421–430 of 546 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sad that Apple stopped making iPhone SE, still expensive compared to other brands, but the cheapest to jump on the Apple bandwagon.
Not to mention it has a good fit in the (small) hand.
Disclaimer: I use Apple products, and trust them slightly more than anything Google/FaceBook/startups because they don't have a business front selling my data to advertisement companies or 3rd party miners(as much as I know of). But, I'm baffled by this PR as if they are the privacy messiah. Didn't they just sellout their Chinese users icloud data to the Chinese government? Yeah. "It's the law, and Apple has to obey…
In filings to a court during the FBI legal fight, Apple addressed this topic head on. The reason it was brought up in the first place was because national security establishment water holders were putting out the idea that Apple makes exceptions for China, and the Department of Justice parroted it [1].
From Apple's filing [2]:
>Finally, the government attempts to disclaim the obvious international implications of its demand, asserting that any pressure to hand over the same software to foreign agents “flows from [Apple’s] decision to do business in foreign countries . . . .” Opp. 26. Contrary to the government’s misleading statistics (Opp. 26), which had to do with lawful process and did not compel the creation of software that undermines the security of its users, Apple has never built a back door of any kind into iOS, or otherwise made data stored on the iPhone or in iCloud more technically accessible to any country’s government. See Dkt. 16-28 [Apple Inc., Privacy, Gov’t Info. Requests]; Federighi Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. The government is wrong in asserting that Apple made “special accommodations” for China (Opp. 26), as Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world and follows the same standards for responding to law enforcement requests. See Federighi Decl. ¶ 5.
and a declaration from Craig Federighi personally [3]:
>Apple uses the same security protocols everywhere in the world.
>Apple has never made user data, whether stored on the iPhone or in iCloud, more technologically accessible to any country's government. We believe any such access is too dangerous to allow. Apple has also not provided any government with its proprietary iOS source code. While governmental agencies in various countries, including the United States, perform regulatory reviews of new iPhone releases, all that Apple provides in those circumstances is an unmodified iPhone device.
>It is my understanding that Apple has never worked with any government agency from any country to create a "backdoor" in any of our products and services.
>I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
That was a few years ago, but Tim Cook basically reaffirmed that a few weeks ago in this interview with Vice [4]. The new law means Apple's Chinese iCloud data needs to be stored in local data centers, but Apple continues to maintain sole control of the keys. Whether you believe them or not, or whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you. But end-to-end encrypted services like iMessage or iPhones itself, remain so and are still unblocked in China.
You might be wondering why Apple seemingly gets an exception when services like WhatsApp are blocked. The answer should be obvious: Apple being an old-world company that still makes products in meat space, (indirectly) employs a lot of people in China. That gives them leverage that other companies don't have.
So they have to comply with certain Chinese laws such as taking down the NYT app, VPN apps, being unable to operate iTunes Books or Movies in China, etc. But that's a small price if it means their core products remain uncompromised.
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook
[2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2762131/C-D-Cal-1...
[3] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2762118-Federighi-De...
I'd like to think I'm one of the good guys here. I was one of the inventors of RSS and Atom and worked to push open content and social media. I started a social data search platform named Datastreamer ( http://www.datastreamer.io/ ) which is basically a petabyte-scale content indexing engine. We provide API feeds to search engines and social media analytics companies needing bulk data but don't want to have to build…
By other companies I mean companies like Cambridge Analytica. There are tons of other shady companies out there doing nefarious things with your data. We're going to need platforms that support group encryption and better security for apps.
I don't know if there's any way for people/companies like you to defend against unscrupulous companies.
I can only say thank you.
I'd like to think I'm one of the good guys here. I was one of the inventors of RSS and Atom and worked to push open content and social media. I started a social data search platform named Datastreamer ( http://www.datastreamer.io/ ) which is basically a petabyte-scale content indexing engine. We provide API feeds to search engines and social media analytics companies needing bulk data but don't want to have to build…
Despite your intentions, I don't think it's possible for you to be one of the good guys. The mass collection and aggregation of the data in the first place is the problem, not merely a few bad actors downstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And people wonder why I've argued that, at some point, IT needs to be a certified and regulated profession like lawyers, doctors, engineers, nurses, pilots, accountants, electricians, plumbers, teachers, etc. If the future is going to be built using software and data, it's probably going to be essential that the general public have some agency -- public or private -- to safeguard the public interest. It takes years o…
That won't help even a little bit in this case. That's like trying place the responsibility to reduce the amount of garbage generated on those who drive the garbage trucks. The decision to engage in the bad behavior usually doesn't come from IT staff or engineers, it comes from management. Hold the leaders of these organizations responsible and you'll see the problem fixed real quick.
