To my understanding, an NSL could mean "give me everything you have". And the NSLs have no disclosed accounts linked to them.
Edit: Why the downvote? If my understanding is false, please indicate so.
Apple’s approach to privacy
11–20 of 172 posts
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#12Dubious, given Apple's support of CISA.
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#13Apple says "Less than 0.00673% of customers have been affected by government information requests." That's approximately 1 out of every 14,000 -- seems like a lot to me!
Definitely. There was a story a few years ago about the South African postal system delivering 99% of all letters over a period of time. Turns out when you aggregate that across how many they sent they only lost a couple of hundreds of thousands of letters.
Percentage is a convenient con used in some contexts.
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#14Wasn't the Fappening because of a iCloud hole?
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#15If it wasn't for Tim Cook this would be considered an insanely radical view by most people. Thank you Tim!
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#16Wasn't the Fappening because of a iCloud hole?
that was speculated, but denied by apple
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#17> Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a “backdoor” in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed any government access to our servers. And we never will.
Did Apple ever provide any insight into what access the Prism program had? They denied knowing about it[1], so either they are lying or it was a mole. Did they ever follow up with an investigation or conclusion as to what exactly the government had access to?
[1]: https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#18Wasn't the Fappening because of a iCloud hole?
No, it was because celebrities are normal people and tended to use the same password for multiple services. One service was compromised, which compromised every other one because the passwords were the same.
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
When national security requests come with built-in gag orders, little-to-no oversight, and are probably easier to issue/get than warrants (no pesky judges or explaining to do) why would one ever use a warrant again?
Low-level enforcers don't have easy access to such orders.
I'm not sure that high level enforcers should have easy access either, though. What's the old saying? Something like you rise to the level of your own incompetence?
Re: Apple’s approach to privacy
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
When national security requests come with built-in gag orders, little-to-no oversight, and are probably easier to issue/get than warrants (no pesky judges or explaining to do) why would one ever use a warrant again?
Low-level enforcers don't have easy access to such orders.
yes. you can trust that only people who should have your data can get it :/