18 ms·

Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden for some things if it means supporting a company t

Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden for some things if it means supporting a company that has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights (privacy in this case).

Doches 3y ago
In fairness, Meta has said the same thing re: WhatsApp, so while Apple deserves _some_ credit here for sticking to their principles, they're not exactly leading the pack. Which brings home the point that if _Meta_ isn't onboard with your privacy-obliterating proposal then you know you've really lost the plot...
- hbn 3y ago
  If anything that's a bolder move considering everyone uses Whatsapp there and barely anyone uses iMessage
  - iainmerrick 3y ago
    Both are very popular in the UK.
    - joshuaissac 3y ago
      WhatsApp is used by 78% of the users in the UK, and iMessage is used by 25%. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997945/most-used-messenger-by-brand-in-the-uk https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997945/most-used-messenge... (non-free link)
      - thejohnconway 3y ago
        25% of the entire population is a pretty popular application! Not “hardly anyone”. Also, I’d like to know the volume of messages shared, I have WhatsApp, but wouldn’t miss it it it disappeared. iMessage disappearing would be very inconvenient.
        Reason077 3y ago
        I'm surprised it's even 25% in the UK, and I wonder how that's measured. Maybe the 25% includes things like "opening the iMessage app to read SMS messages sent by two-factor authentication services" etc.
        thejohnconway 3y ago
        I’m not surprised, SMSing people is still common, and sliding from that to iMessage is totally frictionless for iPhone users. With iOS market share being around 50%, I’m surprised (skeptical even!) that it’s not closer to 50%.
      - vxNsr 3y ago
        But who is that 25%? iPhone users have money. I’m sure there is some significant overlap between iMessage and WhatsApp users (I know I and everyone I know use(s) both). But if you threaten politicians with losing their blue bubbles they’re gonna fall in line.
        XajniN 3y ago
        No one in Europe cares about the blue bubbles. I prefer iMessage over the other messengers, but I still haven’t met anyone who cares. A lot of people don’t even know why the bubbles are sometimes green.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Yet, the EU have their panties in a knot about having it be interoperable…
        joshuaissac 3y ago
        > But if you threaten politicians with losing their blue bubbles they’re gonna fall in line. This is not a thing outside the United States, and I doubt that most British politicians are even aware of 'blue bubbles'. For example, the recent controversy regarding the release of Covid-related government communications was centred on WhatsApp, with no reference to other platforms like iMessage. https://news.sky.com/story/politicians-are-drawn-to-whatsapp-and-it-threatens-us-ever-knowing-the-whole-truth-12894737 https://news.sky.com/story/politicians-are-drawn-to-whatsapp...
  - wintermutestwin 3y ago
    I've noticed that too and it is super annoying having family in the UK that will only communicate via Whatsapp. Is this because cell providers outside the US charge for SMS? Even the ones who have iPhones end up using it because it is too much of a pain to use separate messaging apps.
    - rejectfinite 3y ago
      The opposite is more annoying... Whatsapp works on PC, Mac, Android and iOS iMessage only works on Apple devices.
    - dtech 3y ago
      SMS is cheap now but wasn't universally when Whatsapp gained critical mass. Nowadays it's mostly about convenience and features compared to SMS, and iPhone has a much smaller marker share in Europe so iMessage isn't a thing.
      - meling 3y ago
        I beg to differ. iMessage is definitely quite common in Europe as well.
        dtech 3y ago
        iPhone has like a 33% market share so I wouldn't call it common if you can't reach 2 out of 3 people on it at least. In contrast, in many European countries Whatsapp has 90%+ penetration [1]. Even where it's relatively unused it's more common than iMessage. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311229/whatsapp-usage-messaging-app-users-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311229/whatsapp-usage-m...
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      It is mostly because international SMS and MMS is not free. People in the UK travel more to other countries, and communicate more with people in other countries. Not to mention MMS is vastly inferior to WhatsApp and iMessage for sharing media and other information.
- frankfrank13 3y ago
  I think Meta _needs_ WhatsApp to be their loss-leader (not really, but you know) when it comes to security. They always get to say "oh but WhatsApp is E2E!! We do care about security!"
  - gruez 3y ago
    Messenger also has e2e, but it's opt in.
  - fennecfoxy 3y ago
    I mean Apple didn't give two stones about security until it became a marketing/selling point as a counterpoint to the big G.
    - zikduruqe 3y ago
      It's called market shift. Automative manufactures didn't give a rats ass about fuel economy until customers wanted it.
    - codetrotter 3y ago
      > Apple didn't give two stones about security until it became a marketing/selling point as a counterpoint to the big G That’s not true. Apple was position itself as being better at security than Microsoft long before Google was selling devices to people. For example: https://youtu.be/VuqZ8AqmLPY https://youtu.be/VuqZ8AqmLPY
      - i_am_jl 3y ago
        Apple sold itself as having better security. It's debatable whether or not that was true, and even if you believed it it was up for another debate whether that security was by design or because Apple's vanishingly small share of the PC market made it uneconomical to write malware targeting OSX. This isn't to say that Microsoft was doing security properly back then either, they weren't.
      - elishah 3y ago
        True, but security and privacy are different things. At most, one could say that security is necessary-but-not-sufficient for privacy. Google is generally excellent at security, but that doesn't change the fact that they're a nightmare for privacy.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Has Meta threatened to boycott? I know Signal has, and now Apple. However my searches for Meta/WhatsApp seem to show that there’s been contention over their introduction of E2E but they haven’t actually threatened to pull out over it. That said, I’d be very happy to see that they did threaten a boycott as well.
  - nani8ot 3y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/09/whatsapp-end-to-end-encryption-online-safety-bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/09/whatsapp-... Meta: > Some countries have chosen to block it [WhatsApp]: that’s the reality of shipping a secure product. We’ve recently been blocked in Iran, for example. But we’ve never seen a liberal democracy do that. They said they won't comply. UK would have to simply block WhatsApp.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      Thanks. Hopefully they continue to stick to their guns.
- j45 3y ago
  WhatsApp was a little late to the encryption party
  - brasic 3y ago
    What do you mean? WhatsApp rolled out E2E encryption between 2014 and 2016. It’s by far the largest messaging service that is e2e encrypted by default. I think it’s more than fair to call it ahead of the curve for a service of its size. https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ https://blog.whatsapp.com/end-to-end-encryption https://blog.whatsapp.com/end-to-end-encryption
    - j45 3y ago
      It's a very easy search and might surprise ya. As recent as 2021, there's been questions: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/whatsapp-end-to-end-encrypted-messages-arent-that-private-after-all/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/whatsapp-end-to-end-... But, let's go to the start - WhatsApp started in 2011. Encryption arrived in varying degrees until there was some pressures to change the amount of privacy messages had for advertising purposes. Lots in the news at the time. 2018 "Another point of disagreement was over WhatsApp’s encryption. In 2016, WhatsApp added end-to-end encryption, a security feature that scrambles people’s messages so that outsiders, including WhatsApp’s owners, can’t read them. Facebook executives wanted to make it easier for businesses to use its tools, and WhatsApp executives believed that doing so would require some weakening of its encryption." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whatsapp-founder-plans-to-leave-after-broad-clashes-with-parent-facebook/2018/04/30/49448dd2-4ca9-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whatsapp-fou... 2018 "Acton said he tried to push Facebook towards an alternative, less privacy hostile business model for WhatsApp — suggesting a metered-user model such as by charging a tenth of a penny after a certain large number of free messages were used up." https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/26/whatsapp-founder-brian-acton-says-facebook-used-him-to-get-its-acquisition-past-eu-regulators/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/26/whatsapp-founder-brian-act... 2018 "WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum quits over privacy disagreements with Facebook" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/30/jan-koum-whatsapp-co-founder-quits-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/30/jan-koum-... 2018 WhatsApp co-founder: "I sold my users' privacy" to Facebook "https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-acton-whatsapp-on-facebook-forbes-interview-today-2018-09-26/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-acton-whatsapp-on-faceboo...
- aqme28 3y ago
  Interesting. I was going to say that many people use WhatsApp anyways, so if both of them go down that might actually lead to some pushback against these regulations.
- viraptor 3y ago
  I'm not even sure anyone apart from Signal is really sticking to any principles. This system would be annoying to implement, costly to legally manage, and introduce some ops overhead and security exposure. There's way more incentives for WA and iMessage here to oppose it than just protecting their users. But only one is a cool talking point.
- ColinHayhurst 3y ago
  True, but to be fair leading the pack was first Element, with Session, Threema, Viber and Signal.
- glimshe 3y ago
