Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

Post by unfunco » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #69

Of course the industry response is muted; this is the chilling effect that we were all worried about. Most Big Co's don't want to put themselves in opposition to an organization as powerful and well-funded as the US intelligence apparatus. I'm sure they are all on Apple's side, but are less willing to speak out about it because they fear the consequences. If you're cynical, you might think that this case is all about…

Post by dmix » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 7:55 PM UTC

asgfoi wrote: post #98

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #69

Of course the industry response is muted; this is the chilling effect that we were all worried about. Most Big Co's don't want to put themselves in opposition to an organization as powerful and well-funded as the US intelligence apparatus. I'm sure they are all on Apple's side, but are less willing to speak out about it because they fear the consequences. If you're cynical, you might think that this case is all about…

Do you think they choose to ask Apple to do this in such a public way, because they are very confident the phone will contain information that will help with the investigation, which will make a positive precedent about this method for future requests, and also provide 'lobbying power' when new laws will be considered?

Post by Oletros » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #111

SquareWheel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple also makes most of it's money by selling phones, not user information... Google is the advertiser. I'm surprised how often people make this mistake. They don't sell user data to other advertisers. This not only goes against their terms of service, but also makes no business sense. Why would they give up their best signal for targeted ads?

The data that Google (or anybody else) collects is probably going to be around approximately "forever". Do you really believe Google will: 1) never sell that data at any time in the future (perhaps if they should suffer a bad year financially), and 2) that they will be able to retain control of that data (no leaks, no employees that abuse access, no attacks from other people interested in the data). Without these cri…

Post by Oletros » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 7:58 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #91

mordocai wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may be "do no evil" on privacy, but apple heavily pushes vendor lock in and basically does everything they can to keep you from being able to easily switch to a different vendor. Google seems easier to switch from, they seem less concerned with vendor lock in (don't get me wrong though, they still have some vendor lock in. Just less than apple IMO). I think in this case it is "choose your evil" and for a lot of…

Google makes more money from iOS than they do from Android. Of course Google doesn't mind if you switch hardware vendors, just so long as you keep using Google products. Also, I disagree with the notion that Apple "heavily pushes vendor lock in". They certainly don't go out of their way to make it easy to switch, but I can't come up with any examples off the top of my head where they're deliberately making it harder…

Post by Outdoorsman » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 7:59 PM UTC

njharman wrote: post #56

Outdoorsman wrote: post #15

I think it's interesting to note that Apple has complied with requests from law enforcement in the past... Of the total number of requests, which Apple references here: http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests... > 94% were Device Requests--law enforcement seeking a stolen device > 6% were Account Requests--law enforcement seeking personal information > 27% of U.S. account requests received betwee…

If you read the letter, they already said they have, do and will aid law enforcement in any lawful way they are able. They question the lawfulness of this particular request.