6 ms·

It will, most definitely, be end to end encrypted along with the rest of user data in the iCloud ecosystem.

smoldesu 3y ago
Unless you live in China*. * https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351
handsclean 3y ago
iCloud user data that’s not end-to-end encrypted: name, home address, work address, who you talk to and when, where you go and when, what you buy and when… iCloud user data that’s not end-to-end encrypted unless you find and change multiple different settings that few people know about: files, photos, notes, texts, full copies of laptop’s and phone’s storage… I’d take a bet that 99% of the time Apple or a local regime wants to read iCloud user data, they can.
- kaba0 3y ago
  I’m almost sure that billing informations are required by law in plenty jurisdictions to be stored, where you go and when is a feature for Find My, what you buy and when is again, first point. What if I tell you that literally any physical supermarket will also have this data?
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    That's kinda the problem. This "required by law" bit obviously conflicts with their "privacy is a human right" shtick. Just look through their transparency page[0], where Apple confirms that device and account data is turned over by the thousands annually. Despotic nations like China get 93% of device access requests granted. Apple doesn't even have control over Chinese iCloud servers, their allegiance to the government directly prevents them from protecting their users. > What if I tell you that literally any physical supermarket will also have this data? Great, now we're comparing iPhone privacy to a supermarket. Wasn't Apple supposed to care about this stuff? [0] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/
    - kaba0 3y ago
      We are talking about China, that straight up just replaced Google with their own thing. You are either doing business with China at their own rules, or you don’t do anything. Apple has different iCloud settings for the rest of the world, and while it does suck for Chinese people, the alternative would be some domestic OS with much much more involved privacy violations. Also, why should a company be above local law? Sure it sucks when the local law is bad and apple should not make the job easier, but if they do lawfully request some data then I don’t see why Apple should not fulfill it.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > or you don’t do anything. This was the ethical abstention that the rest of FAANG pursued. At least, the ones who didn't have vested manufacturing contracts in the China mainland. Let them replace it with their own thing, it's a better alternative than compromising every iPhone "just in case". It's not only about domestic security, it's about how it devalues the meaning of Apple's privacy worldwide. > Also, why should a company be above local law? Because their principles of privacy and security supersede their interest in moneymaking? If the local law is unjust, you don't do business there. That's what Microsoft, Google, Netflix and > I don’t see why Apple should not fulfill it. Your phone shouldn't have a backdoor in the first place. Letting Apple have this much vertical authority over their platform is why we're here now, trying to decide if America's largest corporation is right for sleeping with the enemy. It's obviously wrong (as you note), but we're also helpless to resist it (as you also note). The best path of recourse is legislation that dilutes Apple's absolute authority and forces them to play ball with the industry. It's attractive to legislators, regulators, and the common people.
        kaba0 3y ago
        > it's a better alternative than compromising every iPhone "just in case" But that’s absolutely not what happens - do you have any sort of citation for that?
        smoldesu 3y ago
  - handsclean 3y ago
    So when it’s Google doing this it’s evil, but when it’s Apple, it’s ok if it a feature uses it, or if some nation wanted it, or if somebody else did it too? I do think that a lot of these are hard problems to truly tackle, I was just commenting on this cognitive dissonance where people say things like “iCloud user data is private”, while in fact iCloud user data is this huge trove of very personal information that’s not private, and we don’t act like those ideas are in conflict. Besides, Apple’s not doing the most they can within the confines of user wishes and local law. Neither one requires using dark patterns to ensure that 95% of users have privacy turned off. They’re also tracking every interaction for ad purposes on the App Store. I’m not trying to call them an evil boogeyman, but I think they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too: have users buy more because they think it’s private, while not disadvantaging themselves or pissing off local regimes by actually preventing data access in the majority of cases.

Unless you live in China*. * https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351

iCloud user data that’s not end-to-end encrypted: name, home address, work address, who you talk to and when, where you go and when, what you buy and when… iCloud user data that’s not end-to-end encrypted unless you find and change multiple different settings that few people know about: files, photos, notes, texts, full copies of laptop’s and phone’s storage… I’d take a bet that 99% of the time Apple or a local regime wants to read iCloud user data, they can.

kaba0 3y ago
I’m almost sure that billing informations are required by law in plenty jurisdictions to be stored, where you go and when is a feature for Find My, what you buy and when is again, first point. What if I tell you that literally any physical supermarket will also have this data?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  That's kinda the problem. This "required by law" bit obviously conflicts with their "privacy is a human right" shtick. Just look through their transparency page[0], where Apple confirms that device and account data is turned over by the thousands annually. Despotic nations like China get 93% of device access requests granted. Apple doesn't even have control over Chinese iCloud servers, their allegiance to the government directly prevents them from protecting their users. > What if I tell you that literally any physical supermarket will also have this data? Great, now we're comparing iPhone privacy to a supermarket. Wasn't Apple supposed to care about this stuff? [0] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/
  - kaba0 3y ago
    We are talking about China, that straight up just replaced Google with their own thing. You are either doing business with China at their own rules, or you don’t do anything. Apple has different iCloud settings for the rest of the world, and while it does suck for Chinese people, the alternative would be some domestic OS with much much more involved privacy violations. Also, why should a company be above local law? Sure it sucks when the local law is bad and apple should not make the job easier, but if they do lawfully request some data then I don’t see why Apple should not fulfill it.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > or you don’t do anything. This was the ethical abstention that the rest of FAANG pursued. At least, the ones who didn't have vested manufacturing contracts in the China mainland. Let them replace it with their own thing, it's a better alternative than compromising every iPhone "just in case". It's not only about domestic security, it's about how it devalues the meaning of Apple's privacy worldwide. > Also, why should a company be above local law? Because their principles of privacy and security supersede their interest in moneymaking? If the local law is unjust, you don't do business there. That's what Microsoft, Google, Netflix and > I don’t see why Apple should not fulfill it. Your phone shouldn't have a backdoor in the first place. Letting Apple have this much vertical authority over their platform is why we're here now, trying to decide if America's largest corporation is right for sleeping with the enemy. It's obviously wrong (as you note), but we're also helpless to resist it (as you also note). The best path of recourse is legislation that dilutes Apple's absolute authority and forces them to play ball with the industry. It's attractive to legislators, regulators, and the common people.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        > it's a better alternative than compromising every iPhone "just in case" But that’s absolutely not what happens - do you have any sort of citation for that?
        smoldesu 3y ago
- handsclean 3y ago
  So when it’s Google doing this it’s evil, but when it’s Apple, it’s ok if it a feature uses it, or if some nation wanted it, or if somebody else did it too? I do think that a lot of these are hard problems to truly tackle, I was just commenting on this cognitive dissonance where people say things like “iCloud user data is private”, while in fact iCloud user data is this huge trove of very personal information that’s not private, and we don’t act like those ideas are in conflict. Besides, Apple’s not doing the most they can within the confines of user wishes and local law. Neither one requires using dark patterns to ensure that 95% of users have privacy turned off. They’re also tracking every interaction for ad purposes on the App Store. I’m not trying to call them an evil boogeyman, but I think they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too: have users buy more because they think it’s private, while not disadvantaging themselves or pissing off local regimes by actually preventing data access in the majority of cases.