Sounds like both you and Apple are picking and choosing which court orders to comply with.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Helped FBI Identify Alleged Owner of World's Largest Torrent Site
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like both you and Apple are picking and choosing which court orders to comply with.
Except when the court order has anything to do with their gravy-train iPhone - then they've stated they will not comply under any circumstances.
There is a big difference between an encryption key and the data provided regarding KAT.
But, thanks for judging. You are wrong.
For complying with the law? I fail to see how that makes them bad.
In the face of all those pirates who support that pirate: GOOD APPLE!
Off with his head!
Most of you who have used this site probably have gone to links that dump malware onto your devices.
Off with his head!
Most of you who have used this site probably have gone to links that dump malware onto your devices.
Yes, but there shouldn't be. Not if they truly cared about Privacy.
That one site that's purely for free to share Christian bible stories really didn't take off.
Why are people upset with Apple here? Do they not understand how our justice system works? Do they not get that Apple has no choice when subpoenaed for such information?
You'd be all for it if this meant capturing a white collar criminal who'd taken money from their company but are upset when it means stopping someone who allows pirates to take billions away from those that worked hard to make something you enjoy. Seems pretty hypocritical to want to apply the law only when it benefits you and not when it does not.
You'd be all for it if this meant capturing a white collar criminal who'd taken money from their company but are upset when it means stopping someone who allows pirates to take billions away from those that worked hard to make something you enjoy. Seems pretty hypocritical to want to apply the law only when it benefits you and not when it does not.
Very true point actually! In fact, the whole DRM thing is quite a farce. Cause it allows companies like Apple and Intel to mistakenly (self-censored the word stupidly) blend firmware with 'DRM' and copyright management, to the point they provide themselves the excuse and justification to lock all people away from EFI and BIOS on the devices have payed for, but at the same time it makes perfect sense for them to legalise hundreds and hundreds of GBs of questionably collected music and mp3's overnight. But, hey.. the world must be truly a safer place now with a criminal of this kind less.
Personally I have zero time to waste and therefore watch series and so I haven't downloaded pirated material a couple of years now. But I'm still very skeptical about my song collection of 10 years, now stored on iTunes Match. Am I less of a criminal than the guy arrested and the pirates? Should I actually be worried that my personal information might be handed to law enforcement or not?
Well, you have an admirer.
Your bank, employer, insurance company, and many other products or services you use would comply as well. They do everyday.
Last edited:
That's a common mis-conception that the MPAA and RIAA love to throw around. We've lost BILLIONS because of this. Actually in reality the number is a lot smaller. As a LARGE number of these downloads are being made by people who would never pay for these items in the first place. Take Photoshop for example, how many people do you know who would actually pop down the money for Photoshop if they had to for it? If anything, removing this all together would just increase the usage and development of open source software. As for movies and music, same thing, if it was all removed today, not everyone is going to run out tomorrow and pay for it.
Quit being willfully obtuse. Apple provides any information if they have it. In the case of San Bernadino they provided everything they had. What they fought was the request to create something completely new in order to obtain information they didn't have access to.
Why did I know that I would read this kind of BS first thing off the bat? It helps if you take the time to understand the real issues of privacy that Apple is fighting for. In the San Bernardino case the government was trying to get Apple to create a back door to their OS that would allow the government (and other bad guys) to get into millions of iPhones without cause.
In this case, like many others Apple was cooperating with the government in a legitimate probable cause situation, and was likely presented with a valid search warrant. Cooperating with law enforcement in valid searches is something Apple and other companies do every day. And rightfully so. The San Bernardino case was not a normal case, and what the government wanted was not legal.
And as far as this scumbag is concerned, good. I hope he rots in prison. I have no love lost for movie studios, etc. that continue to do their best to artificially inflate the "value" of their products, but stealing is stealing. Period.
Or is Apple really just protecting it's iPhone sales - what was the percentage that iPhones contributed to Apple's revenue stream last year?