101–110 of 785 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are just giving your secrets to a company you can't change instead of a goverment you can elect.
The company can't send me in jail if they don't like what I'm trying to keep secret
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden @dang Is there any way I can counter-argument this statement without it getting flagged? If so, please let me know how. Because so far I have failed and I don't know what rule I broke by countering this statement.
Flags aren't for rule breaking, they just mean enough people found your comment inflammatory or otherwise objectionable enough to hit the "flag" button. If you have a link to the flagged comment, I can probably help you understand why HN users would have flagged it. This comment is getting downvotes because complaining about downvotes and flags always does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only is privacy a fundamental right within a society but it is fundamentally necessary to the advancement, and thus long term survival, of any society.
To be honest that sounds like both an idealised slogan and a sophism empty of logic. Can you expand upon how the advancements in western society since (say) WWII have been neccesarily dependant upon privacy?
Alan Turing. Hell, Tim Cook, a gay man who grew up in Alabama. Neither would have survived childhood with their personalities intact had their governments had the access No. 10 Downing demands.
Privacy preserves society’s margins. The margins, by definition, are where change—growth—is nurtured.
Stuff like this is why I'm an Apple fanboy. I'm happy to pay a premium and be locked into their walled garden for some things if it means supporting a company that has the power to shift policy in favor of human rights (privacy in this case).
They will only continue to do so while it remains profitable, at some point they will give in. They are a capitalist company, profits are their only concern.
This is a scam by the UK government, they don't care about child abuse, they are going to look into all sorts of communications to leverage people. If they cared about child abuse they would have shut down the open child prostitution rings running rampant. They openly let it continue because they are afraid of being branded racist since the gangs running them are minorities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_ch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness, Meta has said the same thing re: WhatsApp, so while Apple deserves _some_ credit here for sticking to their principles, they're not exactly leading the pack. Which brings home the point that if _Meta_ isn't onboard with your privacy-obliterating proposal then you know you've really lost the plot...
I think Meta _needs_ WhatsApp to be their loss-leader (not really, but you know) when it comes to security. They always get to say "oh but WhatsApp is E2E!! We do care about security!"
I remember some talk about those getting encrypted, don't k ow if that has happened yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything that's a bolder move considering everyone uses Whatsapp there and barely anyone uses iMessage
I've noticed that too and it is super annoying having family in the UK that will only communicate via Whatsapp. Is this because cell providers outside the US charge for SMS? Even the ones who have iPhones end up using it because it is too much of a pain to use separate messaging apps.
Nowadays it's mostly about convenience and features compared to SMS, and iPhone has a much smaller marker share in Europe so iMessage isn't a thing.