Live data from Hacker News

Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

nytimes.com

201–204 of 204 posts

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#201
post #110

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. This is often used as an argument against Apple, but having gone back and forth over the years, I just don't think it's true anymore. It certainly was a decade ago, but now I'm finding it hard to think of any issues I've had going fro…

Have you tried plugging an Android into a Mac?

I haven't, no, but it'd be interesting to learn what the pain points are. Care to share?

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#202
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried plugging an Android into a Mac?

I haven't, no, but it'd be interesting to learn what the pain points are. Care to share?

By default you can't. You have to install an app on your OS X that Google makes, then it opens a file browser that lets you drag and drop files out/in of your phone. It's a pain.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the same thing at all.

Yes, it is. Apple's fight with the US is based on the fact they facilitate the encryption of user data so that even Apple doesn't see content. When the other titans don't have that feature, they have less of a stake in the argument at hand.

That's not the same thing either.

Re: Apple Letter on iPhone Security Draws Muted Tech Industry Response

#204
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the same thing at all.

Would you expand on that? The feeling seems to be that these companies rely on access to user data in a way that Apple doesn't- that's true, isn't it?

That doesn't mean that they believe the FBI should have the right to unilaterally force software and hardware vendors to build proprietary access to hardware/software which bypasses basic security features.

Making money from targeted ads doesn't mean they think the FBI should be able to bypass device security via hardware and software vendors.

Basically: making money from data != believing that a right to encryption doesn't exist.

Post reply on HN