Yeah, Tim Apple handing over a 24-karat gold plaque to the sitting president is completely normal behavior for CEOs to engage in, and not at all about just making as much money as possible. He had to do that, otherwise Apple as a company would disappear tomorrow. They're just trying to survive.
Unless you're going to demonstrate that handing over a golden plaque implies handing over privacy data to government agencies, I'm going to prefer the former over the latter.
Apple has already been outed as one of the participating companies in PRISM. [1] So that privacy boat has long since sailed. The public legal wrangling is likely just a mutually beneficial facade. PRISM is almost certainly illegal, but nobody can legally challenge it because the data provided from it is never directly used. Law enforcement engage in parallel construction [2] where they obtain the same evidence in a different way. So nobody can prove they were harmed by PRISM, and thus all challenges against it get tossed for lack of standing. It's very dumb.
But in any case the legal battles work as nice PR for Apple (see how much we care about privacy) and also as a great scenario for the government because any battles they win are domains where they can now legally use information directly to the courts and sidestep the parallel construction. That also takes the burden off of Apple PR in giving that information up because it can be framed as the courts and government forcing them, rather than them collaborating in mass data collection.
I don’t like that we’ve gotten to a place where presumably serious people think that giving a token prize to a narcissist is the same thing as engaging in massive surveillance of the entire population.
If you or I had complete knowledge of all of apple's activities, this would be a more relevant point.
Instead we have to make judgements based on what limited information we possess and sucking up to trump is a real bad sign for things like caring about privacy/liberty/safety
> presumably serious people think that giving a token prize to a narcissist
Unfortunately, I think reality is much worse than you seem to be under the impression of. Voter suppression and military violence against your own population isn't "narcissism", it's the introduction of authoritarianism. The flagrant narcissism is a symptom of that, not the actual issue.
>They share just as much with the NSA as Microsoft and Google.
For something like icloud vs gmail/gdrive, they're approximately the same, but that doesn't mean "they share just as much [...] as Microsoft and Google. If they never collected data in the first place, they don't have to share with NSA. The most obvious would be for location data, which apple keeps on-device and google did not (although they did switch to on device a few years ago).
Yes i take the billion dollar company with a blackbox is lying over blind trust. and like i said before even if they do not do it now they can at anytime change it for anybody silently.
Not ALL cloud connected cameras. Be careful saying things like that, there are large differences in the trust levels between them. For instance, if you're using homekit, I believe Apple doesn't even have the keys to the e2ee encryption, regardless of your "icloud advanced security" mode.
I stand by what I said -- If you don't control the software stack, you have no control over whether or not your footage is available to the cloud provider (or law enforcement) no matter what the provider says. As I said in my post, you really don't know if they have a secret software toggle that disables e2e encryption for law enforcement demands.
Since writing this comment, I learned that the homekit secure video feature is e2ee by default regardless of that feature. You can't even turn it off. Apple doesn't have the keys.
That transience, ironically, comes from the regulatory structure we try to use to protect community by trying to protect the buildings themselves. The things we've done that make it hard to build end up preventing new downtowns and markets in places that don't have them today, like residential areas. So then everyone's forced to the old markets for all their new needs, transforming them. If we let go, we'd see new downtowns and new markets in places that might be suburbs today, just like the old markets happened - organically, where a developer thinks they'll make money on one.
Idk. I don’t have a car. I still turn my phone off for 24-48 hours at a time because I enjoyed the ways things were before cell phones existed. I applaud people who pull over to take a phone call instead of using hands free talking. I am also curious if something like this might significantly reduce deaths due to inattentive driving or not.
I am absolutely saying that your claim that conversing is nearly as dangerous as looking at your phone, is total nonsense. And your link doesn't do anything to support your claim.
Have you tried looking for any information that challenges what you believe? It's relatively trivial to find many other sources supporting my claim and the claim you're responding to. The first paragraph in the wikipedia article... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safe...
reply