Forget the idea of searching a phone. The same principle must apply to arrests, right?
So if you’re okay with US officials arresting child molesters… you’re saying we have to be okay with Cuban police arresting peaceful protesters?
Or, are you saying that because Cuba shouldn’t arrest people for having democratic views, that US police should let child molesters go free?
Either way, I hope you recognize how poor your question is.
You’re right about Facebook and Google, of course, but how exactly is Apple actively exploiting and squeezing your user data for money?
Fair point. I assume that they are. I don’t know that for a fact.
Read the article. It’s talking about Apple making it harder, or hopefully impossible, for people to use an existing piece of hardware that cost less than 20,000 dollars, to unlock any iPhone they like, without asking anyone’s permission.
Do you have a plan for how to ensure these devices are only going to be available to responsible police forces?
Police acting within fair laws should be free to gather evidence to help prosecute crimes to the best of their capabilities. There’s literally nothing inherently wrong with searching a phone, but like any government power, it can be used by the book or an oppressive manner.
The fact that literally every government power can be abused isn’t a reason for the government to have no power.
You’ve offered two really poor arguments. I’d urge you to sharpen up any subsequent ones.
I’m still trying to figure out how anything you said suggests, much less establishes, the alleged “poorness” of the argument “The existing security hole can be abused by anyone – cop, crook, hacker, foreign agent, anyone at all – who gets hold of one of these cracking devices”.
Why on earth would you assume any such thing when the whole topic of discussion is a security system designed to insure that nobody other than the phone owner, including Apple, can access the phone contents?
There’s three reasons I can think of for someone to ask that question:
One, they may believe that I said Apple is doing something wrong by tightening its security. That is literally the opposite of what I wrote in post 9, so that’s clearly not my position.
Two, there’s something special about electronics that should make them treated differently by the law, so that a search of digital device is subjected to a higher threshold of scrutiny. I think that’s silly.
Three, folks are trying to make the argument that if repressive countries engage in activity X (jailing people, conducting searches, etc) then free countries should not do those things either. That too is patently absurd.
Because I see no reason to trust Apple. I’m sure they are collecting information from their customers, and though it may not be content of messages, I have no reason to believe that Apple users aren’t monitored in some way that makes Apple money. But I don’t know how this works, I’m open to correction, and I’m just stating that I’m not asserting my assumptions as facts.
If I don’t have an iPhone, you have nothing to search. If I have an encrypted iPhone, you still have nothing to search. Same difference.
Apple collects no data from its products?
Apple does not monetize their customers’ data to any significant degree. You can stop assuming that.
It’s providing cover for people who care about their privacy and who don’t want anyone to access their materials. Some of those people are criminals; many are not. Many of those criminals may well be doing nothing morally wrong, such as people who just wanna buy weed or the aforementioned democracy activists in Cuba. More privacy inherently means a harder time for people to see what you’re doing, and sometimes criminals will take advantage of that. It doesn’t make “more privacy” inherently a bad thing. I mean, the cops would have it easier if they opened and read every piece of everyone’s mail. But we have laws against that for a reason.
Why would actively vs passively make any difference? Passively is just as bad in this context.
The same way all companies exploit your user data for money: more effective and more targeted marketing.
First clue: If they weren’t doing that, then Apple products wouldn’t have registrations or accounts built in.
Ask Ravenman, he said actively.
What, you mean like voluntary registration cards? You think Apple had a quarter trillion dollars in revenue last year based off mining the data from registration cards?
Assuming you when you say “accounts” you’re referring to your Apple ID, Apple doesn’t really use that to gather marketing data, certainly not to the extent your Google or Facebook accounts do. As an example, even Apple’s own Siri doesn’t send your Apple ID when you use it to make a query.
Interesting. Hereabouts we trust neither. Or rather, we distrust both equally.
Ok, good enough for me. So then I amend my earlier statements to read that I have more concern about how Google and Facebook deal with my privacy than I do with how Apple and the Government deal with my privacy.
Perhaps we should give the coppers a key to our homes in case they secure a warrant.
You guys trust the NHS to use and distribute correctly personal data that in the US is treated as if it was radioactive. “The government” doesn’t mean every branch of it.
What they do with the information that you have given them to register your account is one thing. They may send you offers of phones or plans.
It is if they are mining your personal data, information from your phone, your communications, or your browsing history, that privacy concerns are a bit more important.