  In even more fairness, Meta has literally skipped the EU for Threads instead of increasing privacy. In their case, it's just a careful balance of virtue signaling, it had no qualms about pushing their spyware to hundreds of millions of people, violating basic human rights in the process. Check Article 12: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Your comment would have been stronger if you left out the piece re: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it's an eye roller. Article 12 is: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. I'm no fan of Meta or their privacy violations, but saying that voluntarily downloading an app (which by the way does clearly outline their privacy practices) is equivalent to having my humans rights violated just really waters down what "human rights" should mean.
    - _cenw 3y ago
      > voluntarily downloading an app that's all true until an app becomes the only way to interact with certain groups of people. i certainly wouldn't call my usage of Discord voluntary. it doesn't actually matter how often i read their privacy policy and shake my head. either I break off contact with a large part of the internet that's important to me or I begrudgingly agree "voluntarily" to their terms and conditions.
      - dmbche 3y ago
        May I ask, what compels you to use discord if it's not voluntary? It's absolutely impossible to use keybase or signal?
        _cenw 3y ago
- Roark66 3y ago
  Is WhatsApp still requiring access to your phone's address book before it allows you to use it? It did last time I tried it. There is no chance in hell I'm giving it all the phone numbers, emails and names of people that trusted me by giving me their details. At the time I set up a virtual android environment (samsung called it knox) just to setup WhatsApp in a way it couldn't access my phone's address book. It is extremely unethical on Meta's side to continue with this requirement. So I'm dubious every te they're presented as champions of privacy protection.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    > There is no chance in hell I'm giving it all the phone numbers, emails and names of people that trusted me by giving me their details. The sad thing is that all their details and yours are already known to Meta. The dozen of us who behave like you will keep trying though.
  - gavinsyancey 3y ago
    I currently have WhatsApp installed without access to my address book (on Android). It doesn't require it, but it makes it harder to use and locks out some features. Among other things, you can't start a new group / direct message, but you can participate / reply if someone else messages you first.
    - bilkow 3y ago
      I use an app called "Open In WhatsApp" which lets you paste / write a phone number and it will open a conversation with that number (by using android intents). You can also share contacts from the Phone app to this App, so you don't have to copy/paste manually. https://github.com/SubhamTyagi/openinwa https://github.com/SubhamTyagi/openinwa (I recommend downloading from f-droid)
    - paulmd 3y ago
      If only there were a strong, centralized app store that could perform app review and prevent applications from degrading user experience beyond the extent actually necessary without that permission. Good thing the EU just outlawed that model and forced everyone to support "third party app stores" that are thinly-veiled shells for Facebook/Google/etc to bypass that review process. the "I wanna sideload" crowd are nothing more than allies of convenience for FB and others. Facebook was already experimenting with getting users to manually sideload the full-telemetry build and now they can just say "oops not supported on safari, install the native app". https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
- nashashmi 3y ago
  In Saudi Arabia and other places, Whatsapp is not encrypted. Otherwise those services would be banned.
  - Sunhold 3y ago
    This is pure speculation. WhatsApp is banned in some authoritarian countries such as China and UAE. It probably remains unbanned in others simply because it is so important for business.
    - nashashmi 3y ago
      https://saudi.works/does-whatsapp-work-in-saudi-arabia/ https://saudi.works/does-whatsapp-work-in-saudi-arabia/ I had to look it up.
  - throwaway1777 3y ago
    Incorrect. WhatsApp is encrypted in all countries.
- make3 3y ago
  didn't eta just move to make WhatsApp not end to end encrypted? Meta was also in the biggest mass surveillance & influence scandal of all times for a private not too long ago, please don't forget
  - dspillett 3y ago
    > didn't eta just move to make WhatsApp not end to end encrypted? If so I missed the memo (that isn't unlikely, I'm not saying you are wrong!). Any references/links for that? A quick search doesn't turn up much, but Google isn't what it used to be…
  - curiousllama 3y ago
    Opposite, actually. They said they're making Messenger and Instagram Direct e2ee.
- wredue 3y ago
  I keep writing and deleting responses. I am completely baffled. Speechless, really. You cannot actually believe that meta gives a single solitary fuck about privacy?
  - slg 3y ago
    For me at least, it is the opposite. It is not that I think Facebook is principled, it is that I don't think Apple is particularly principled. They care about money. Unlike many of their competitors, they are not fundamentally an ad-tech company which means your personal data has much lower value to them. This has caused them to build their brand around privacy because that is something their competitors have difficulty doing due to their business models. Apple's pro-privacy stance is just as much a capitalistic position as a principled one.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    This isn't Reddit, please make higher quality comments. I think the GP is likely aligned with you anyways.
- starttoaster 3y ago
  Didn't Facebook (now Meta) buy WhatsApp, and it was originally its own thing? I guess you can say Meta kept WhatsApp operational, but I don't necessarily consider it a privacy win for Meta to just buy up some privacy-centric technologies with their billions.
jmclnx 3y ago
I hope they really do this. All too often Companies will say this then when the law is passed they back down. Why, stockholders. Has Apple really removed iMessage and FaceTime anywere else ? Are these available with 100% full encryption in China ? If so then they are just blowing wind :(
- epcoa 3y ago
  > Are these available with 100% full encryption in China ? If so then they are just blowing wind :( Talk less, read more.
  - garyNeedsa 3y ago
    [dead]
  - jmclnx 3y ago
    Well here is something for you to read, if you are a Chinese Citizen living in China, then these messages can be seen by the Government because iCloud data must be stored in China. https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/cskufy/imessage_encryption_when_sending_msgs_to_chinese/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/cskufy/imessage_encryp...
    - decentsafety 3y ago
      I was looking around to see what china has access to after seeing this post... However, people mention their messages can only be visible if icloud backups are enabled? Seems risky to trust either way.
      - epcoa 3y ago
        People should read actual documentation and expert or academic writing rather than a bunch of terminally online nerds on Reddit. I’ve seen nothing credible that the E2E for iMessage and FaceTime isn’t as advertised. If you backup to the cloud you’re electing to disclose your data outside the boundaries of encryption.
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden Such statements rarely end up ageing like wine in the long run. Why would you be so happy about being owned by some big corporation just because it's your favorite big corporation? Self preservation has taught me not to trust any big corporation, regardless of how good their PR is.
- throwaway894345 3y ago
  Apple has been around for a pretty long time as far as tech companies go. I have grievances with them, but mostly they do a better than average job on privacy.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Apple has been around for a pretty long time as far as tech companies go. So have 100 year old car companies, and I'm old enough to remember many people saying the same things about their favorite car brand in the past ("I'm only buying X brand because they make quality stuff and they never broke my trust") and I also know they changed their opinion recently after a couple of decades. And changing car brands is way easier than changing smartphone ecosystems, should one of the two players decide to screw you. My point is people should not be fanboys of any corporation. History has proven they can always turn against their customer, even if Apple so far hasn't done it, but there's time, company management and culture can, and will always change with time, and with constant shareholder pressure for infinite growth there's plenty of opportunities in the future for the tides to turn, mark my words.
    - pjerem 3y ago
      > And changing car brands is way easier than changing smartphone ecosystems, should one of the two players decide to screw you. In what world ? I have switched from iOS to Android and vice versa multiple times while still driving the same car.
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ryaneager 3y ago
They will only continue to do so while it remains profitable, at some point they will give in. They are a capitalist company, profits are their only concern.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  How much would it affect Apple’s profit by not having iMessage in the UK?
  - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
    Have you been seeing all the videos of women not dating men if they get a green text bubble! :)
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      We don’t need more British people mating with their fancy tea and accents anyway /s.
pjmlp 3y ago
Except they are quite selective regarding the countries.
Keats 3y ago
Unless it's China in which case they will not care about it!
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  If they did it for China, it will be the same of UK. The cat's out of the bag on this one. They will probably comply with some backdoor in partnership with Five-Eyes NSA & GCHQ. This is just PR posturing to build consumer trust. Same with their venture into CSAM in the west. China could ask Apple for the ML be applied to scan for political dissidents. It's a slippery slope and the frog gets boiled every year.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  Or America, as we have seen with PRISM. Basically, it's as usual a financial calculation of what PR can brings vs what you can lose in the market. And fanboys believe it's because they are the good guys.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  Yep in that case let’s just close down the company because every country will want some privacy breaking rules imposed on you