I think things would change pretty quick if engineers responded to such requests with "I can't do that, because my professional association would remove me from their membership, which would revoke my license to write software in this country at all".
That's how (AIUI) law, medicine, (real) engineering, etc., work today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's stance has been completely consistent. They comply with the law while making their ethical beliefs and stance as a company clear where they disagree with it. What do you suggest Apple should do instead of comply with the law? Require it's employees to incriminate themselves?
Is this really true though? Has Tim Cook ever criticized the Chinese government or does he only ever speak on these issues when it comes to the US?
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/cook-kiss...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is your evidence supporting the claim that Apple owns 50% of the market? That is way above the figures I have seen. Seems to me you are just pulling metrics out of thin air in this post.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... Says about 44%, which is pretty close to "like 50%"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Only in a situation where interminable growth is required in a race to the top. The key is that they choke you out... They have more engineers, more R&D and a better product because they have more revenue.
If they have a better product, so be it. But I'm not convinced that more engineers and more R&D necessarily lead to that, nor am I convinced that smaller, more niche products are always choked out. If that were the case, we'd only have huge companies and a bunch of choked out entrepreneurs. Rather, a bunch of us out here with small companies are doing just fine. Definitely not a give up situation like "we just can't…
OpenBSD is yet another example of a small(ish) team of people making some truly great software. On the Windows side, Fookes Software comes to mind, again small operation, great software.
I have to call out Apple on something here, and this is something that Tim Cook could personally do something about very actively, however. And it has nothing to do with customer/consumer privacy, which I think Apple does a wonderful job with, typically. It has more to do with the ethos of the corporation.
Apple is just as guilty as anyone else about actually buying and using this data. It may not always be the case that is sourced from wherever, but they use the same tactics in their hiring and keeping tabs on employees that they are so deride in the media. For instance, if any of you are Apple employees, go ahead and check out the HR policy and procedure for publishing your information including your salary. I think you'll find that to be very eye opening. I can't recall the firms name off the top of my head, but they report that information to one of these firms that aggregates this information and in turn sells it in turn.
Oh and use a personal device at work? Apple's own employee contract states that if you connect a personal device to their network, even once, they have the right to demand any contents of that device subject to termination.
I get some of that is for secrecy, don't get me wrong. I understand that i'm highlighting things from a point of view that I don't agree with these policies and that I'm not, and it is quite intentional, discussing why these policies may be in place. For what its worth, I'm okay with secrecy, in the sense of protecting investments, IP, etc. I get business need. What I don't understand is why Apple's own policies don't reflect these values they often tout in public. I personally feel like they have this dual face a lot, where they say things publicly that I agree with but I know `privately`, if you will, the corporation does not reflect these values when its not convenient for doing business
Don't even get me started on Apple not being at the forefront of the Net Neutrality debates, where I think Apple could have real impact (the general population as a whole tends to listen to Apple/Tim Cook more so than any other CEO I can recall in recent memory, as do politicians of all stripes, its quite a trip how must esteem they hold in the public mind, which is why I think its so important they talk about something that should, at least according to their public statements, be right in line with their ethical underpinnings Tim Cook talks about very often).
Rubs me the wrong way, I guess. Am I glad he's at least a CEO of a huge public company that has weight and is talking about this in a way that is agreeable (mostly) and likely far better for the average person? Yes, yes I am, but I think its important we remember the other facts too.
Disclaimer: I did work at Apple, and for what its worth I left on good terms, and I would generally recommend working there, I just want to be honest about the things I saw and felt. There is a lot of good too, believe me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
billions of people would not have smartphones. But what’s the downside?
It seems like a privileged position to argue that there's no downside to people having smartphones. Many people are unable to regularly access decent laptops or desktops. Internet access is essential. The Internet lets you communicate with friends and family, access a massive trove of knowledge quickly (freeing up education), discuss current events, and all manner of other things. Even personally as a well to do Amer…
Now that is the voice of privilege! Clean drinking water is essential. A smartphone is merely a luxury and one that is not without consequences - just as cigarettes are a luxury.