171–180 of 785 posts
The damage done by apple with their previous plans for CSAM scanning is huge, and apple will be partially responsible for all the upcoming anti privacy / encryption laws.
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...
Is WhatsApp still requiring access to your phone's address book before it allows you to use it? It did last time I tried it. There is no chance in hell I'm giving it all the phone numbers, emails and names of people that trusted me by giving me their details. At the time I set up a virtual android environment (samsung called it knox) just to setup WhatsApp in a way it couldn't access my phone's address book. It is ex…
The sad thing is that all their details and yours are already known to Meta.
The dozen of us who behave like you will keep trying though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true, they merely have enough cash on hand to fund a small army, enough legal power to crush you in court with anything you attempt. Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. They're not some miraculous pinnacles of good in a sea of evil. It's just that they merely need to flex the law at you to destroy your life forever. Apple is no different, they'll hire the Pinkertons and break your…
>Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. Ok, I'll play along. Suppose Tim Cook wakes up tomorrow and decides for some reason he wants me dead. How exactly does he do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true, they merely have enough cash on hand to fund a small army, enough legal power to crush you in court with anything you attempt. Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. They're not some miraculous pinnacles of good in a sea of evil. It's just that they merely need to flex the law at you to destroy your life forever. Apple is no different, they'll hire the Pinkertons and break your…
>Make no mistake: if Apple needed to get someone killed, they would. Ok, I'll play along. Suppose Tim Cook wakes up tomorrow and decides for some reason he wants me dead. How exactly does he do it?
But all playfulness aside:
* Pay professional hitmen. * Pay a hobo enough to go beat you up in your home. * Pay enough people enough money to kill you pretty much anywhere.
What are they going to do, plead in front of a judge that sees 90% of his murder cases unsolved or solved through guilty pleas that Tim Cook gave them a wad of cash when all they saw was a subordinate of a subordinate of a subordinate ? There's nothing fancy about it. Especially with an economy that drives people to drastic measures: a huge wad of cash that you're guaranteed to keep is enough for most people.
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 doesn't have a hundred thousand armed officers with the ability to arrest / kill me for anything they can claim they found. Government comes equipped with legal violence, the company comes equipped with targeted ads
ask Foxconn employees if that's true or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they choose to sure, but I dont see what incentive they would have. After all, the post is about a company removing products from a market rather than being subject to a law that would allow the gov to force them to do so.
> but I dont see what incentive they would have. They are frequently subpoenaed for information, and turn over that data more often than not: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
I'm not against breaking e2ee when the right protections are in place. 1, Court signed order 2, Public Disclosure during prosecution or within X time of the court order being signed (including when no wrongdoing found) 3, Some sort of test to ensure it's not misused (imminent threat to life, serious crime like murder/child kidnap or something) The idea that a judge can order a cavity search to find information leadin…
It is not mathematically possible to selectively break E2EE. If it’s broken, it’s not E2EE.
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...
Is WhatsApp still requiring access to your phone's address book before it allows you to use it? It did last time I tried it. There is no chance in hell I'm giving it all the phone numbers, emails and names of people that trusted me by giving me their details. At the time I set up a virtual android environment (samsung called it knox) just to setup WhatsApp in a way it couldn't access my phone's address book. It is ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because SMS is simply inferior to Whatsapp, Messenger, Instagram, Line, kakaotalk, Snapchat, Signal, etc unless you own an iPhone. All of them are cross platform and aren't intentionally broken for people who don't have or use iMessage. I personally avoid giving out my phone number as much as possible as all the other platforms have much better tools for communication, blocking, media, etc.
To add to that, I can use the WhatsApp desktop app at work. Can’t do that with iMessage.
Non Apple work machine?
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...
In even more fairness, Meta has literally skipped the EU for Threads instead of increasing privacy. In their case, it's just a careful balance of virtue signaling, it had no qualms about pushing their spyware to hundreds of millions of people, violating basic human rights in the process. Check Article 12: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
I'm no fan of Meta or their privacy violations, but saying that voluntarily downloading an app (which by the way does clearly outline their privacy practices) is equivalent to having my humans rights violated just really waters down what "human rights" should mean.