- judge2020 3y ago
  China had all the bargaining power, in that non-compliance meant no more iPhones, and Apple going out of business. Apple wasn't ready to move production entirely to India or another country.
  - justapassenger 3y ago
    Google, Meta (Oculus) are banned in China and still produce their HW there. It was about getting a slice of hugely lucrative pie of customer market.
- Gorbzel 3y ago
  It's very strange because like OP, huge fanboy. Early on it felt wrong to also burden Cupertino with being a cultural leader, but somewhere around $1.0T+ market cap, that has evolved. Vaguely remember a charity used to have a thing where they'd auction off a dinner with Steve, then later Tim. Given time with a leader who has literally revolutionized supply chain in CN and a CEO who made Apple his own following the most notable CEO ever, going after various gotcha points would feel like a wasted opportunity. But think I'd have to ask why a company designed in California of the 1960s and 1970s doesn't have line in the sand policies when dealing with a genocidal government and perpetual backdoors in software and politics, but will take a move like this. Would hope for something more than a canned answer.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
> has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights Except for right to repair... And software freedom...
- blitz_skull 3y ago
  Those are not human rights. Privacy, on the other hand, is.
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    Specifically, it’s Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
  - 13of40 3y ago
    The right to repair is a direct extension of "banging the rocks together" - i.e. toolmaking, the main thing that defines us as humans. How can that not be a human right?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the main thing that defines us as humans. How can that not be a human right? Plenty of animals use tools [1]. And this isn’t how we define human rights. Bipedalism is quintessentially human, that doesn’t make tunnels a crime against humanity. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans
      - 13of40 3y ago
        I'm fine giving the animals the right to repair as well.
  - tomefaire 3y ago
    I think I'd prefer to have both privacy and control over devices I own.
blitz_skull 3y ago
[flagged]
GoToRO 3y ago
You are just giving your secrets to a company you can't change instead of a goverment you can elect.
- HatchedLake721 3y ago
  Ok, I give my secrets to a non-privacy focused company. I still cannot change that company.
- can16358p 3y ago
  Except that those "elected" governments are already just storefronts of big corps anyway.
- wonderwonder 3y ago
  The company doesn't have a hundred thousand armed officers with the ability to arrest / kill me for anything they can claim they found. Government comes equipped with legal violence, the company comes equipped with targeted ads
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    It's true, they merely have enough cash on hand to fund a small army, enough legal power to crush you in court with anything you attempt. Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. They're not some miraculous pinnacles of good in a sea of evil. It's just that they merely need to flex the law at you to destroy your life forever. Apple is no different, they'll hire the Pinkertons and break your fingers should they find the need to. Carnegie Steel did it, Apple's not above it either.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      >Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. Ok, I'll play along. Suppose Tim Cook wakes up tomorrow and decides for some reason he wants me dead. How exactly does he do it?
      - 3y ago
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden @dang Is there any way I can counter-argument this statement without it getting flagged? If so, please let me know how. Because so far I have failed and I don't know what rule I broke by countering this statement.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lolinder 3y ago
  Flags aren't for rule breaking, they just mean enough people found your comment inflammatory or otherwise objectionable enough to hit the "flag" button. If you have a link to the flagged comment, I can probably help you understand why HN users would have flagged it. This comment is getting downvotes because complaining about downvotes and flags always does.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    What's objectional or inflammatory about my opinion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36800745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36800745
    - brasic 3y ago
      It doesn’t show as flagged for me. Time heals all wounds, if your comment is not objectionable it will usually be vouched for eventually. Which is one of the reasons it’s a rule here that you don’t complain about voting. Such comments also rarely age like wine :)
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Well it was flagged in the beginning, it's not like I imagined it. IMHO people should be allowed to complain otherwise how can we spot deficiencies and injustices and improve?
barbazoo 3y ago
Sounds like their PR works. I bet that's the exact "feeling" they're aiming for.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Yea, and even if it is actionable and "real" - they're .. i think, correct me if i'm wrong, by law a for-profit company. Meaning none of this is noble, this is just aligned with our interests because they believe that to be the most profitable image for them currently. Which is all well a good for now, but profit directions can change, and i suspect it's easier to change a direction guided by profit than a direction guided by morals. Ie i suspect their current "good direction" is less stable than some would suggest.
mrangle 3y ago
Ignoring the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS, which raises other suspicions. It takes a lot of unearned trust to to assume that there isn't classified surveillance occurring. If it is, public virtue signalling about not breaking encryption is theater. As the surveillance occurs prior to encryption.
- elishah 3y ago
  > Ignoring the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS Which client side scanning would that be?
  - sp332 3y ago
    https://www.wired.com/story/apple-photo-scanning-csam-communication-safety-messages/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-photo-scanning-csam-commun... This scandal about scanning your end-to-end encrypted photos on one of the ends, kinda defeating the purpose and reducing everyone's privacy. It lead directly to the legislation that Apple is coming out against today, which I would call ironic but is very predictable. How dare governments require us to do this thing we already planned to do.
    - elishah 3y ago
      That CSAM detection method was something that apple published a whitepaper about to get feedback. The feedback was strongly negative, so they never implemented it. I would hope that the grandparent was not referring to this thing that never existed as "the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS."
mupuff1234 3y ago
Unless it's the human rights of those working at apple assembly lines.
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected and/or to demote the forgone options. It is part of cognitive science, and is a distinct cognitive bias that occurs once a decision is made. For example, if a person chooses option A instead of option B, they are likely to ignore or downplay the faults of option A while amplifying or ascribing new negative faults to option B. Conversely, they are also likely to notice and amplify the advantages of option A and not notice or de-emphasize those of option B
nashashmi 3y ago
Actions like this is why I used to trust Google. Fighting government overreach should have been a critical part of technology and data. But it seems Google was more political in its relationships than idealistic. And now the entire sector is compromised. Apple will be one day compromised too. In some crevice of some unknown government office is a person working on a ten-year initiative to get access to inaccessible information in the tech sector. AT&T was compromised this way. Microsoft was compromised this way. Google was compromised. What is to say Apple won't be compromised??
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  They are already compromised. They give data to the US government, China, and Russia. OP is repeating marketing.
  - dainiusse 3y ago
    This
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM Apple is a participant in the NSA's PRISM mass surveillance program. They've been compromised for a long time. I doubt any decent sized corporation isn't.
  - leptons 3y ago
    Exactly this. When some government makes a big public proposal to invade privacy, Apple will speak up with bravado. But they won't say a word in all the other cases when a government demands to invade privacy when those demands are made in secret.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    I am going to give them the benefit of doubt in the case of PRISM. It is not clear whether PRISM is the result of forced/voluntary participation, or the result of vulnerabilities found in their systems. Because of the diagrams in the PRISM powerpoint mentioning some of the integration is "coming soon", I feel it is definitely not legally coerced, otherwise everyone would participate at once. Also due to the integration having varying limits from service to service tells me this not given to NSA on a silver platter. Lastly, the outright denial of these companies further tells me that they are unaware. PRISM is the result of vulnerabilities found and purchased from hackers. And integrated together in a project codenamed PRISM. Each source has different levels of information sharing. And with Dropbox being a less integrated and more primitive resource for search, I know the entire PRISM program was a gum and shoestring project.
efitz 3y ago
Apple, while imperfect, is the only large tech company with anything like a principle when it comes to user privacy. Meta/IG would sell literally any piece of information about you they can get their hands on and monetize.
- aembleton 3y ago
  I'd have thought it'd be more profitable to sell access to you based on criteria rather than outright selling your data. If they sell your data then anyone can buy it and use it whereas only they can sell your attention.
