321–330 of 785 posts
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignoring the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS, which raises other suspicions. It takes a lot of unearned trust to to assume that there isn't classified surveillance occurring. If it is, public virtue signalling about not breaking encryption is theater. As the surveillance occurs prior to encryption.
> Ignoring the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS Which client side scanning would that be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company can't send me in jail if they don't like what I'm trying to keep secret
Sure they can. History is full of examples of powerful corporations doing things like putting people in jail, commanding armies, etc.
Blood for Bananas: United Fruit's Central American Empire [0] The lawyer who took on Chevron – and now marks his 600th day under house arrest [1] (Debatable) Business Plot, aka Wall St Putsch [2]
[0] https://history.wsu.edu/rci/sample-research-project/ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawy... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
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).
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...
You cannot actually believe that meta gives a single solitary fuck about privacy?
The UK keeps trying to throw their weight around only to find out they aren’t that big. The CMA with Xbox and now this. They aren’t large enough for Apple and Microsoft to make massive changes just to accommodate a relatively small market.
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.
I've never really understood what people mean by this. For me, iMessage is indistinguishable from SMS, except for the color of the messages, and the fact that I can use iMessage over WiFi.
And then of course the vastly higher fidelity of pictures and video sent via iMessage.
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...
Threads is not an attempt to push spyware on users, that would be incompliant in the EU. (And what is this spyware you believe is in Threads?) More likely they know exactly how much work it entails to be compliant and they decided to initially skip the EU market to speed up their launch.
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).
Actions like this is why I used to trust Google. Fighting government overreach should have been a critical part of technology and data. But it seems Google was more political in its relationships than idealistic. And now the entire sector is compromised. Apple will be one day compromised too. In some crevice of some unknown government office is a person working on a ten-year initiative to get access to inaccessible i…
Apple is a participant in the NSA's PRISM mass surveillance program. They've been compromised for a long time. I doubt any decent sized corporation isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ignoring the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS Which client side scanning would that be?
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-photo-scanning-csam-commun... This scandal about scanning your end-to-end encrypted photos on one of the ends, kinda defeating the purpose and reducing everyone's privacy. It lead directly to the legislation that Apple is coming out against today, which I would call ironic but is very predictable. How dare governments require us to do this thing we already planned to do.
I would hope that the grandparent was not referring to this thing that never existed as "the client side scanning ability that is built into the OS."
The same Apple that lets the CCP operate its entire App Store in China? It's easy to criticize a government when you know there will be no retaliation. To judge a company's true stance on such issues see how they behave when there's a prospect of real financial loss.