281–290 of 634 posts
Here is a source in Russian [0] saying that Apple is asking Telegram to remove messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members, rather than blocking channels outright. I don't know whether their source is reliable, but here is the relevant snippet (google translate): > Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data o…
Yeah, I don't see how this is different from Twitter taking down a tweet which doxxes someone. Would people object if Apple told Telegram they had to remove a channel that was being used by white supremacists to coordinate terrorist attacks? The answer to that question matters, because if users in this thread succeed in making iPhones less of a walled garden, terrorists will be able to use their iPhones to coordinate…
I can't judge you personally, but history will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple painted this target on their own back when they decided they’d be the sole distributor of software for the platform.
It’s not like Indian/U.S. government didn’t ask Google to take down TikTok from the Play Store. As long as they operate an app store, they will be a target. Just might not be the only target.
Hold on... it’s not quite as clear-cut as the Apple-haters that joyously jumped in put it. These channels are not about a platform for freedom of speech and rallying for peaceful demonstrations. Nope. It’s about exposing PII of public officials; names and home addresses? Take pause to appreciate the possible consequences of this. What could possibly go wrong? Now I agree that Belarus officials are complicit or active…
Here is a source in Russian [0] saying that Apple is asking Telegram to remove messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members, rather than blocking channels outright. I don't know whether their source is reliable, but here is the relevant snippet (google translate): > Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data o…
Applying "doxxing" rules to police on the job in public must be the most absurd perversion of the term ever. Why on earth would we grant privacy to public servants entrusted with the force monopoly?
Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? Telegram is a platform for user-generated content and it seems odd for Apple to single-out those 3 channels/groups specifically - what about the hundreds of thousands of other objectionable groups on Telegram? And why Telegram in particular? Why doesn't Apple give the same ultimatum to Facebook to pressure them to block access to militant ethnonationalist gro…
To be fair, Telegram is a total nightmare. It's like bitcoin or Tor and dark web, it may facilitate anonymous free speech, but in doing so, it facilitates a helluva lot of crime. There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
Here is a source in Russian [0] saying that Apple is asking Telegram to remove messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members, rather than blocking channels outright. I don't know whether their source is reliable, but here is the relevant snippet (google translate): > Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data o…
Yeah, I don't see how this is different from Twitter taking down a tweet which doxxes someone. Would people object if Apple told Telegram they had to remove a channel that was being used by white supremacists to coordinate terrorist attacks? The answer to that question matters, because if users in this thread succeed in making iPhones less of a walled garden, terrorists will be able to use their iPhones to coordinate…
And? If they're using (say) Signal or even Messages, it's already end-to-end encrypted and there's nothing Apple can do about it.
> Is that really the world you want to live in?
You mean like they're able to use GPG/PGP, Tor browser, and Tails Linux distribution to potentially have secure encrypted communications now? Terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime have been the boogeymen against strong crypto for decades:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
We've been through this before in the 1990s, and the techies (who tend to often lean libertarian) have generally sided with opening things up even if that meant the baddies also got the same capabilities:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
Coming at it form the opposite end: should the IETF weaken TLS with backdoors so the government agencies can monitor the bad people? Is that really the world you want to live in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple operates in Belarus and must respond to the pressures of the government. Americans would find it intrusive if Apple was strong enough to tell the US govt to back off.
> Americans would find it intrusive if Apple was strong enough to tell the US govt to back off. Are you sure? I remember people backing Apple when they were protecting users phones from FBI hacking.
The reality was their phone did get "hacked" and Apple participated in PRISM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One issue is that public attitudes to doxxing vary between places. What is unacceptable in America may be considered more normal elsewhere. In this specific situation there’s a pretty obvious power imbalance where the public do not wear masks and the authorities would be able to track them down and oppress them later (or just do what they currently do and grab them from the streets at the time). The threat of unmaski…
the site you are referring to in your last sentence is not funded by Chinese government, but by a previous governor of Hong Kong (Liang I believe).