3 ms·

> Apple does not spy on me Apple can be compelled to spy on you[0]. > and does not sell my information to advertisers Apple is an advertiser. [0] https://ww

> Apple does not spy on me Apple can be compelled to spy on you[0]. > and does not sell my information to advertisers Apple is an advertiser. [0] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html

heavyset_go 4y ago
They don't even have to be compelled, they can simply be asked to share users' private data.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  They can also use commercially-available hardware like the Greykey to bruteforce iPhone and Android logins without Apple or Google's permission whatsoever. Isn't modern technology fun?
- catiopatio 4y ago
  Apple is very clear about what they have access to, and what they do not. They cannot share what they do not have, or do not have the encryption keys to.
catiopatio 4y ago
> Apple can be compelled to spy on you[0]. It’s dishonest to equate lawful warrants with Google’s targeted advertising and exploitation of our information. Furthermore, Apple is clear about what information they have access to, and what information they don’t, and have consistently, year-over-year, reduced the information they actually have access to. > Apple is an advertiser. This is another disingenuous false equivalency. Apple does not gather personal information from our devices for advertising, and always requires explicit opt-in before making use of any data provided to them through the use of their services.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > It’s dishonest to equate lawful warrants with Google’s targeted advertising and exploitation of our information. Is it? Google has not suffocated the AOSP. If you don't want their advertising or services, you can remove it. No such option exists on iOS, so you're effectively locked into an inherently insecure product. You can claim that you trust the parties with the backdoor key, but that doesn't change the fact that the key exists. In mainland China, that puts Apple in the awkward situation of complying with lawful warrants that are complicit in human rights violations. Trusting wholesome, benevolent government collaboration is not enough. Apple has to design a transparent and accountable security system if they want their privacy stance to look like something other than a theater scripted on whitepapers. > This is another disingenuous false equivalency. Apple is an advertiser, though. You cannot pretend like they don't also have a conflict of interest here. Not to mention, they're equally capricious on the service upsell - the in-OS advertising was one of the reasons I left their ecosystem in the first place.
interpol_p 4y ago
In the case of AirTags, Apple simply does not have that information to give: > Devices that relay the location of your AirTag also stay anonymous, and that location data is encrypted every step of the way. So not even Apple knows the location of your AirTag or the identity of the device that helps find it. They can be compelled to spy on you. They have also clearly put systems in place that make it very hard or impossible for them to do so without re-architecting their entire ecosystem of devices

heavyset_go 4y ago

They don't even have to be compelled, they can simply be asked to share users' private data.

smoldesu 4y ago
They can also use commercially-available hardware like the Greykey to bruteforce iPhone and Android logins without Apple or Google's permission whatsoever. Isn't modern technology fun?
catiopatio 4y ago
Apple is very clear about what they have access to, and what they do not. They cannot share what they do not have, or do not have the encryption keys to.

catiopatio 4y ago

> Apple can be compelled to spy on you[0]. It’s dishonest to equate lawful warrants with Google’s targeted advertising and exploitation of our information. Furthermore, Apple is clear about what information they have access to, and what information they don’t, and have consistently, year-over-year, reduced the information they actually have access to. > Apple is an advertiser. This is another disingenuous false equivalency. Apple does not gather personal information from our devices for advertising, and always requires explicit opt-in before making use of any data provided to them through the use of their services.

smoldesu 4y ago
> It’s dishonest to equate lawful warrants with Google’s targeted advertising and exploitation of our information. Is it? Google has not suffocated the AOSP. If you don't want their advertising or services, you can remove it. No such option exists on iOS, so you're effectively locked into an inherently insecure product. You can claim that you trust the parties with the backdoor key, but that doesn't change the fact that the key exists. In mainland China, that puts Apple in the awkward situation of complying with lawful warrants that are complicit in human rights violations. Trusting wholesome, benevolent government collaboration is not enough. Apple has to design a transparent and accountable security system if they want their privacy stance to look like something other than a theater scripted on whitepapers. > This is another disingenuous false equivalency. Apple is an advertiser, though. You cannot pretend like they don't also have a conflict of interest here. Not to mention, they're equally capricious on the service upsell - the in-OS advertising was one of the reasons I left their ecosystem in the first place.

interpol_p 4y ago

In the case of AirTags, Apple simply does not have that information to give: > Devices that relay the location of your AirTag also stay anonymous, and that location data is encrypted every step of the way. So not even Apple knows the location of your AirTag or the identity of the device that helps find it. They can be compelled to spy on you. They have also clearly put systems in place that make it very hard or impossible for them to do so without re-architecting their entire ecosystem of devices