3 ms·
I don't get the angle from these lawmakers. Beeper could be doing nothing illegal, but Apple has every right to block unwanted access to their server. Just as R
by magnio 3y ago
I don't get the angle from these lawmakers. Beeper could be doing nothing illegal, but Apple has every right to block unwanted access to their server. Just as Reddit has the right to block all third-party clients and YouTube has every right to block ad-block users.
I thought what Beeper did was fun at first, but now I consider their work dangerous, since it rationalizes a push for remote attestation, which is what Apple has been meaning to do for a long time. Now they have a valid reason to fully utilize it, after which Google may try to follow suit and probably face less backlashes.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoLawmakers make the law. They have to consider not only what is currently illegal but also what should be illegal. Just because Apple is currently allowed to block access from competitors doesn't mean they should be allowed to.
- s3p 3y ago>since it rationalizes a push for remote attestation No it doesn't. By this logic, Apple should have gone through with plans to implement CSAM scanning on iCloud. Except customers complained and they abandoned it. Then they debuted e2e encrypted iCloud storage 2 years later; completely antithetical to the school of thought used by CSAM scanning advocates.
- turquoisevar 3y agoAs I understand it, the CSAM feature was created because the E2EE was on the horizon. They were trying to have their cake and eat it too. Then they choked on the cake.
- fulafel 3y agoLawmakers make and change laws, so it seems sensible to find out whether they need changing. "This isn't illegal now therefore it shouldn't be looked into by lawmakers" would be circular reasoning.