comechao 3y ago
I hope they do this, I would not trust my govt (Brazil) with this power. Judges would use it all the time.
geniium 3y ago
I came here just to say this, thanks @obituary_latte for putting this nicely.
eltoto 3y ago
The way I put it, is Apple's business is selling high added value products (i.e. luxury, overpriced whatever you want), while most of the other big tech companies have you and your data as their main product. I'm fine paying for the luxury and privacy that comes with it
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  This is marketing though. PRISM for the US, giving personal data to China, and Russia are examples of them not respecting privacy.
ElectronBadger 3y ago
Seems that the UK market is not big enough. In China Apple had no problems with ceding control of their local servers to the Chinese government [1]. Not to mention of using forced labor (mostly Uyghurs, against which China is committing acts of genocide [2]). So, Apple and human rights my ass! 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
- simonh 3y ago
  None of those investigations showed that parts supplied to Apple came from Xinjiang. Only that one of their suppliers operates a plant there. These suppliers are huge conglomerates with plants all over China. Apple is one of a tiny handful of companies that actually audit their supply chain, but they only audit the chain that actually supplies them. From now on though any kind of audit in China is going to be almost impossible. They've started arresting researchers who perform due diligence reports for revealing 'state secrets'.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  I don't think it has anything to do with the market size, which after the Brexit fiasco and the pandemic has shrunk considerably, but it has the most to do with the UK labelling itself as a democracy while behaving like a dictatorship when it comes to surveillance and other "think of the children" laws. I would say Apple is pointing out the hypocrisy.
ghusto 3y ago
> a company that has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights Well you're _technically_ right; they do indeed have that power. However, it sounds like you're suggesting they are using that power _to_ shift policy in favor of human rights (emphasis is of importance). Whilst I can't prove that their intention has nothing to do with human rights, it's only in the same way that I can't prove the last U.S. invasion of Iraq wasn't about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction. It is patently obvious to me that this is a business decision fuelled by the drive to keep profits up, that just happens to coincide with happily with a PR friendly action. It's great that they're doing this, but it's just a coincidence that it aligns with what we want.
- germinalphrase 3y ago
  iMessage and FaceTime are large parts of the Apple Ecosystem lock-in. What obvious profit motive (separate from PR) would removing them provide?
  - ghusto 3y ago
    It doesn't have to deal with compliance issues, which are not only getting more complicated, but also increasing in number. "Sorry guv, I don't have the keys for that, so I'm not responsible for what went on as I couldn't have known". Though the biggest money maker is the idea itself. Many believe that Apple is "on their side", and these kinds of plays re-enforce that. The moment it's more profitable to sell you out than "stand up for privacy", they'll do it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- pphysch 3y ago
  > but it's just a coincidence that it aligns with what we want. I agree with your comment, but I think it is naïve to assume that Apple does PR by happenstance. Effective marketing/messaging is the bedrock of their business strategy. So yes they probably did this primarily for raw profit/power reasons, but the positive PR is a close secondary.
croes 3y ago
Yeah sure, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-privacy-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-pr...
seydor 3y ago
An $3T company can literally buy governmnets
bmitc 3y ago
They also have the power to redefine what a text message is. They don't care about people like you think they do. They're a company who makes decisions to make money.
RektBoy 3y ago
Ridiculous stuff like this is why I'm cringing everytime any apple fanboi appears. Are you dense? Apple and all other major companies are cooperating with FBI/NSA/CIA all the freakin' time. These things they throw up is actually smart play from these global police agencies, so sheeps like you feel safe. (Android is the same thing)
baruchel 3y ago
From a security point of view, there is no difference between being able to access your data and actually doing it. You may picture such or such company as better than another one (and maybe it is, though I strongly doubt it) if you want, but behaving yourself as if that company really cares about your privacy is extremely naive. I would rather suggest firmly believing whatever company you chose is spying you (be it true or not), and adjusting what you can accordingly (settings, apps, usage, etc.).
jonplackett 3y ago
Tell that to china
runjake 3y ago
I used to think like this about Google, back in the "Don't Be Evil" days. I end up living day by day, knowing that nothing is permanent. Right now, I'm with Apple, acutely aware that someday, this will change -- probably when some snake finally manages to slip through similar legislation in the US and it becomes profitably unattractive for Apple to maintain it's privacy stance. Apple's privacy stance is a marketing thing, after all.
lesuorac 3y ago
Pretty sure it's just section 75 that Apple / Meta take offense to. (1) OFCOM may require a provider of a regulated service to pay a fee in respect of a charging year which is a fee-paying year. (2) Where OFCOM require a provider of a regulated service to pay a fee in respect of a charging year, the fee is to be equal to the amount produced by a computation— (a) made by reference to— (i) the provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue for the qualifying period relating to that charging year, and (ii) any other factors that OFCOM consider appropriate, and (b) made in the manner that OFCOM consider appropriate. https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/51870/documents/3679 https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/51870/documents/367...
justapassenger 3y ago
You must love Meta then, who refused to compromise to enter China (and boy, they tried). While Apple happily shares data with Chinese government to make billions.
- ehsankia 3y ago
  Similarly, Bing is happy to run in China while Google pulled out of there.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  You mean how Facebook wouldn’t “compromise” when it was outright banned?
  - lawn 3y ago
    If they would have compromised they wouldn't have been banned. So, yes?
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/042915/why-facebook-banned-china.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/042915/why-f... China never asked them to compromise. They were banned in 2009.
      - lawn 3y ago
        And you know for a fact that they never communicated with Facebook and just banned them out of the blue? Or is this just speculation (fitting considering the source)?
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Seeing that every non Chinese social media company was banned and that Zuckerberg later tried to get back into China > In 2018, Facebook attempted to set up a $30 million subsidiary in Hangzhou to incubate startups and give advice to local businesses. Permission to run the startup was quickly withdrawn Do you really think that Facebook is out of China for any moral reason?
amelius 3y ago
Corporations > Democracy What could go wrong?
amelius 3y ago
> Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. A fanboy without iMessage and FaceTime ...
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  I don't think the OP lives in the UK :)
cmitsakis 3y ago
The fact that there are companies that have the power to shift public policy is the problem. Because they use that power for their interests that don't align with our interests.
sneak 3y ago
Headline: Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained - sources https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... Even with the new iCloud e2ee, which is not on by default, if you enable it, Apple and FBI/DHS/et al can still read all your messages (unless each and everyone you iMessage with also enables it), because iCloud still escrows iMessage sync keys in non-e2ee iCloud Backups, breaking the e2ee in iMessage. For 99.99%+ of iMessages, they ARE NOT E2EE and can be read at any time by Apple and provided to the state without a warrant. This is by design. HT202303 explains this, because for some reason Apple doesn't like to publicly lie. This article is brand marketing, nothing more. It worked on you. Apple has the ability to ship private devices. They don't because they choose not to fight city hall.
- obituary_latte 3y ago
  Thanks for the reply. So am I misunderstanding their data security overview page?[0] >For additional privacy and security, 14 data categories — including Health and passwords in iCloud Keychain — are end-to-end encrypted. Apple doesn't have the encryption keys for these categories, and we can't help you recover this data if you lose access to your account. The table below includes a list of data categories that are always protected by end-to-end encryption. The table includes Messages in iCloud with the caveat that the key is stored in iCloud backups if enabled, but the e2e key is still private, no? [0]https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
  - sneak 3y ago
    iCloud Backups are enabled by default, and the Messages in iCloud key is in the non-e2ee iCloud Backup. That means the iMessages being synced are encrypted to an endpoint key which is held by both the endpoint and the middle transit service (iCloud/iCloud Backup). That's end-to-middle-and-end encrypted, i.e. not end to end encrypted. Even if you turn on iCloud Backup e2ee (it's an option now) then your iMessages to everyone who hasn't (99.9%+ of people) aren't e2ee because the other end of the conversation is backing up their endpoint sync key.
vecinu 3y ago
I have seen some arguments that they don't care about your privacy and it's all right there in the privacy policy if you're willing to read it. A video on the subject [1] [1] https://youtu.be/r38Epj6ldKU https://youtu.be/r38Epj6ldKU
Gordonjcp 3y ago
If you think they're really going to do that and not hand over keys, I can give you a great price on this bridge I'm keen to move.

