Historian Timothy Snyder’s first lesson in his book On Tyranny is “Do not obey in advance.” To obey a tyrant before you are compelled to do so teaches them what they will be able to get you to do, easily, without even needing to expend the resources and energy it takes to carry out that part of their agenda.
> To maintain anonymity and store zero user data, there is and can be no web app version of ICEBlock. There is and can be no Android version. Only iOS supports the security and privacy features for ICEBlock to offer what it does, the way it does.
I don't know if that's true but that's their claim
Tim Cook has lost all credibility after his kowtowing to the trump administration. Apple needs a new leader, and not the guy who sheepishly launched the $999 monitor stand.
It's hard to escape using Apple devices, but the company's actions under trump have made me into a consumer open to other options.
If the Apple phone and the Chinese-brand are both going to bow to their respective authoritarian government, it makes the cheaper, better spec'd non-Apple options much more appealing.
I don't know where people got the impression that Apple seriously resisted government coercion. Their company is right there in the PRISM leaks, and Senator Wyden called them out (alongside Google) on backdooring Push Notifications years ago.
Didn't people want Apple's thoughtful, executive curation? If you're still not switching phones, what gives? Apple won this fight years ago, I'm shocked that we only now see people lift pitchforks and complain. You fought for your ability to resist sideloading and this is your just deserts. It's the phone you wanted.
> I don't know where people got the impression that Apple seriously resisted government coercion
I think it was either the way they added the two-button passcode lock that can be done without pulling the phone out of your pocket, the San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone (2016), Apple's resistance to the UK's backdoor requirement in ADP, or maybe when they wouldn't unlock the Pensacola Shooter's iPhone (2019), Apple's methods to resisting China's demand for iCloud Master Key multiple times, or the constant updates like disabling biometric unlock after being disconnected from cell networks for a certain number of hours.
> Senator Wyden called them out (alongside Google) on backdooring Push Notifications years ago.
Apple's notification framework is wildly different than Google's Android method. Apple's notifications can be anonymous (hence the article we're commending on!) but Google's cannot.
> Didn't people want Apple's thoughtful, executive curation?
The app store doesn't promise curation in the sense of a museum store... it's more running the apps through a pre-check before offering to customers. It's safety, not sales appeal, at least mostly.
> If you're still not switching phones, what gives?
The alternatives are many times worse. Have you ever actually looked at what iOS collects vs Android?!
> I'm shocked that we only now see people lift pitchforks and complain.
We're upset about ICE apps being removed and Apple giving gold chunks to wannabe dictators. That didn't happen until recently.
> You fought for your ability to resist sideloading and this is your just deserts.
Google is also fighting sideloading. What phone maker are you imagining exists today and makes phones that don't have this issue?
You're conflating public vs private. PRISM is private data collection and probably unconstitutional/illegal owing to the 4th amendment. So any information provided by PRISM is not directly used. Instead there is parallel construction [1] - the NSA (or whatever other agency they provide intel to) creates a pretext for how they obtained the information/evidence that sidesteps the real source. For instance if they pick up information on a car carrying drugs, that car might be pulled over for 'driving recklessly' and it's then searched because of 'suspicious behavior.' The real source of the reason makes no appearance in court.
The reason for this charade is because everytime somebody tries to sue the NSA over illegal data collection, the case gets tossed for lack of standing. You need to prove both that you were illegally spied on and negatively affected by such. If you can't prove that, then you have no standing to sue. And anytime people try to gather evidence of said collection in e.g. discovery, the government simply claims national security - and the case ends up tossed.
The public cases are efforts to try to streamline the process where the government could legally directly utilize such things. So you have this sort of charade where Apple is giving the government everything it wants in private, but then genuinely fighting them publicly. Both sides get more or less what they want out of the deal. Apple gets to pretend to be a protector of privacy, and the government gets unfettered access to whatever they want.
The Intercept has run a bunch of articles on this topic, alongside direct evidence of such. Here's one. [2]
Probably fear of retribution or Garry being politically conservative himself. Garry has repeatedly called for more authoritarian policing in the SF area.
Historian Timothy Snyder’s first lesson in his book On Tyranny is “Do not obey in advance.” To obey a tyrant before you are compelled to do so teaches them what they will be able to get you to do, easily, without even needing to expend the resources and energy it takes to carry out that part of their agenda.
People vs tyrant thinking ignores the world beyond your bubble (your borders). Elegant in theory but impractical.
I don't know if that's true but that's their claim
It's hard to escape using Apple devices, but the company's actions under trump have made me into a consumer open to other options.
If the Apple phone and the Chinese-brand are both going to bow to their respective authoritarian government, it makes the cheaper, better spec'd non-Apple options much more appealing.
Didn't people want Apple's thoughtful, executive curation? If you're still not switching phones, what gives? Apple won this fight years ago, I'm shocked that we only now see people lift pitchforks and complain. You fought for your ability to resist sideloading and this is your just deserts. It's the phone you wanted.
I think it was either the way they added the two-button passcode lock that can be done without pulling the phone out of your pocket, the San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone (2016), Apple's resistance to the UK's backdoor requirement in ADP, or maybe when they wouldn't unlock the Pensacola Shooter's iPhone (2019), Apple's methods to resisting China's demand for iCloud Master Key multiple times, or the constant updates like disabling biometric unlock after being disconnected from cell networks for a certain number of hours.
> Senator Wyden called them out (alongside Google) on backdooring Push Notifications years ago.
Apple's notification framework is wildly different than Google's Android method. Apple's notifications can be anonymous (hence the article we're commending on!) but Google's cannot.
> Didn't people want Apple's thoughtful, executive curation?
The app store doesn't promise curation in the sense of a museum store... it's more running the apps through a pre-check before offering to customers. It's safety, not sales appeal, at least mostly.
> If you're still not switching phones, what gives?
The alternatives are many times worse. Have you ever actually looked at what iOS collects vs Android?!
> I'm shocked that we only now see people lift pitchforks and complain.
We're upset about ICE apps being removed and Apple giving gold chunks to wannabe dictators. That didn't happen until recently.
> You fought for your ability to resist sideloading and this is your just deserts.
Google is also fighting sideloading. What phone maker are you imagining exists today and makes phones that don't have this issue?
The reason for this charade is because everytime somebody tries to sue the NSA over illegal data collection, the case gets tossed for lack of standing. You need to prove both that you were illegally spied on and negatively affected by such. If you can't prove that, then you have no standing to sue. And anytime people try to gather evidence of said collection in e.g. discovery, the government simply claims national security - and the case ends up tossed.
The public cases are efforts to try to streamline the process where the government could legally directly utilize such things. So you have this sort of charade where Apple is giving the government everything it wants in private, but then genuinely fighting them publicly. Both sides get more or less what they want out of the deal. Apple gets to pretend to be a protector of privacy, and the government gets unfettered access to whatever they want.
The Intercept has run a bunch of articles on this topic, alongside direct evidence of such. Here's one. [2]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
[2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/11/30/nsa-surveillance-fisa-se...