3 ms·

It might be wishful thinking, but part of me wonders if Steve Jobs might have actually been able to push back a little and prevented Apple from joining the prog

by scythe 13y ago

It might be wishful thinking, but part of me wonders if Steve Jobs might have actually been able to push back a little and prevented Apple from joining the program at the same time as Microsoft/Google et al. Apple isn't known for being outspoken about privacy, but Jobs is a formidable character to deal with and, well, if anyone had the balls to say 'no', he did. Apple wasn't added until after Jobs died, years after other major players: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg

zw 13y ago
To OP's point, if anybody at Apple at all were going to be asked by the government, I have to imagine Jobs would've been left out of the equation. That's one loudmouthed asshole you didn't want keeping secrets for you.
leoc 13y ago
I'd noticed that too. Given that Jobs seems to have had the juice to get away with signficant and brazen securities fraud, he may have been in a fairly secure position to say 'no' to PRISM. But for that matter Twitter's CEOs, much less mighty figures, also seem to have been able to say 'no' too. Or maybe the rickety state of Apple's Web services (MobileMe and all that) had something to do with it...
thrownaway2424 13y ago
It's because Apple isn't any good at services, and didn't have a cloud of note until extremely recently.
ecdavis 13y ago
I think the timing is a coincidence. The most surveillance-relevant services Apple provides are probably iMessage, iCloud and FaceTime. All were announced in 2011 and saw widespread adoption in 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Details.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Details.j...
drzaiusapelord 13y ago
Jobs doesn't have a history of EFF-like activism and has always played ball with the government. I think its a little unhealthy to build him into this superman juggernaut. Yes he was talented and died before his time, but he's no NSA slayer.

by scythe 13y ago

zw 13y ago

To OP's point, if anybody at Apple at all were going to be asked by the government, I have to imagine Jobs would've been left out of the equation. That's one loudmouthed asshole you didn't want keeping secrets for you.

leoc 13y ago

I'd noticed that too. Given that Jobs seems to have had the juice to get away with signficant and brazen securities fraud, he may have been in a fairly secure position to say 'no' to PRISM. But for that matter Twitter's CEOs, much less mighty figures, also seem to have been able to say 'no' too. Or maybe the rickety state of Apple's Web services (MobileMe and all that) had something to do with it...

thrownaway2424 13y ago

It's because Apple isn't any good at services, and didn't have a cloud of note until extremely recently.

ecdavis 13y ago

I think the timing is a coincidence. The most surveillance-relevant services Apple provides are probably iMessage, iCloud and FaceTime. All were announced in 2011 and saw widespread adoption in 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Details.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Details.j...

drzaiusapelord 13y ago

Jobs doesn't have a history of EFF-like activism and has always played ball with the government. I think its a little unhealthy to build him into this superman juggernaut. Yes he was talented and died before his time, but he's no NSA slayer.