Doches 3y ago

In fairness, Meta has said the same thing re: WhatsApp, so while Apple deserves _some_ credit here for sticking to their principles, they're not exactly leading the pack. Which brings home the point that if _Meta_ isn't onboard with your privacy-obliterating proposal then you know you've really lost the plot...

hbn 3y ago
If anything that's a bolder move considering everyone uses Whatsapp there and barely anyone uses iMessage
- iainmerrick 3y ago
  Both are very popular in the UK.
  - joshuaissac 3y ago
    WhatsApp is used by 78% of the users in the UK, and iMessage is used by 25%. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997945/most-used-messenger-by-brand-in-the-uk https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997945/most-used-messenge... (non-free link)
    - thejohnconway 3y ago
      25% of the entire population is a pretty popular application! Not “hardly anyone”. Also, I’d like to know the volume of messages shared, I have WhatsApp, but wouldn’t miss it it it disappeared. iMessage disappearing would be very inconvenient.
      - Reason077 3y ago
        I'm surprised it's even 25% in the UK, and I wonder how that's measured. Maybe the 25% includes things like "opening the iMessage app to read SMS messages sent by two-factor authentication services" etc.
        thejohnconway 3y ago
        I’m not surprised, SMSing people is still common, and sliding from that to iMessage is totally frictionless for iPhone users. With iOS market share being around 50%, I’m surprised (skeptical even!) that it’s not closer to 50%.
    - vxNsr 3y ago
      But who is that 25%? iPhone users have money. I’m sure there is some significant overlap between iMessage and WhatsApp users (I know I and everyone I know use(s) both). But if you threaten politicians with losing their blue bubbles they’re gonna fall in line.
      - XajniN 3y ago
        No one in Europe cares about the blue bubbles. I prefer iMessage over the other messengers, but I still haven’t met anyone who cares. A lot of people don’t even know why the bubbles are sometimes green.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Yet, the EU have their panties in a knot about having it be interoperable…
      - joshuaissac 3y ago
        > But if you threaten politicians with losing their blue bubbles they’re gonna fall in line. This is not a thing outside the United States, and I doubt that most British politicians are even aware of 'blue bubbles'. For example, the recent controversy regarding the release of Covid-related government communications was centred on WhatsApp, with no reference to other platforms like iMessage. https://news.sky.com/story/politicians-are-drawn-to-whatsapp-and-it-threatens-us-ever-knowing-the-whole-truth-12894737 https://news.sky.com/story/politicians-are-drawn-to-whatsapp...
- wintermutestwin 3y ago
  I've noticed that too and it is super annoying having family in the UK that will only communicate via Whatsapp. Is this because cell providers outside the US charge for SMS? Even the ones who have iPhones end up using it because it is too much of a pain to use separate messaging apps.
  - rejectfinite 3y ago
    The opposite is more annoying... Whatsapp works on PC, Mac, Android and iOS iMessage only works on Apple devices.
  - dtech 3y ago
    SMS is cheap now but wasn't universally when Whatsapp gained critical mass. Nowadays it's mostly about convenience and features compared to SMS, and iPhone has a much smaller marker share in Europe so iMessage isn't a thing.
    - meling 3y ago
      I beg to differ. iMessage is definitely quite common in Europe as well.
      - dtech 3y ago
        iPhone has like a 33% market share so I wouldn't call it common if you can't reach 2 out of 3 people on it at least. In contrast, in many European countries Whatsapp has 90%+ penetration [1]. Even where it's relatively unused it's more common than iMessage. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311229/whatsapp-usage-messaging-app-users-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311229/whatsapp-usage-m...
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    It is mostly because international SMS and MMS is not free. People in the UK travel more to other countries, and communicate more with people in other countries. Not to mention MMS is vastly inferior to WhatsApp and iMessage for sharing media and other information.
frankfrank13 3y ago
I think Meta _needs_ WhatsApp to be their loss-leader (not really, but you know) when it comes to security. They always get to say "oh but WhatsApp is E2E!! We do care about security!"
- gruez 3y ago
  Messenger also has e2e, but it's opt in.
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  I mean Apple didn't give two stones about security until it became a marketing/selling point as a counterpoint to the big G.
  - zikduruqe 3y ago
    It's called market shift. Automative manufactures didn't give a rats ass about fuel economy until customers wanted it.
  - codetrotter 3y ago
    > Apple didn't give two stones about security until it became a marketing/selling point as a counterpoint to the big G That’s not true. Apple was position itself as being better at security than Microsoft long before Google was selling devices to people. For example: https://youtu.be/VuqZ8AqmLPY https://youtu.be/VuqZ8AqmLPY
    - i_am_jl 3y ago
      Apple sold itself as having better security. It's debatable whether or not that was true, and even if you believed it it was up for another debate whether that security was by design or because Apple's vanishingly small share of the PC market made it uneconomical to write malware targeting OSX. This isn't to say that Microsoft was doing security properly back then either, they weren't.
    - elishah 3y ago
      True, but security and privacy are different things. At most, one could say that security is necessary-but-not-sufficient for privacy. Google is generally excellent at security, but that doesn't change the fact that they're a nightmare for privacy.
dagmx 3y ago
Has Meta threatened to boycott? I know Signal has, and now Apple. However my searches for Meta/WhatsApp seem to show that there’s been contention over their introduction of E2E but they haven’t actually threatened to pull out over it. That said, I’d be very happy to see that they did threaten a boycott as well.
- nani8ot 3y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/09/whatsapp-end-to-end-encryption-online-safety-bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/09/whatsapp-... Meta: > Some countries have chosen to block it [WhatsApp]: that’s the reality of shipping a secure product. We’ve recently been blocked in Iran, for example. But we’ve never seen a liberal democracy do that. They said they won't comply. UK would have to simply block WhatsApp.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Thanks. Hopefully they continue to stick to their guns.
j45 3y ago
WhatsApp was a little late to the encryption party
- brasic 3y ago
  What do you mean? WhatsApp rolled out E2E encryption between 2014 and 2016. It’s by far the largest messaging service that is e2e encrypted by default. I think it’s more than fair to call it ahead of the curve for a service of its size. https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ https://blog.whatsapp.com/end-to-end-encryption https://blog.whatsapp.com/end-to-end-encryption
  - j45 3y ago
    It's a very easy search and might surprise ya. As recent as 2021, there's been questions: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/whatsapp-end-to-end-encrypted-messages-arent-that-private-after-all/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/whatsapp-end-to-end-... But, let's go to the start - WhatsApp started in 2011. Encryption arrived in varying degrees until there was some pressures to change the amount of privacy messages had for advertising purposes. Lots in the news at the time. 2018 "Another point of disagreement was over WhatsApp’s encryption. In 2016, WhatsApp added end-to-end encryption, a security feature that scrambles people’s messages so that outsiders, including WhatsApp’s owners, can’t read them. Facebook executives wanted to make it easier for businesses to use its tools, and WhatsApp executives believed that doing so would require some weakening of its encryption." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whatsapp-founder-plans-to-leave-after-broad-clashes-with-parent-facebook/2018/04/30/49448dd2-4ca9-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whatsapp-fou... 2018 "Acton said he tried to push Facebook towards an alternative, less privacy hostile business model for WhatsApp — suggesting a metered-user model such as by charging a tenth of a penny after a certain large number of free messages were used up." https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/26/whatsapp-founder-brian-acton-says-facebook-used-him-to-get-its-acquisition-past-eu-regulators/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/26/whatsapp-founder-brian-act... 2018 "WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum quits over privacy disagreements with Facebook" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/30/jan-koum-whatsapp-co-founder-quits-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/30/jan-koum-... 2018 WhatsApp co-founder: "I sold my users' privacy" to Facebook "https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-acton-whatsapp-on-facebook-forbes-interview-today-2018-09-26/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-acton-whatsapp-on-faceboo...
aqme28 3y ago
Interesting. I was going to say that many people use WhatsApp anyways, so if both of them go down that might actually lead to some pushback against these regulations.
viraptor 3y ago
I'm not even sure anyone apart from Signal is really sticking to any principles. This system would be annoying to implement, costly to legally manage, and introduce some ops overhead and security exposure. There's way more incentives for WA and iMessage here to oppose it than just protecting their users. But only one is a cool talking point.
ColinHayhurst 3y ago
True, but to be fair leading the pack was first Element, with Session, Threema, Viber and Signal.
glimshe 3y ago
In even more fairness, Meta has literally skipped the EU for Threads instead of increasing privacy. In their case, it's just a careful balance of virtue signaling, it had no qualms about pushing their spyware to hundreds of millions of people, violating basic human rights in the process. Check Article 12: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Your comment would have been stronger if you left out the piece re: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because it's an eye roller. Article 12 is: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. I'm no fan of Meta or their privacy violations, but saying that voluntarily downloading an app (which by the way does clearly outline their privacy practices) is equivalent to having my humans rights violated just really waters down what "human rights" should mean.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    > voluntarily downloading an app that's all true until an app becomes the only way to interact with certain groups of people. i certainly wouldn't call my usage of Discord voluntary. it doesn't actually matter how often i read their privacy policy and shake my head. either I break off contact with a large part of the internet that's important to me or I begrudgingly agree "voluntarily" to their terms and conditions.
    - dmbche 3y ago
      May I ask, what compels you to use discord if it's not voluntary? It's absolutely impossible to use keybase or signal?
      - _cenw 3y ago
Roark66 3y ago
Is WhatsApp still requiring access to your phone's address book before it allows you to use it? It did last time I tried it. There is no chance in hell I'm giving it all the phone numbers, emails and names of people that trusted me by giving me their details. At the time I set up a virtual android environment (samsung called it knox) just to setup WhatsApp in a way it couldn't access my phone's address book. It is extremely unethical on Meta's side to continue with this requirement. So I'm dubious every te they're presented as champions of privacy protection.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > There is no chance in hell I'm giving it all the phone numbers, emails and names of people that trusted me by giving me their details. The sad thing is that all their details and yours are already known to Meta. The dozen of us who behave like you will keep trying though.
- gavinsyancey 3y ago
  I currently have WhatsApp installed without access to my address book (on Android). It doesn't require it, but it makes it harder to use and locks out some features. Among other things, you can't start a new group / direct message, but you can participate / reply if someone else messages you first.
  - bilkow 3y ago
    I use an app called "Open In WhatsApp" which lets you paste / write a phone number and it will open a conversation with that number (by using android intents). You can also share contacts from the Phone app to this App, so you don't have to copy/paste manually. https://github.com/SubhamTyagi/openinwa https://github.com/SubhamTyagi/openinwa (I recommend downloading from f-droid)
  - paulmd 3y ago
    If only there were a strong, centralized app store that could perform app review and prevent applications from degrading user experience beyond the extent actually necessary without that permission. Good thing the EU just outlawed that model and forced everyone to support "third party app stores" that are thinly-veiled shells for Facebook/Google/etc to bypass that review process. the "I wanna sideload" crowd are nothing more than allies of convenience for FB and others. Facebook was already experimenting with getting users to manually sideload the full-telemetry build and now they can just say "oops not supported on safari, install the native app". https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
nashashmi 3y ago
In Saudi Arabia and other places, Whatsapp is not encrypted. Otherwise those services would be banned.
- Sunhold 3y ago
  This is pure speculation. WhatsApp is banned in some authoritarian countries such as China and UAE. It probably remains unbanned in others simply because it is so important for business.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    https://saudi.works/does-whatsapp-work-in-saudi-arabia/ https://saudi.works/does-whatsapp-work-in-saudi-arabia/ I had to look it up.
- throwaway1777 3y ago
  Incorrect. WhatsApp is encrypted in all countries.
make3 3y ago
didn't eta just move to make WhatsApp not end to end encrypted? Meta was also in the biggest mass surveillance & influence scandal of all times for a private not too long ago, please don't forget
- dspillett 3y ago
  > didn't eta just move to make WhatsApp not end to end encrypted? If so I missed the memo (that isn't unlikely, I'm not saying you are wrong!). Any references/links for that? A quick search doesn't turn up much, but Google isn't what it used to be…
- curiousllama 3y ago
  Opposite, actually. They said they're making Messenger and Instagram Direct e2ee.
wredue 3y ago
I keep writing and deleting responses. I am completely baffled. Speechless, really. You cannot actually believe that meta gives a single solitary fuck about privacy?
- slg 3y ago
  For me at least, it is the opposite. It is not that I think Facebook is principled, it is that I don't think Apple is particularly principled. They care about money. Unlike many of their competitors, they are not fundamentally an ad-tech company which means your personal data has much lower value to them. This has caused them to build their brand around privacy because that is something their competitors have difficulty doing due to their business models. Apple's pro-privacy stance is just as much a capitalistic position as a principled one.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  This isn't Reddit, please make higher quality comments. I think the GP is likely aligned with you anyways.
starttoaster 3y ago
Didn't Facebook (now Meta) buy WhatsApp, and it was originally its own thing? I guess you can say Meta kept WhatsApp operational, but I don't necessarily consider it a privacy win for Meta to just buy up some privacy-centric technologies with their billions.

