A Message to Our Customers (2016)

I&#x27;ll never buy anything from Apple again. Apple was to me the walled but good-willed garden, caring about their profits by respecting their customers and taking a stance against widespread anti-democratic tendencies. I own an iWatch, two iPhones and two MacBook Pros (one privately owned, one from my current employer).<p>The selling points of apple to me were to provide excellent hardware combined with excellent software, combined with a guarantee to protect my privacy.<p>The first point still holds true, the 2nd not so much anymore, and the 3rd was destroyed by the most recent move.<p>My stance will cause a ripple effect, I convinced quite a few people to use apple if they can afford it due to their general stance and their commitment to democratic values. Not all of them will listen if I now tell the opposite story, but most will. I hope Apple feels the effects of this decision in one of the upcoming stock-holder meetings.<p>Of course, I don&#x27;t believe this helps against child abuse or any crime at all, in fact I believe the opposite effect happens: criminals probably know about moves like this one far earlier than the general public and react accordingly.

Our two mainstream options for mobile OS are one that stalks you everywhere you go and monitors what you do for the company behind it and one that will look on device at your pictures to possibly report to the government (with other governments likely licking their lips). This two party system is starting to stink.<p>&gt; &quot;However mobile OS&#x27;s may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.&quot; -- George Washington

It is remarkable that Tim so clearly understood the problem in 2016.<p>With that one post, Apple and Tim earned trust from a group of people that trust very few. And in an instance, both Apple and Tim have now burned all of it.

There is a story that has information direct from the horses mouth on how Apple will approach this as opposed to how Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and the rest already do.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;08&#x2F;10&#x2F;interview-apples-head-of-privacy-details-child-abuse-detection-and-messages-safety-features&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;08&#x2F;10&#x2F;interview-apples-head-of-p...</a><p>Highlights:<p>Unlike Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and the rest Apple has not been scanning your online data (iCloud) for the past decade.<p>When this is turned on, only images you attempt upload to iCloud will be scanned.<p>If you turn off photo synching to iCloud, nothing will be scanned.<p>If photo scanning shows that many images on your device match known kiddie porn images (not just one), a human will review the data to make sure passing it on to the authorities is called for or if there have been multiple false positives.<p>If multiple images do not match known kiddie porn images, nothing happens.

What is the functional difference between the government demanding Apple add code to break device encryption, and the government demanding Apple add signatures that extend their on-device scanning beyond its intended scope of CSAM?<p>Apple seems to get a lot of credit for opposing the former, but gets mocked when they say they would oppose the latter. But as far as I can tell, the legal argument is exactly the same for both situations: can the government compel Apple to add functionality that they do not want to add?<p>Apple’s plans seem creepy to me, but I have been less than impressed with the specificity of arguments against it. Most seem to stop at “what if the government forces them to expand it” without addressing exactly how, under current federal law, the government would do that.<p>For example, see this Twitter thread arguing that it would be very difficult for the feds to do that:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;pwnallthethings&#x2F;status&#x2F;1424873629003702273" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;pwnallthethings&#x2F;status&#x2F;14248736290037022...</a>

I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s fair to hold anyone to thoughts or idea they had. one can assume an opinion, evolve and present a different opinion after a while, that&#x27;s why we live and look up for new experiences.<p>I don&#x27;t agree with today&#x27;s apple shift on encryption and disregard of privacy but we should also make sure not to hide the huge problematic that global interconnected networks have right now on vulnerable people, their lives and the lives of the ones around them.<p>be on guard against threat to privacy is important but maybe we should focus on finding solution for these problems too

What are the best options for a Linux laptop these days?<p>I switched back from a Dell XPS 13 9350 running Ubuntu to a Macbook Air M1 quite recently.

bunch of discussion from when this was news:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11116274" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11116274</a>

Oh how the mighty have fallen.<p>Now I can’t help but wonder if this was all for show.

Will only be available in wayback machine in a matter of time.