3 ms·

What incentive for the Apple possibly have to make their phones vulnerable to NSO hacking tools? Apple makes more money than god selling iPhones. The State of I

by ttul 4y ago

What incentive for the Apple possibly have to make their phones vulnerable to NSO hacking tools? Apple makes more money than god selling iPhones. The State of Israel’s entire defense budget is about $18B/yr, which is less than Apple’s annual R&D budget. And they have to defend an entire country with that $18B. The idea that Apple is playing ball with the IDF is frankly ludicrous.

heavyset_go 4y ago
The same reason that any giant company plays ball with the US government: sweetheart deals, favorable treatment, preferential contracts, protection of their interests in both domestic and foreign markets, etc. Apple regularly gives up users' private data when the government simply asks them to[1], despite spending billions of dollars on "privacy" marketing. [1] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
- sonofhans 4y ago
  Your “when the government asks them to” should read “so that the government doesn’t shut them down.” The two things you mention are not at all comparable. You’re trying to associate them for rhetorical effect, but there’s no analogy here. Thing 1: Apple complies with US law. How do you think it would work if Apple said “Fuck you” to US law enforcement requests? Can you provide examples of other companies that have done this, or are doing this now, and had it work at all? I can’t think of a single US-based tech company that doesn’t cooperate with law enforcement. At least Apple is transparent about it. Thing 2: Apple markets privacy — https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/ They make a bunch of concrete statements, most of which are empirically verifiable. What is wrong with this? Again, can you point to any at-all-similar company that does it better, or more explicitly?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Nope, those are not all responses to subpoenas, warrants, court orders, etc. Apple specifically lists the requests they're legally obligated to respond to in one section, and then lists requests they choose to respond to with users' private data in another. That's to say that Apple regularly hands over users' private data when simply asked, even if there is no legal obligation to do so, as there is with warrants.
    - musicale 4y ago
      > Apple regularly hands over users' private data when simply asked, even if there is no legal obligation to do so I'm having trouble finding this part specifically. Can you point to where that is described, and what some examples are?
      - infotogivenm 4y ago
        Yea, definitely citation needed on that. What I have seen OTOH, is Apple go to considerable expense not to comply with broadening LEO requests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
coldtea 4y ago
"Nice company you've got here. You wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it, right?"
bugglebeetle 4y ago
What do “incentives” have to do with anything in a post-Snowden reality?

by ttul 4y ago

heavyset_go 4y ago

The same reason that any giant company plays ball with the US government: sweetheart deals, favorable treatment, preferential contracts, protection of their interests in both domestic and foreign markets, etc. Apple regularly gives up users' private data when the government simply asks them to[1], despite spending billions of dollars on "privacy" marketing. [1] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html

sonofhans 4y ago
Your “when the government asks them to” should read “so that the government doesn’t shut them down.” The two things you mention are not at all comparable. You’re trying to associate them for rhetorical effect, but there’s no analogy here. Thing 1: Apple complies with US law. How do you think it would work if Apple said “Fuck you” to US law enforcement requests? Can you provide examples of other companies that have done this, or are doing this now, and had it work at all? I can’t think of a single US-based tech company that doesn’t cooperate with law enforcement. At least Apple is transparent about it. Thing 2: Apple markets privacy — https://www.apple.com/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/ They make a bunch of concrete statements, most of which are empirically verifiable. What is wrong with this? Again, can you point to any at-all-similar company that does it better, or more explicitly?
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Nope, those are not all responses to subpoenas, warrants, court orders, etc. Apple specifically lists the requests they're legally obligated to respond to in one section, and then lists requests they choose to respond to with users' private data in another. That's to say that Apple regularly hands over users' private data when simply asked, even if there is no legal obligation to do so, as there is with warrants.
  - musicale 4y ago
    > Apple regularly hands over users' private data when simply asked, even if there is no legal obligation to do so I'm having trouble finding this part specifically. Can you point to where that is described, and what some examples are?
    - infotogivenm 4y ago
      Yea, definitely citation needed on that. What I have seen OTOH, is Apple go to considerable expense not to comply with broadening LEO requests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute

coldtea 4y ago

"Nice company you've got here. You wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it, right?"

bugglebeetle 4y ago

What do “incentives” have to do with anything in a post-Snowden reality?