2 ms·
I assumed from the headline this was about GDPR Article 32. Instead, I got tricked into reading about Apple fighting for their right to sell me another adapter
by smittywerben 2y ago
I assumed from the headline this was about GDPR Article 32. Instead, I got tricked into reading about Apple fighting for their right to sell me another adapter to add back the features they removed for security.
Edit: It appears my comment was moved from a duplicate discussion titled "UK quietly scrubs encryption advice from government websites" which linked to TechCrunch.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/06/uk-quietly-scrubs-encryption-advice-from-government-websites/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/06/uk-quietly-scrubs-encrypti...
- cassianoleal 2y ago> Apple fighting for their right to sell me another adapter What adapter is that you read in the article about?
- blitzar 2y agoThe encryption dongle adaptor.
- smittywerben 2y agoMy comment was a joke connecting wiretapping (from the Investigatory Powers Act) with Apple's proprietary adapters. The parallel I was drawing: just as the UK suggests requiring licenses for encryption, Apple already charges $99/year to develop devices you own. A wire "tap" is an adapter (a tap) in the communication line. You can add one yourself at the end of the chain, but the UK also fights with Apple about their USB-C standardization, so it was also referencing the larger regulatory battle. Clearly, you didn't understand enough to respond to the joke, and it's against HN guidelines to suggest I didn't read the article. However, this topic is derailed due to The Online Safety Act. As I said, the headline was well crafted.