Is it a valid point that you “can’t trust a company” because they comply with valid legal orders? Compliance that they are completely transparent about, by the way. What should they do to earn that trust?
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 to Launch a Global Law Enforcement Web Portal to Streamline Data Requests by End of 2018 [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it a valid point that you “can’t trust a company” because they comply with valid legal orders? Compliance that they are completely transparent about, by the way. What should they do to earn that trust?
I think that was implied by my response but, if not, then I'll explicitly say I agree because read as-is, and by any generally accepted definition of trust, it doesn't seem reasonable to not trust a company because they comply with law enforcement and report on that compliance with the absolute maximum transparency legally allowed. Even going so far as to put canary in the coalmine language in there so they can communicate a breach of that trust forced on them by law enforcement.
What definition of trust do you believe is valid reason to distrust a company acting in this way?
I think we're arguing over semantics.
But I honestly DO trust Apple. For one thing, they have discovered that "Privacy" is a marketable brand-distinction (and so they DO); so they will be loathe to be found violating that "trust".
This really shouldn't be a complaint about apple. I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining about them for sure.
It's the state of affairs with our law enforcement and justice system. Apple is doing what they're required to do by law. The 80% stat given earlier highlights how sometimes, LE is just throwing things against the wall to see if it sticks.
It's the state of affairs with our law enforcement and justice system. Apple is doing what they're required to do by law. The 80% stat given earlier highlights how sometimes, LE is just throwing things against the wall to see if it sticks.
I agree almost completely. Largely, if you disagree with the volume and reach of these orders, then it's your local or national government representative you should be taking it up with.
With that said, I think there's room to ask if Apple could be doing more to protect that information. Mail is a no-hoper - basically PGP or Mime encryption at the end points is the only way to secure mail. The protocol(s) itself has no support for it. Those iCloud backups however, which is where the bulk of the non-metadata information that can be subpoenaed is retrieved from, should be encrypted without Apple having the key imo. I don't know of any valid technical reason for them to have the key for those. I may be missing something about the nature of them and restoring from them but even that is surely not insurmountable.
It’s a slippery slope that is underway. On one side we have Apple championing no back doors for encryption and customer privacy while conforming to the law to the minimum. On the other hand we have Apple trying to educate and train law enforcement of the same technology. Are we to believe that Apple is doing this to lower the number of requests and frequency or are their trying to educate law enforcement to obtain this information without having to approach Apple with these requests.
I am uncertain if Apple is playing both sides in this recent effort, however private corporations have no requirement to educate public law enforcement. Unless local law enforcement is paying for courses to be educated. The big question is what is Apple getting out of this effort, last I checked their were not a charity and there are several open sources to obtain the courses and education required by law enforcement to do their job.
I trust Apple to an extent. Just don’t think they are that much better than Google.
I think a lot of iPhone users or Mac users in general feel they are invincible on the web, mainly cause they are using Apple products.
I suspect a lot of the kneejerk reactions/comments are made by people determined to hate Apple no matter what.
I'm okay with cooperation when requested. I'm not okay with broken or backdoors to encryption.
Actually, it appears that this COULD mean that the ENCRYPTED data is provided to LEO, if the meaning of the statements "All iCloud content data stored by Apple is encrypted at the location of the server." and "iCloud content, as it exists in the subscriber’s account, may be provided in response to a search warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause." are to be taken at face value.
NO where in those two statements does it say that "Apple will provide Decrypted iCloud Data".
Now, maybe they DO; but unless they are bound by Federal Law to DECRYPT that data (which I don't think they are at present), then Apple would STILL be in Compliance of a Court Order demanding iCloud data, and Apple only provided the Data in its "At Rest" state (which is Encrypted).
Exactly.
Nothing wrong with cooperation when a legal request is made.
There is a problem with developing back doors to phone encryption.
People complaining about iMessage and such not being fully secure? Apple never said it was.
The only thing secure is the data on your device. Once data leaves the device, unless you are using extra methods, assume it can be read.
Apple is a corporation there is no emotion of like/dislike, love/hate concerning money. Apple is a corporation and corporations like money and more is always welcomed. You seem to believe that Apple personally cares about you, guess what after you purchased that Apple product this corporation has your money, the only thing keeping it in-check is customer trust and loyalty to purchase future products and services. Corporations will do anything to protect themselves, their are not martyrs. I am neither a lover/hater of any corporation, I just understand the dynamics of reality.
You seem to come across as having a personal relationship with Apple or its products, quite telling.
I think they are a Googolplex percent better than Google in that regard. (See what I did there?)
I noted the slight ambiguity too. I do wish it was clarified. I’d err on the side of caution without that degree of specificity.
In all honesty all politicians cannot be trusted. Some are better than others, however that is like picking the type of snake (referencing your comment) you choose to play with.
I’d send each of them a bill for services rendered. Only when spying eats up their budget and they have to go begging for more cash will they ever exercise restraint. It’s hardly Apples responsibility to pay for this.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there is NO Duty for the THIRD-PARTY Respondant to Decrypt data that is responsive to one of these "Requests" (Demands).
Lol, in the 90’s Windows users viewed Mac users as having an elitists mentality. Linux users thought both camps were lemmings. Some Mac users felt there were more refined because the competition in comparison looked primitive and the cost factor only inflated their egos.
My comments were not directed at you, just drawing comparisons of the 90’s era.
Where did they say they weren’t collecting private data? That’s a far cry from Tim Cook reiterating the customer is not the product. But one can’t be naive, between Apple and the telco provider there is a bunch of data waiting for legal law enforcement requests.