3 ms·

So Apple sucking the data from user's device to their cloud without permission is not data collection because Apple says it can't access iCloud data? Come on. I

by voytec 2y ago

So Apple sucking the data from user's device to their cloud without permission is not data collection because Apple says it can't access iCloud data? Come on. It's a US-based corporation owning the keys to systems on both ends. They are obligated to release the data when requested. And they may be obligated to lie about it, also by law.

jkaplowitz 2y ago
To the best of my knowledge, none of the US laws around things like the PRISM program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, National Security Letters, etc have ever required companies to state affirmatively false things, and I suspect that any such law would be unconstitutional. All of those laws have only required companies to refrain from saying or disclosing things, which is very different. Exactly which law in the US might allow the government to require Apple to falsely state that they don't have access to certain data?
- voytec 2y ago
  Prohibition of Certain Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2709(c) AKA "gag order".
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    As I said, laws that prohibit companies like Apple from disclosing something are very different from laws that force them to affirmatively make false statements. Your citation falls in the first category. I’m well aware that such laws do exist, and I alluded to some of them in my comment (e.g. National Security Letters). But a law that allowing the government to oblige Apple to lie about whether they can access iCloud, as you said exists, would fall in the second category. This would go far beyond simply prohibiting a disclosure. Can you identify any US law in the second category? Not only don’t I believe that such a law exists, other more ordinary laws like the FTC Act make many such lies illegal in the commercial context.
    - voytec 2y ago
      > As I said, laws that prohibit companies like Apple from disclosing something are very different from laws that force them to affirmatively make false statements. 1. Apple tells users that they don't snoop on iCloud data, and sprinkles this marketing statement by assuring users that they are literally incapable of doing so. 2. US government lawfully forces Apple to gather and share intelligence, with an adjacent gag order. Apple changes a few settings on their backed and issues updates to to iPhones, along with publicly disclosed changes. Apple - as any business wishing to still exist in a year (or the management wishing to keep their seats) - complies with government's demands to the letter. 3. Gag order literally renders Apple and any person aware, [edit: s/incapable/disallowed/] of stating "we started logging this data" or "we have not been logging this data in the past, but..." 4. Apple logs and shares data, has to lie to customers to abide the law.
      - jkaplowitz 2y ago
        Step 4 still doesn't require Apple to lie about what they are or are not doing, it just requires Apple not to repeat or update their previous statement which might have been invalidated by government orders in between, at least not in the present tense with respect to their activities after the government orders. In particular, it does not prevent them from removing any such invalidated statement from their website, although it's possible they'd have to do that removal as part of a broader overhaul of the relevant page to prevent it from being effectively a disclosure by obvious minimal page diff.
        bmicraft 2y ago
        It really looks like you are agreeing but being pedantic about the wording
        jkaplowitz 2y ago
        It’s possible, but I don’t think we’re fully agreeing. To me, a government being able to compel silence from / prohibit disclosure by a private company or person feels much less awful than a government being able to force them to say something false. Those are not even in the same category of acceptability for me. The second one is pretty much never acceptable; the first one sometimes is, though of course not always. I think the other commenter was saying that US law allows the government to oblige Apple in the second way, in other words to affirmatively make false statements. I was saying it does not and probably constitutionally cannot. That seems like a clear disagreement to me. They and I are, however, agreeing that US law allows the government to compel Apple to keep silent about certain things. This includes not disclosing that certain prior statements which may have been true at the time have subsequently become false.
EasyMark 2y ago
I trust apple, because I trust greed. They get a lot of loyalty because people they aren’t data mining their iPhone for health and ad information. I mean they could be, but I haven’t seen it, and it would be a bombshell. I still believe that apple is a hardware company first and everything else second. I would leave them and go back to android if they just became Android 2.0. I never really had a problem with android other than the massive data mining and wide open permissions apps had to rifle through your data (much improved however in recent versions, I understand)
nabla9 2y ago
It's not without permission. Its not moved out of device without permission. > They are obligated to release the data when requested They don't own the keys on both ends. They are not obligated to have backdoors either.