jmclnx 3y ago

I hope they really do this. All too often Companies will say this then when the law is passed they back down. Why, stockholders. Has Apple really removed iMessage and FaceTime anywere else ? Are these available with 100% full encryption in China ? If so then they are just blowing wind :(

epcoa 3y ago
> Are these available with 100% full encryption in China ? If so then they are just blowing wind :( Talk less, read more.
- garyNeedsa 3y ago
  [dead]
- jmclnx 3y ago
  Well here is something for you to read, if you are a Chinese Citizen living in China, then these messages can be seen by the Government because iCloud data must be stored in China. https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/cskufy/imessage_encryption_when_sending_msgs_to_chinese/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/cskufy/imessage_encryp...
  - decentsafety 3y ago
    I was looking around to see what china has access to after seeing this post... However, people mention their messages can only be visible if icloud backups are enabled? Seems risky to trust either way.
    - epcoa 3y ago
      People should read actual documentation and expert or academic writing rather than a bunch of terminally online nerds on Reddit. I’ve seen nothing credible that the E2E for iMessage and FaceTime isn’t as advertised. If you backup to the cloud you’re electing to disclose your data outside the boundaries of encryption.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden Such statements rarely end up ageing like wine in the long run. Why would you be so happy about being owned by some big corporation just because it's your favorite big corporation? Self preservation has taught me not to trust any big corporation, regardless of how good their PR is.

throwaway894345 3y ago
Apple has been around for a pretty long time as far as tech companies go. I have grievances with them, but mostly they do a better than average job on privacy.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Apple has been around for a pretty long time as far as tech companies go. So have 100 year old car companies, and I'm old enough to remember many people saying the same things about their favorite car brand in the past ("I'm only buying X brand because they make quality stuff and they never broke my trust") and I also know they changed their opinion recently after a couple of decades. And changing car brands is way easier than changing smartphone ecosystems, should one of the two players decide to screw you. My point is people should not be fanboys of any corporation. History has proven they can always turn against their customer, even if Apple so far hasn't done it, but there's time, company management and culture can, and will always change with time, and with constant shareholder pressure for infinite growth there's plenty of opportunities in the future for the tides to turn, mark my words.
  - pjerem 3y ago
    > And changing car brands is way easier than changing smartphone ecosystems, should one of the two players decide to screw you. In what world ? I have switched from iOS to Android and vice versa multiple times while still driving the same car.
    - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ryaneager 3y ago

They will only continue to do so while it remains profitable, at some point they will give in. They are a capitalist company, profits are their only concern.

scarface_74 3y ago
How much would it affect Apple’s profit by not having iMessage in the UK?
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  Have you been seeing all the videos of women not dating men if they get a green text bubble! :)
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    We don’t need more British people mating with their fancy tea and accents anyway /s.

pjmlp 3y ago

Except they are quite selective regarding the countries.

Keats 3y ago

Unless it's China in which case they will not care about it!

