CSAM, China, Ughyrs, LGBT rights outside of countries that won't stone them to death, taking billions from Google each year.When have they not
I doubt he even read our posts, but just in case he does, here pls @ Tim Crook 🖕Tim doesnt seem embarrassed at all. Probably laughs at these Macrumors posts, which conflate everything to try and make an insult.
This explains his high pitched voice, as if … no I better stop.When Tim gets angry, ties his knot tighter
Takes a while for the mass to wake up and recognize this, but the movement is growing.CSAM, China, Ughyrs, LGBT rights outside of countries that won't stone them to death, taking billions from Google each year.
Shall I continue?
None of this laundry list has nothing to do with that apple supports privacy. And that it has to operate within the laws of various countries. And that it is or will be bound by legislation requiring them to detect csam. Or Tim Cook’s is justified to support social justice as he sees fit. Or taking fees from google doesn’t change the way the internet operates. Etc. ymmv on all of this.CSAM, China, Ughyrs, LGBT rights outside of countries that won't stone them to death, taking billions from Google each year.
Shall I continue?
I'll go a step further and say that opt-out may be worse than the no protection we have today.It's a good step, don't get me wrong. But...
We need to make tracking opt-in. Opt-out is not sufficient.
Opt-out most probably means a backdoor to collect data, but just not serve ads based on it, or selling it or otherwise monetizing it. But they would still likely collect it and need to know who you are in order to exclude it from their processing of it.
That is not enough, there should be no data collection, period, unless someone opts-in. Opt-in must be a token or other key that they query for from your devices and if it doesn't exist, no data is gathered.
Anything less than opt-in is not privacy.
You forgot the US-backed genocide on the YemenisCSAM, China, Ughyrs, LGBT rights outside of countries that won't stone them to death, taking billions from Google each year.
Shall I continue?
And these companies have deep enough pockets to keep convincing our hapless congressmen that Apple is evil and no one needs these protections.I like the fact that Apple prioritizes privacy and points this out to the federal level. Too many companies out there that just think of your online activity as a way to line their pocketbooks.
Tim Cook getting on his knees to bow to his masters whenever China barks isn't a privacy issue? CSAM isn't a privacy issue?Ok.......None of this laundry list has nothing to do with that apple supports privacy. And that it has to operate within the laws of various countries. And that it is or will be bound by legislation requiring them to detect csam. Or Tim Cook’s is justified to support social justice as he sees fit. Or taking fees from google doesn’t change the way the internet operates. Etc. ymmv on all of this.
Isn't most of this done on-device now, and when it is done online they are completely transparent about when it's being done and how it's being used. They're not doing it secretly without full disclosure. Are they?
Don’t pay the apple tax. Simple. Go android instead of telling apple how to run their business.Oh how gracious of thou Tim.. Everyone sees through this, its all about trying to take out Apple's competition and nothing more so we all have to be force to pay the Apple Tax. Shut Up and open up your phone so people can install what they want on it for once and for all!
No, it’s not your privacy issue and apple is operating within the laws in China.Tim Cook getting on his knees to bow to his masters whenever China barks isn't a privacy issue?
Privacy is not guaranteed for illegal material. And privacy isn’t about being able to safely distribute csam. It’s about the handling of PII.CSAM isn't a privacy issue?Ok.......
Yes, in your opinion.Please stop with that ******** smokescreen of "Operating within laws of various countries" claptrap. It's nothing more than a convenient excuse for Tim to continue his gaslighting while at the same time going "What me worry?" whenever the China issue rears its head.
No, I don't want Apple to operate in countries against their local laws, but I DO want them to (metaphorically) put up or shut up about privacy.So you want Apple to break the law? Then their devices won't be available to anyone in those countries. That's not a privacy or business solution.
I agree. I’d love to see it more explicitly added to the constitution in an amendment. Both digital privacy and unlawful search/seizure.I like the fact that Apple prioritizes privacy and points this out to the federal level. Too many companies out there that just think of your online activity as a way to line their pocketbooks.
Either you stay and try to make incremental change or you pack your bags and go. Neither is a wrong choice.No, I don't want Apple to operate in countries against their local laws, but I DO want them to (metaphorically) put up or shut up about privacy.
Google took the IMO ethical solution to stop operating in China in 2010 because it wouldn't follow Chinese internet "privacy" law. Apple, nope! Apple made a special China-only *cough* compromised iCloud instead
Except where iOS is concerned.
Then it's "Here's a key to the backdoor."
Apple takes privacy as far as local laws allow. Nothing wrong with being a stand for a cause.No, I don't want Apple to operate in countries against their local laws, but I DO want them to (metaphorically) put up or shut up about privacy.
[…]