by voytec 2y ago

jkaplowitz 2y ago

To the best of my knowledge, none of the US laws around things like the PRISM program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, National Security Letters, etc have ever required companies to state affirmatively false things, and I suspect that any such law would be unconstitutional. All of those laws have only required companies to refrain from saying or disclosing things, which is very different. Exactly which law in the US might allow the government to require Apple to falsely state that they don't have access to certain data?

voytec 2y ago
Prohibition of Certain Disclosure under 18 U.S.C. § 2709(c) AKA "gag order".
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  As I said, laws that prohibit companies like Apple from disclosing something are very different from laws that force them to affirmatively make false statements. Your citation falls in the first category. I’m well aware that such laws do exist, and I alluded to some of them in my comment (e.g. National Security Letters). But a law that allowing the government to oblige Apple to lie about whether they can access iCloud, as you said exists, would fall in the second category. This would go far beyond simply prohibiting a disclosure. Can you identify any US law in the second category? Not only don’t I believe that such a law exists, other more ordinary laws like the FTC Act make many such lies illegal in the commercial context.
  - voytec 2y ago
    > As I said, laws that prohibit companies like Apple from disclosing something are very different from laws that force them to affirmatively make false statements. 1. Apple tells users that they don't snoop on iCloud data, and sprinkles this marketing statement by assuring users that they are literally incapable of doing so. 2. US government lawfully forces Apple to gather and share intelligence, with an adjacent gag order. Apple changes a few settings on their backed and issues updates to to iPhones, along with publicly disclosed changes. Apple - as any business wishing to still exist in a year (or the management wishing to keep their seats) - complies with government's demands to the letter. 3. Gag order literally renders Apple and any person aware, [edit: s/incapable/disallowed/] of stating "we started logging this data" or "we have not been logging this data in the past, but..." 4. Apple logs and shares data, has to lie to customers to abide the law.
    - jkaplowitz 2y ago
      Step 4 still doesn't require Apple to lie about what they are or are not doing, it just requires Apple not to repeat or update their previous statement which might have been invalidated by government orders in between, at least not in the present tense with respect to their activities after the government orders. In particular, it does not prevent them from removing any such invalidated statement from their website, although it's possible they'd have to do that removal as part of a broader overhaul of the relevant page to prevent it from being effectively a disclosure by obvious minimal page diff.
      - bmicraft 2y ago
        It really looks like you are agreeing but being pedantic about the wording
        jkaplowitz 2y ago
        It’s possible, but I don’t think we’re fully agreeing. To me, a government being able to compel silence from / prohibit disclosure by a private company or person feels much less awful than a government being able to force them to say something false. Those are not even in the same category of acceptability for me. The second one is pretty much never acceptable; the first one sometimes is, though of course not always. I think the other commenter was saying that US law allows the government to oblige Apple in the second way, in other words to affirmatively make false statements. I was saying it does not and probably constitutionally cannot. That seems like a clear disagreement to me. They and I are, however, agreeing that US law allows the government to compel Apple to keep silent about certain things. This includes not disclosing that certain prior statements which may have been true at the time have subsequently become false.

EasyMark 2y ago

I trust apple, because I trust greed. They get a lot of loyalty because people they aren’t data mining their iPhone for health and ad information. I mean they could be, but I haven’t seen it, and it would be a bombshell. I still believe that apple is a hardware company first and everything else second. I would leave them and go back to android if they just became Android 2.0. I never really had a problem with android other than the massive data mining and wide open permissions apps had to rifle through your data (much improved however in recent versions, I understand)

nabla9 2y ago

It's not without permission. Its not moved out of device without permission. > They are obligated to release the data when requested They don't own the keys on both ends. They are not obligated to have backdoors either.