3 ms·

I feel like this is quite an over simplification. They can care about privacy all they want but if they are legally required to hand something over what are th

I feel like this is quite an over simplification. They can care about privacy all they want but if they are legally required to hand something over what are they realistically going to do? Really their only solution is to make everything end to end encrypted so it is impossible to comply (which they have been slowly making more and more components E2E), but that takes time to do. I honestly din't know how notifications could realistically be E2E since the source is not an Apple device so they can control it, but maybe it would be possible?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 3y ago
Even making everything E2E-encrypted doesn't stop any government saying "give us access or your executives go to jail and your products are banned from sale".
- datadrivenangel 3y ago
  End to End encryption means that illegal or covert surveillance is impossible without more work from the company, which makes it easier to say "we can't give you access" when spooks show up. Obviously they can still send you to jail, but for this grey area "technically maybe kind of legal" surveillance execs at tech companies aren't going to jail for not complying if it's actually illegal.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  From most valued company in mankind's history, in US, in 2023? Keep dreaming, those people are not handled like mere humans, nor are those companies handled like some small family business. Nobody actually responsible went in jail for 2008 financial crisis and it would have been trivial to start pointing fingers at various culprits (but you would need many). Also banning Apple products in US would be a literal political suicide unless they would anger most of US population with something really really bad. From time to time somebody who wants free publicity for some political goals will venture on some small crusade but otherwise that's simply not how US handles its business currently.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > From most valued company in mankind's history, in US, in 2023? Yes, because we live in the real world not a corporate cyberpunk dystopia where multinationals are stronger than nation states. There are many differences between the financial crisis and my hypothetical, but before I list them I will point out that banks were fined (and some ceased trading) and that people did go to jail: https://ig.ft.com/jailed-bankers/ https://ig.ft.com/jailed-bankers/ One of the bigger problems leading to the financial crisis is that people heard about the Black-Scholes equation, and the magic words "won the Nobel prize in economics" turned their brains off. Another big difference is that the governments understand the importance of money, while they very obviously don't understand the importance of encryption. Another is that the current zeitgeist is that Big Tech is too big and needs to be brought to heel — unlike the bankers, who by the GFC were all asking for (and getting) let off the leash they'd been given since one of the many previous financial crises. But rather than getting down in the weeds with these comparisons, I would end by noting that when you write: > Also banning Apple products in US would be a literal political suicide unless they would anger most of US population with something really really bad. You're assuming I meant the US government. Nope, there's about 200 sovereign nations in this world. Apple's products have suffered or been threatened with sales bans due to non-compliance with the laws in: • France: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/13/what-is-behind-frances-ban-of-apples-iphone-12 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/13/what-is-behind-fran... • South Korea: https://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-lifts-apple-iphone-ban https://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-li... • Brazil: https://9to5mac.com/2022/10/13/apple-fine-in-brazil-iphone-charger https://9to5mac.com/2022/10/13/apple-fine-in-brazil-iphone-c... • Mexico: https://www.cultofmac.com/199452/local-firm-wins-its-case-to-get-the-iphone-banned-in-mexico/ https://www.cultofmac.com/199452/local-firm-wins-its-case-to... • Italy: https://www.corriere.it/economia/12_giugno_30/antitrust-apple-caso-rischio-multa_fa64dc5c-c2d0-11e1-a34b-90a1f1a78547.shtml https://www.corriere.it/economia/12_giugno_30/antitrust-appl... (At this point I stopped looking, Google had more search results). And also, despite what you say, the US: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/apple-watch-faces-another-possible-sales-ban-after-losing-itc-vote-masimo-pulse-oximetry https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/apple-watch-faces-anot...
safety1st 3y ago
The point here is that by tightening up their guidelines, Apple has tacitly admitted that they previously handed over notification data at times when they were NOT legally required to do so. Otherwise, they wouldn't have tightened up their guidelines. If you're Apple scale and you have an army of lawyers and a big part of your marketing is that you're the privacy-conscious choice, you shouldn't fuck this up. You should have your lawyers challenge the subpoenas or do whatever has to be done and it's bad for your brand if you don't. It's unfortunate for everyone including Apple that it took Ron Wyden being a gadfly to get them to do what they should have been doing all along (and while it may not have always been about notifications specifically, he's been at this for years).
- nerdjon 3y ago
  In an ideal world that is a great ideal, but that is not the world we live in. My understanding is that before this was made public Apple was under a gag order and could not talk about this. In a situation like that how would Apple be able to bring lawyers into the case to fight it? > they were NOT legally required to do so. My understanding is that they very much were forced to do this. Again I am going to ask, if Apple and Google were under Gag orders realistically what were their options? To me it sounded like they didn't have any and the only reason we are able to get these protections now is because it's public knowledge.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    > My understanding is that before this was made public Apple was under a gag order and could not talk about this. In a situation like that how would Apple be able to bring lawyers into the case to fight it? Apple has in-house lawyers. Who do you think is advising them on this gag order? They don't need to bring anyone else in to fight it. They already have the resources.
    - Volundr 3y ago
      Also worth noting even if this wasn't true, you can talk to a lawyer about an NSL: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq#24 https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq#24
HumblyTossed 3y ago
> They can care about privacy all they want but if they are legally required to hand something over what are they realistically going to do? Right, so, why were they so free with the goods before this??
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > if they are legally. That is the key part of this that we are glossing over here. I have yet to see any evidence that Apple or Google could have denied these requests or done anything to try to counter it thanks to the gag order.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    Except Google requires an order from a judge, and Apple did not. No one is arguing that the courts can't force Apple or Google to turn over data, but apparently Apple guidelines did not actually require a judge to issue the order.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ben_w 3y ago

