusion, I don’t own ANYTHING because my government can take it.
- pixl97 4y agoIn rule of law countries there is a legal framework for the government taking things which involves processes that are generally voted on. We cannot say the same for Apple.
- brewdad 4y agoNever heard of Civil Forfeiture, eh?
- pixl97 4y agoYa, and amazingly enough it's a written law.
- schrodinger 4y agoLaws voted on by elected officials like Ted Cruz, MTG, Boebert. I trust Tim Cook over any of those.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoIt is known that Apple would do quite a lot of what governments will ask of it. It removes app from national AppStores on a simple request from countries like China or Russia. (Well, now Apple might ignore Russian takedown requests, but prior to the war with Ukraine they were very receptive to their demands)
- Obscurity4340 4y agoThis is why side-loading and the option for alternative app stores is so crucial. If Apple bans Signal or other E2EE messenger apps from your national app store, you can't get them. Full stop. If people in China and other privacy-hostile countries can side-load from alternative app stores (like F-droid for Android), the government/Apple doesn't control user access to particular undesireable apps. There's obviously reverse concerns to this side of the coin but the overall concept has arguably always existed eith jailbreaking (Cydia store, AltStore(?)) and I haven't heard any stories about people becoming massively compromised in the way all the naysayers and Apple would have us believe.