3 ms·
> With a previous case it seemed (to me) like Apple might have pushed an update to give access You're going to have to provide a cite here, since Apple has pub
by GeekyBear 9mo ago
> With a previous case it seemed (to me) like Apple might have pushed an update to give access
You're going to have to provide a cite here, since Apple has publicity stated that they have not and will not ever do this on behalf of any nation state.
For instance, Apple's public statement when the FBI ordered them to do so:
https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/ https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
- bigyabai 9mo ago> Apple has publicity stated that they have not and will not ever do this Apple has also said that the US required them to hide evidence of dragnet surveillance: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-secretly-giving-governments-push-notification-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-... Apple has since confirmed in a statement provided to Ars that the US federal government “prohibited” the company “from sharing any information,” but now that Wyden has outed the feds, Apple has updated its transparency reporting and will “detail these kinds of requests” in a separate section on push notifications in its next report. Apple statements are quite distinct from what they do behind the scenes.
- GeekyBear 9mo agoProviding a copy of push notification data (or any data) that you host on your server in response to a warrant is not what we are talking about. No company can refuse to do that.