Even making everything E2E-encrypted doesn't stop any government saying "give us access or your executives go to jail and your products are banned from sale".

datadrivenangel 3y ago
End to End encryption means that illegal or covert surveillance is impossible without more work from the company, which makes it easier to say "we can't give you access" when spooks show up. Obviously they can still send you to jail, but for this grey area "technically maybe kind of legal" surveillance execs at tech companies aren't going to jail for not complying if it's actually illegal.
saiya-jin 3y ago
From most valued company in mankind's history, in US, in 2023? Keep dreaming, those people are not handled like mere humans, nor are those companies handled like some small family business. Nobody actually responsible went in jail for 2008 financial crisis and it would have been trivial to start pointing fingers at various culprits (but you would need many). Also banning Apple products in US would be a literal political suicide unless they would anger most of US population with something really really bad. From time to time somebody who wants free publicity for some political goals will venture on some small crusade but otherwise that's simply not how US handles its business currently.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > From most valued company in mankind's history, in US, in 2023? Yes, because we live in the real world not a corporate cyberpunk dystopia where multinationals are stronger than nation states. There are many differences between the financial crisis and my hypothetical, but before I list them I will point out that banks were fined (and some ceased trading) and that people did go to jail: https://ig.ft.com/jailed-bankers/ https://ig.ft.com/jailed-bankers/ One of the bigger problems leading to the financial crisis is that people heard about the Black-Scholes equation, and the magic words "won the Nobel prize in economics" turned their brains off. Another big difference is that the governments understand the importance of money, while they very obviously don't understand the importance of encryption. Another is that the current zeitgeist is that Big Tech is too big and needs to be brought to heel — unlike the bankers, who by the GFC were all asking for (and getting) let off the leash they'd been given since one of the many previous financial crises. But rather than getting down in the weeds with these comparisons, I would end by noting that when you write: > Also banning Apple products in US would be a literal political suicide unless they would anger most of US population with something really really bad. You're assuming I meant the US government. Nope, there's about 200 sovereign nations in this world. Apple's products have suffered or been threatened with sales bans due to non-compliance with the laws in: • France: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/13/what-is-behind-frances-ban-of-apples-iphone-12 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/13/what-is-behind-fran... • South Korea: https://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-lifts-apple-iphone-ban https://www.crn.com/news/networking/220100939/south-korea-li... • Brazil: https://9to5mac.com/2022/10/13/apple-fine-in-brazil-iphone-charger https://9to5mac.com/2022/10/13/apple-fine-in-brazil-iphone-c... • Mexico: https://www.cultofmac.com/199452/local-firm-wins-its-case-to-get-the-iphone-banned-in-mexico/ https://www.cultofmac.com/199452/local-firm-wins-its-case-to... • Italy: https://www.corriere.it/economia/12_giugno_30/antitrust-apple-caso-rischio-multa_fa64dc5c-c2d0-11e1-a34b-90a1f1a78547.shtml https://www.corriere.it/economia/12_giugno_30/antitrust-appl... (At this point I stopped looking, Google had more search results). And also, despite what you say, the US: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/apple-watch-faces-another-possible-sales-ban-after-losing-itc-vote-masimo-pulse-oximetry https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/apple-watch-faces-anot...

safety1st 3y ago

The point here is that by tightening up their guidelines, Apple has tacitly admitted that they previously handed over notification data at times when they were NOT legally required to do so. Otherwise, they wouldn't have tightened up their guidelines. If you're Apple scale and you have an army of lawyers and a big part of your marketing is that you're the privacy-conscious choice, you shouldn't fuck this up. You should have your lawyers challenge the subpoenas or do whatever has to be done and it's bad for your brand if you don't. It's unfortunate for everyone including Apple that it took Ron Wyden being a gadfly to get them to do what they should have been doing all along (and while it may not have always been about notifications specifically, he's been at this for years).

nerdjon 3y ago
In an ideal world that is a great ideal, but that is not the world we live in. My understanding is that before this was made public Apple was under a gag order and could not talk about this. In a situation like that how would Apple be able to bring lawyers into the case to fight it? > they were NOT legally required to do so. My understanding is that they very much were forced to do this. Again I am going to ask, if Apple and Google were under Gag orders realistically what were their options? To me it sounded like they didn't have any and the only reason we are able to get these protections now is because it's public knowledge.
- Volundr 3y ago
  > My understanding is that before this was made public Apple was under a gag order and could not talk about this. In a situation like that how would Apple be able to bring lawyers into the case to fight it? Apple has in-house lawyers. Who do you think is advising them on this gag order? They don't need to bring anyone else in to fight it. They already have the resources.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    Also worth noting even if this wasn't true, you can talk to a lawyer about an NSL: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq#24 https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq#24

HumblyTossed 3y ago

> They can care about privacy all they want but if they are legally required to hand something over what are they realistically going to do? Right, so, why were they so free with the goods before this??

nerdjon 3y ago
> if they are legally. That is the key part of this that we are glossing over here. I have yet to see any evidence that Apple or Google could have denied these requests or done anything to try to counter it thanks to the gag order.
- Volundr 3y ago
  Except Google requires an order from a judge, and Apple did not. No one is arguing that the courts can't force Apple or Google to turn over data, but apparently Apple guidelines did not actually require a judge to issue the order.