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
If they did it for China, it will be the same of UK. The cat's out of the bag on this one. They will probably comply with some backdoor in partnership with Five-Eyes NSA & GCHQ. This is just PR posturing to build consumer trust. Same with their venture into CSAM in the west. China could ask Apple for the ML be applied to scan for political dissidents. It's a slippery slope and the frog gets boiled every year.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Or America, as we have seen with PRISM. Basically, it's as usual a financial calculation of what PR can brings vs what you can lose in the market. And fanboys believe it's because they are the good guys.
m3kw9 3y ago
Yep in that case let’s just close down the company because every country will want some privacy breaking rules imposed on you
judge2020 3y ago
China had all the bargaining power, in that non-compliance meant no more iPhones, and Apple going out of business. Apple wasn't ready to move production entirely to India or another country.
- justapassenger 3y ago
  Google, Meta (Oculus) are banned in China and still produce their HW there. It was about getting a slice of hugely lucrative pie of customer market.
Gorbzel 3y ago
It's very strange because like OP, huge fanboy. Early on it felt wrong to also burden Cupertino with being a cultural leader, but somewhere around $1.0T+ market cap, that has evolved. Vaguely remember a charity used to have a thing where they'd auction off a dinner with Steve, then later Tim. Given time with a leader who has literally revolutionized supply chain in CN and a CEO who made Apple his own following the most notable CEO ever, going after various gotcha points would feel like a wasted opportunity. But think I'd have to ask why a company designed in California of the 1960s and 1970s doesn't have line in the sand policies when dealing with a genocidal government and perpetual backdoors in software and politics, but will take a move like this. Would hope for something more than a canned answer.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

> has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights Except for right to repair... And software freedom...

blitz_skull 3y ago
Those are not human rights. Privacy, on the other hand, is.
- robin_reala 3y ago
  Specifically, it’s Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
- 13of40 3y ago
  The right to repair is a direct extension of "banging the rocks together" - i.e. toolmaking, the main thing that defines us as humans. How can that not be a human right?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the main thing that defines us as humans. How can that not be a human right? Plenty of animals use tools [1]. And this isn’t how we define human rights. Bipedalism is quintessentially human, that doesn’t make tunnels a crime against humanity. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans
    - 13of40 3y ago
      I'm fine giving the animals the right to repair as well.
- tomefaire 3y ago
  I think I'd prefer to have both privacy and control over devices I own.

blitz_skull 3y ago

[flagged]

GoToRO 3y ago

You are just giving your secrets to a company you can't change instead of a goverment you can elect.

HatchedLake721 3y ago
Ok, I give my secrets to a non-privacy focused company. I still cannot change that company.
can16358p 3y ago
Except that those "elected" governments are already just storefronts of big corps anyway.
wonderwonder 3y ago
The company doesn't have a hundred thousand armed officers with the ability to arrest / kill me for anything they can claim they found. Government comes equipped with legal violence, the company comes equipped with targeted ads
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  It's true, they merely have enough cash on hand to fund a small army, enough legal power to crush you in court with anything you attempt. Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. They're not some miraculous pinnacles of good in a sea of evil. It's just that they merely need to flex the law at you to destroy your life forever. Apple is no different, they'll hire the Pinkertons and break your fingers should they find the need to. Carnegie Steel did it, Apple's not above it either.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    >Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. Ok, I'll play along. Suppose Tim Cook wakes up tomorrow and decides for some reason he wants me dead. How exactly does he do it?
    - 3y ago

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden @dang Is there any way I can counter-argument this statement without it getting flagged? If so, please let me know how. Because so far I have failed and I don't know what rule I broke by countering this statement.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 3y ago
Flags aren't for rule breaking, they just mean enough people found your comment inflammatory or otherwise objectionable enough to hit the "flag" button. If you have a link to the flagged comment, I can probably help you understand why HN users would have flagged it. This comment is getting downvotes because complaining about downvotes and flags always does.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  What's objectional or inflammatory about my opinion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36800745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36800745
  - brasic 3y ago
    It doesn’t show as flagged for me. Time heals all wounds, if your comment is not objectionable it will usually be vouched for eventually. Which is one of the reasons it’s a rule here that you don’t complain about voting. Such comments also rarely age like wine :)
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Well it was flagged in the beginning, it's not like I imagined it. IMHO people should be allowed to complain otherwise how can we spot deficiencies and injustices and improve?

barbazoo 3y ago

Sounds like their PR works. I bet that's the exact "feeling" they're aiming for.

unshavedyak 3y ago
Yea, and even if it is actionable and "real" - they're .. i think, correct me if i'm wrong, by law a for-profit company. Meaning none of this is noble, this is just aligned with our interests because they believe that to be the most profitable image for them currently. Which is all well a good for now, but profit directions can change, and i suspect it's easier to change a direction guided by profit than a direction guided by morals. Ie i suspect their current "good direction" is less stable than some would suggest.

mrangle 3y ago

Ignoring the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS, which raises other suspicions. It takes a lot of unearned trust to to assume that there isn't classified surveillance occurring. If it is, public virtue signalling about not breaking encryption is theater. As the surveillance occurs prior to encryption.

elishah 3y ago
> Ignoring the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS Which client side scanning would that be?
- sp332 3y ago
  https://www.wired.com/story/apple-photo-scanning-csam-communication-safety-messages/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-photo-scanning-csam-commun... This scandal about scanning your end-to-end encrypted photos on one of the ends, kinda defeating the purpose and reducing everyone's privacy. It lead directly to the legislation that Apple is coming out against today, which I would call ironic but is very predictable. How dare governments require us to do this thing we already planned to do.
  - elishah 3y ago
    That CSAM detection method was something that apple published a whitepaper about to get feedback. The feedback was strongly negative, so they never implemented it. I would hope that the grandparent was not referring to this thing that never existed as "the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS."

mupuff1234 3y ago

Unless it's the human rights of those working at apple assembly lines.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago

> Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected and/or to demote the forgone options. It is part of cognitive science, and is a distinct cognitive bias that occurs once a decision is made. For example, if a person chooses option A instead of option B, they are likely to ignore or downplay the faults of option A while amplifying or ascribing new negative faults to option B. Conversely, they are also likely to notice and amplify the advantages of option A and not notice or de-emphasize those of option B

nashashmi 3y ago

Actions like this is why I used to trust Google. Fighting government overreach should have been a critical part of technology and data. But it seems Google was more political in its relationships than idealistic. And now the entire sector is compromised. Apple will be one day compromised too. In some crevice of some unknown government office is a person working on a ten-year initiative to get access to inaccessible information in the tech sector. AT&T was compromised this way. Microsoft was compromised this way. Google was compromised. What is to say Apple won't be compromised??

hospitalJail 3y ago
They are already compromised. They give data to the US government, China, and Russia. OP is repeating marketing.
- dainiusse 3y ago
  This
JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM Apple is a participant in the NSA's PRISM mass surveillance program. They've been compromised for a long time. I doubt any decent sized corporation isn't.
- leptons 3y ago
  Exactly this. When some government makes a big public proposal to invade privacy, Apple will speak up with bravado. But they won't say a word in all the other cases when a government demands to invade privacy when those demands are made in secret.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  I am going to give them the benefit of doubt in the case of PRISM. It is not clear whether PRISM is the result of forced/voluntary participation, or the result of vulnerabilities found in their systems. Because of the diagrams in the PRISM powerpoint mentioning some of the integration is "coming soon", I feel it is definitely not legally coerced, otherwise everyone would participate at once. Also due to the integration having varying limits from service to service tells me this not given to NSA on a silver platter. Lastly, the outright denial of these companies further tells me that they are unaware. PRISM is the result of vulnerabilities found and purchased from hackers. And integrated together in a project codenamed PRISM. Each source has different levels of information sharing. And with Dropbox being a less integrated and more primitive resource for search, I know the entire PRISM program was a gum and shoestring project.

efitz 3y ago

Apple, while imperfect, is the only large tech company with anything like a principle when it comes to user privacy. Meta/IG would sell literally any piece of information about you they can get their hands on and monetize.

aembleton 3y ago
I'd have thought it'd be more profitable to sell access to you based on criteria rather than outright selling your data. If they sell your data then anyone can buy it and use it whereas only they can sell your attention.

comechao 3y ago

I hope they do this, I would not trust my govt (Brazil) with this power. Judges would use it all the time.

geniium 3y ago

I came here just to say this, thanks @obituary_latte for putting this nicely.

eltoto 3y ago

The way I put it, is Apple's business is selling high added value products (i.e. luxury, overpriced whatever you want), while most of the other big tech companies have you and your data as their main product. I'm fine paying for the luxury and privacy that comes with it

hospitalJail 3y ago
This is marketing though. PRISM for the US, giving personal data to China, and Russia are examples of them not respecting privacy.

