5 ms·
All of them?
by ragnese 2y ago
All of them?
- bramhaag 2y agoWell, only some claim to "remain committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data" while turning off E2EE cloud storage for an entire country.
- Schiendelman 2y agoWhat else could they have done?
- greatgib 2y agoThey could have done like Telegram in Russia and said that they will not care about that and work on ways to bypass any firewall that could setup the authority to block it.
- esafak 2y agoAre we talking about Apple? How can they operate in a country they are banned in? They are predominantly a hardware company.
- 0x5FC3 2y agoNot put absolute profit over principles? Or at least don't advertise they do?
- Schiendelman 2y agoNo, what specific action would you have had them do?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jasonlotito 2y ago> Signal to leave Sweden if backdoor law passes I don't know... what else could Apple have done? Hard to determine what else they could have done besides turn off the feature in a thread on another company not just turning off a feature, but leaving a country entirely.
- Schiendelman 2y agoWho would make that decision? What would happen next after they did?
- jasonlotito 2y agoThat's beside the point. The question was what else could they have done. My comment is 100% correct. For some reason, people dislike facts.
- Schiendelman 2y agoI think the only way to change the decision a person or entity makes is to first understand what they are asking that person to do, and the consequences of that action. Being unwilling to do that simply has no impact on the real world. You scream into the void.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bodge5000 2y agoAs Signal are doing here, they could have refused to do business (at least, with iCloud) in that country. That's a far bigger pushback than simply capitulating to removing a relatively unknown feature. To be clear, if they did this and the UK gov called their bluff, it'd affect me personally, but I'd rather that than swinging open the backdoors
- Schiendelman 2y agoYou believe that the Apple Board of Directors would allow their CEO to do that? Who do you think would make that decision?
- bodge5000 2y agoIf it's the board that makes that decision, it's the board that holds responsibility for it. Nobody said anything about a specific person at Apple doing anything, just Apple as a company. Would they? Of course not, but the question was what else could they do, and this is something they could (and if their fundamental motive wasn't purely profit above all else, perhaps should) do.
- Schiendelman 2y agoThe board can't make a decision like that. They would be ousted by activist shareholders. I'm trying to help people understand that there is no actor that can make these decisions they want them to.
- docdeek 2y agoWhat other choice did Apple have? To ignore the law of a country where you operate just because you don't agree with the law is a terrible standard to set.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 2y agoTerrible yes, but given Musk-X-Brazil, at this point the Rubicon of "setting" such standards has already been crossed. (Even if the result was Musk being humiliated).
- bramhaag 2y ago> Signal to leave Sweden if backdoor law passes
- baobun 2y agoApple already did set that precedent during last year with their responses to the EU DMA. In fact I find the difference in how they handle the two very telling.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- einpoklum 2y agoNo, some of them don't even bother pretending they care about your privacy.