If your friend violates your privacy rights (either intentionally or unintentionally), there is both criminal and civil legal recourse. That is different in kind from legally requiring people not be allowed to prevent violation their privacy through reasonable safeguards. But, hey, if you truly believe your argument, you’ll take the locks off your doors since people can break in anyway. Why have such a reasonable safeguard against physical property rights if you won’t allow reasonable safeguards against digital property rights?
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.
iOS 26 Allows Cellular Calls and SMS/RCS in Third-Party Apps in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If your friend violates your privacy rights (either intentionally or unintentionally), there is both criminal and civil legal recourse. That is different in kind from legally requiring people not be allowed to prevent violation their privacy through reasonable safeguards. But, hey, if you truly believe your argument, you’ll take the locks off your doors since people can break in anyway. Why have such a reasonable safeguard against physical property rights if you won’t allow reasonable safeguards against digital property rights?
Once I send a message to someone else, they're generally free to do what they want with it, within the boundaries of normal social contracts. I have no expectation that all my friends have a spy-level secrecy protocol and frankly it's kinda of insane to immediately swing to criminal recourse for something like my friend workshopping a reply to text with chatGPT.
Yup, which is why you jumping all the way to criminal recourse before is even crazier.
This is a complete strawman argument.
Firstly, and most obviously, a company or third party seeing what I texted to my friends is different from someone coming into my house and taking my things away.
Secondly, I already operate on the principle that I should expect that anything leaving my devices may not stay private. In a perfect world, yeah, I'd like a guarantee of absolute privacy, but that's just not realistic and so I just use my brain and act accordingly.
Or you can just buy an Android instead of buying an iPhone and then complaining to the EU that iPhone doesn't have xyz features.
Microsoft did a great job of shifting the blame. The EU regulation required Microsoft to ensure that their built-in antivirus does not have special privileges unavailable to third-party security solutions. Instead of creating a user-level API for security software, as Apple did in 2019, Microsoft chose to allow security software, including Windows’ built-in security, to use full kernel-mode drivers. Microsoft could have developed a user-level API and moved their built-in antivirus to a user-level driver. This way, they can lock down the kernel-mode drivers since all products must use user-level drivers and would be fully compliant with the EU regulation. Apple fixed the kernel-driver mode risks with "System Extension" in 2019 while Microsoft did nothing.
That’s not the way the law works in telecommunications. In the state in which I live, it is illegal for you to record a phone call with me unless you have my consent. It is both a criminal and civil offense. The criminal penalties include both fines and time in state prison. Criminal recourse is not a jump. It is the law.
It isn’t a straw man argument. Digital property rights are property rights the same as physical property rights. Reasonable measures can be taken to protect both. You are advocating laws that mandate fewer reasonable measures for digital property rights, which prevent, in particular, my choice to buy a device which doesn’t make privacy violations easier by bad actors — figuratively, the lock on my front door.
Secondly, operating on your principle is fine and dandy for you. But it isn’t the law, and I don’t think it should be.
I bolded the part that explains why our views are different. I don't live where you live. My laws are less restrictive than yours.
Nope, I'm not advocating for anything like that, and yes, taking away my things so that I can't use them is different to having knowledge of things I've said. If they were the same thing, there wouldn't be different laws governing them.
Living exclusively by the limit of the law instead of using common sense is insane to me. But you do you.
Wonder if this is why people are saying that silence unknown callers isnt showing up on beta 2 and 3. Silence unknown calls isnt working on ios 26 beta 2 now 3. The option that says send unknown calls to voicemail that option isnt even showing up in settings>apps>phone>scroll to unknown calls. It should be above where it says send unkown calls to unknown caller list.
Apple has a right to protect its intellectual property, and not expose it to risk, competing entities, and government interference wherever it doesn’t have to.
Since when is making a call or receiving a text Apple's intellectual property? They're not opening up Facetime or iMessasge.
That is to bring jobs back to the US and to prevent Apple from engaging in legal corporate tax evasion by outsourcing overseas. The US isn’t forcing Apple to build their own products a certain way so that Apple’s competitors can benefit from state-sponsored interference in a free market.
That’s what an API is. It provides access to system software code to connect an external system not specifically engineered on that platform.
That can happen no matter what, unless you're only ever calling iPhones I guess?
And even then, it's no real help.
"Could be getting recorded" has been a thing since the beginning of phones and recording devices.
It's not.
Honestly, I'm a getting a little worried about how much full & complete trust some folks are putting in Apple.
It makes for a very vulnerable customer in the real world, to be relying on your device manufacturer to provide all your "safety, security and privacy" to this degree.
I missed this reply before.
It's absolutely not, no matter how much you wish it was. The other person can always share your data. How is that not true?
I'm not doing that, so no worries there. I do have to try interpret the point you're making though, since it's not always clear. Otherwise I guess I could ask you to lay out a full top-to-bottom detailed argument of why this is bad and then reply to that, but I feel like you might not be keen for that.
Have you never messaged anyone who doesn't use an iPhone? Or have you never had a message you thought would be an iMessage fall back to sms? I worry that you put way too much faith in how secure things currently are.
I want to do me. You, however, are advocating the power of the state be used to force me to do you by only being allowed to buy products that conform to your preferences.
Lmao. I'm advocating that others should be able to make their own choices, with options that you are free to use or ignore, as aligns with the rules of the region they live in. If you want to keep trying to twist my words and misrepresent my point I'm just going to go ahead and hit Ignore. I'm trying to engage with your points, but you seem set on the idea that I'm unable to understand my own argument.
The Messages app on an iPhone is Apple’s IP. It is the application layer on iPhone for the consumer to engage in communications using industry-standard protocols. The app is integrated and embedded into the operating system, which is also Apple IP.
iPhones are not open source, they are proprietary. Apple is not bound by any law (yet) to open the application layer for iphone to 3rd parties for SMS and voice telephony.
Allowing to switch a default app isn't changing that. Messages will still be there as the default until changed, iMessages will still go the to Messages app.
This is such a non-issue that Apple themselves have already opened up a bunch of their app defaults to be changed.
Truly, such a non issue.
So many of these topics have just turned into “defending Apple no matter what”.
Of course, if China says something, everybody is silent and Apple bends over and touches their toes and we all move on. Lol
no different then what your or my carrier can do with all of the data that they are collecting
there's also nothing stopping anyone currently from doing whatever they want with the calls and messages they exchange with you
If I had your number I could call you from my iPhone right now and record the call
Last edited:
Sorry "bring jobs back to the US?"
when exactly were iPhones being manufactured in the US?
Tariffs and continued decline of relations between the US and bascially everyone else in the world, might well see that happening as a long term solution, but it won't just be the EU.
Messaging I can understand, though in my ideal world Apple would allow third parties to contribute to the message app I.e sending WhatsApp messages from the Messages app. I do not understand why anyone wants a different phone app. Apple already offers plenty of APIs for call identification and whatnot, I cannot imagine why anyone needs a different phone app.