3 ms·

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’r

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

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