3 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
      How do you think Apple is granting device access to law enforcement?

kaba0 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    How do you think Apple is granting device access to law enforcement?