ElectronBadger 3y ago

Seems that the UK market is not big enough. In China Apple had no problems with ceding control of their local servers to the Chinese government [1]. Not to mention of using forced labor (mostly Uyghurs, against which China is committing acts of genocide [2]). So, Apple and human rights my ass! 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

simonh 3y ago
None of those investigations showed that parts supplied to Apple came from Xinjiang. Only that one of their suppliers operates a plant there. These suppliers are huge conglomerates with plants all over China. Apple is one of a tiny handful of companies that actually audit their supply chain, but they only audit the chain that actually supplies them. From now on though any kind of audit in China is going to be almost impossible. They've started arresting researchers who perform due diligence reports for revealing 'state secrets'.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with the market size, which after the Brexit fiasco and the pandemic has shrunk considerably, but it has the most to do with the UK labelling itself as a democracy while behaving like a dictatorship when it comes to surveillance and other "think of the children" laws. I would say Apple is pointing out the hypocrisy.

ghusto 3y ago

> a company that has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights Well you're _technically_ right; they do indeed have that power. However, it sounds like you're suggesting they are using that power _to_ shift policy in favor of human rights (emphasis is of importance). Whilst I can't prove that their intention has nothing to do with human rights, it's only in the same way that I can't prove the last U.S. invasion of Iraq wasn't about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction. It is patently obvious to me that this is a business decision fuelled by the drive to keep profits up, that just happens to coincide with happily with a PR friendly action. It's great that they're doing this, but it's just a coincidence that it aligns with what we want.

germinalphrase 3y ago
iMessage and FaceTime are large parts of the Apple Ecosystem lock-in. What obvious profit motive (separate from PR) would removing them provide?
- ghusto 3y ago
  It doesn't have to deal with compliance issues, which are not only getting more complicated, but also increasing in number. "Sorry guv, I don't have the keys for that, so I'm not responsible for what went on as I couldn't have known". Though the biggest money maker is the idea itself. Many believe that Apple is "on their side", and these kinds of plays re-enforce that. The moment it's more profitable to sell you out than "stand up for privacy", they'll do it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
pphysch 3y ago
> but it's just a coincidence that it aligns with what we want. I agree with your comment, but I think it is naïve to assume that Apple does PR by happenstance. Effective marketing/messaging is the bedrock of their business strategy. So yes they probably did this primarily for raw profit/power reasons, but the positive PR is a close secondary.

croes 3y ago

Yeah sure, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-privacy-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-pr...

seydor 3y ago

An $3T company can literally buy governmnets

bmitc 3y ago

They also have the power to redefine what a text message is. They don't care about people like you think they do. They're a company who makes decisions to make money.

RektBoy 3y ago

Ridiculous stuff like this is why I'm cringing everytime any apple fanboi appears. Are you dense? Apple and all other major companies are cooperating with FBI/NSA/CIA all the freakin' time. These things they throw up is actually smart play from these global police agencies, so sheeps like you feel safe. (Android is the same thing)

baruchel 3y ago

From a security point of view, there is no difference between being able to access your data and actually doing it. You may picture such or such company as better than another one (and maybe it is, though I strongly doubt it) if you want, but behaving yourself as if that company really cares about your privacy is extremely naive. I would rather suggest firmly believing whatever company you chose is spying you (be it true or not), and adjusting what you can accordingly (settings, apps, usage, etc.).

jonplackett 3y ago

Tell that to china

runjake 3y ago

I used to think like this about Google, back in the "Don't Be Evil" days. I end up living day by day, knowing that nothing is permanent. Right now, I'm with Apple, acutely aware that someday, this will change -- probably when some snake finally manages to slip through similar legislation in the US and it becomes profitably unattractive for Apple to maintain it's privacy stance. Apple's privacy stance is a marketing thing, after all.

lesuorac 3y ago

Pretty sure it's just section 75 that Apple / Meta take offense to. (1) OFCOM may require a provider of a regulated service to pay a fee in respect of a charging year which is a fee-paying year. (2) Where OFCOM require a provider of a regulated service to pay a fee in respect of a charging year, the fee is to be equal to the amount produced by a computation— (a) made by reference to— (i) the provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue for the qualifying period relating to that charging year, and (ii) any other factors that OFCOM consider appropriate, and (b) made in the manner that OFCOM consider appropriate. https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/51870/documents/3679 https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/51870/documents/367...

justapassenger 3y ago

You must love Meta then, who refused to compromise to enter China (and boy, they tried). While Apple happily shares data with Chinese government to make billions.

ehsankia 3y ago
Similarly, Bing is happy to run in China while Google pulled out of there.
scarface_74 3y ago
You mean how Facebook wouldn’t “compromise” when it was outright banned?
- lawn 3y ago
  If they would have compromised they wouldn't have been banned. So, yes?
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/042915/why-facebook-banned-china.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/042915/why-f... China never asked them to compromise. They were banned in 2009.
    - lawn 3y ago
      And you know for a fact that they never communicated with Facebook and just banned them out of the blue? Or is this just speculation (fitting considering the source)?
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Seeing that every non Chinese social media company was banned and that Zuckerberg later tried to get back into China > In 2018, Facebook attempted to set up a $30 million subsidiary in Hangzhou to incubate startups and give advice to local businesses. Permission to run the startup was quickly withdrawn Do you really think that Facebook is out of China for any moral reason?

amelius 3y ago

Corporations > Democracy What could go wrong?

amelius 3y ago

> Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. A fanboy without iMessage and FaceTime ...

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
I don't think the OP lives in the UK :)

cmitsakis 3y ago

The fact that there are companies that have the power to shift public policy is the problem. Because they use that power for their interests that don't align with our interests.

sneak 3y ago

Headline: Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained - sources https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... Even with the new iCloud e2ee, which is not on by default, if you enable it, Apple and FBI/DHS/et al can still read all your messages (unless each and everyone you iMessage with also enables it), because iCloud still escrows iMessage sync keys in non-e2ee iCloud Backups, breaking the e2ee in iMessage. For 99.99%+ of iMessages, they ARE NOT E2EE and can be read at any time by Apple and provided to the state without a warrant. This is by design. HT202303 explains this, because for some reason Apple doesn't like to publicly lie. This article is brand marketing, nothing more. It worked on you. Apple has the ability to ship private devices. They don't because they choose not to fight city hall.

obituary_latte 3y ago
Thanks for the reply. So am I misunderstanding their data security overview page?[0] >For additional privacy and security, 14 data categories — including Health and passwords in iCloud Keychain — are end-to-end encrypted. Apple doesn't have the encryption keys for these categories, and we can't help you recover this data if you lose access to your account. The table below includes a list of data categories that are always protected by end-to-end encryption. The table includes Messages in iCloud with the caveat that the key is stored in iCloud backups if enabled, but the e2e key is still private, no? [0]https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
- sneak 3y ago
  iCloud Backups are enabled by default, and the Messages in iCloud key is in the non-e2ee iCloud Backup. That means the iMessages being synced are encrypted to an endpoint key which is held by both the endpoint and the middle transit service (iCloud/iCloud Backup). That's end-to-middle-and-end encrypted, i.e. not end to end encrypted. Even if you turn on iCloud Backup e2ee (it's an option now) then your iMessages to everyone who hasn't (99.9%+ of people) aren't e2ee because the other end of the conversation is backing up their endpoint sync key.

vecinu 3y ago

I have seen some arguments that they don't care about your privacy and it's all right there in the privacy policy if you're willing to read it. A video on the subject [1] [1] https://youtu.be/r38Epj6ldKU https://youtu.be/r38Epj6ldKU

Gordonjcp 3y ago

If you think they're really going to do that and not hand over keys, I can give you a great price on this bridge I'm keen to move.