Apple is fighting the FBI
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Now this is of course assuming Apple cares about people's privacy in China more than they care about selling phones in china.
Only if you assume that they are exclusive. I totally assume that Apple cares about selling phones. I assume that privacy everywhere is critical to Apple having the sales that they do.
what do you mean "privacy everywhere is critical to Apple having the sales that they do"?
-
@Dashrender said:
what do you mean "privacy everywhere is critical to Apple having the sales that they do"?
Apple's stern protection of customer privacy is a key reason that people buy Apple phones. If Apple turns off privacy to make sales in China, they might lose sales both in China and abroad. Privacy is a feature, like anything else.
What if China said that "Safari" was a feature that had to be blocked in China. Would people buy a phone that could not browser the Internet? Just because it is allowed to be sold somewhere doesn't mean that it will sell there.
Privacy and trust are features that people pay a lot for. They are key drivers for Apple sales. Take them away and will people keep buying Apple phones like they do?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Privacy and trust are features that people pay a lot for. They are key drivers for Apple sales. Take them away and will people keep buying Apple phones like they do?
Not sure the average iPhone purchaser has any idea what either of those things means in relation to their phone.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Privacy and trust are features that people pay a lot for. They are key drivers for Apple sales. Take them away and will people keep buying Apple phones like they do?
Not sure the average iPhone purchaser has any idea what either of those things means in relation to their phone.
I'm guessing that people have a certain trust in Apple. Even if they don't understand the details of why.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Privacy and trust are features that people pay a lot for. They are key drivers for Apple sales. Take them away and will people keep buying Apple phones like they do?
Not sure the average iPhone purchaser has any idea what either of those things means in relation to their phone.
I'm guessing that people have a certain trust in Apple. Even if they don't understand the details of why.
People have trust is sales people - where they absolutely should have none - but they do. I don't know if people really trust Apple or just like the interface.
-
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
hell I heard on the radio that most American's are for forcing Apple to make the changes/software demand by the FBI for the San Bernadino guy's phone - of that's the radio.. so I don't trust it either.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Anyone want to drive up North for a bonfire the day that's declared? I'm sure iGasoline will be iProvided for the iFire.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Anyone want to drive up North for a bonfire the day that's declared? I'm sure iGasoline will be iProvided for the iFire.
Why would you need to go that far? Just because they put out a poorly secured one in China doesn't mean that it wouldn't stay secured in the US and other countries that currently allow it.
Hell, we have more harm currently coming from our own governments trying to outlaw our access to encryption than we have to worry about Apple specifically.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Your wording was:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Besides - if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If apple wants to fight for encryption they should do it for everyone and do some good in the world.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
Where is the breach though?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@MattSpeller said:
Your wording was:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
Besides - if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If apple wants to fight for encryption they should do it for everyone and do some good in the world.
I missed the work if - I'm guessing that if Apple took privacy part away for non US...
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
Where is the breach though?
The breach is what we are talking about - Apple disabling the privacy system.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Apple took the privacy part away for non US, it would barely matter to most.
I think you'd find once there is a breach in privacy concerns, it would be seen as gone.
Where is the breach though?
The breach is what we are talking about - Apple disabling the privacy system.
If it's done voluntarily, it's not a breach.
also I see now that I choose poor words to express my intent. It wasn't my intent to express that Apple could/would completely through privacy to the wind, but instead they that they would/could deploy software that didn't have the 10 wrong passcodes = deleted encryption key, plus the ability for someone in physical possession of the device to be able to brute force it as fast as the machine the phone was attached to could supply guesses.
The rest of the privacy guards would still be in place.
-
@Dashrender said:
The rest of the privacy guards would still be in place.
But the rest isn't very private.
-
@Dashrender said:
If it's done voluntarily, it's not a breach.
That's not completely true. If it is done under pressure that can be duress, extortion or social engineering. All considered breaches.
-
I can't recall where I read it now but the bottom line is device manufacturers need to make them difficult to break into as far as that's actually possible. Then there's no 'I can do this but I don't want to please don't make me" garbage.
-
@MattSpeller said:
I can't recall where I read it now but the bottom line is device manufacturers need to make them difficult to break into as far as that's actually possible. Then there's no 'I can do this but I don't want to please don't make me" garbage.
Sure, but laws can be passed that don't allow them to sell such devices. Those laws are being talked about right now in the US, and I'm sure other countries.
-
@Dashrender said:
Sure, but laws can be passed that don't allow them to sell such devices. Those laws are being talked about right now in the US, and I'm sure other countries.
But they make for REALLY strong barriers to laws. And open source can't be stopped by law. And freedom of speech trumps laws until they repeal the entire government.
-
Someone suggested to me yesterday that one facet of this case that appears unconstitutional is the government requiring a company to make something so the government can get their access. He didn't express how it was unconstitutional - only that it was.
Thoughts?
