[jayarcanum]

Does anybody see through these PR plays? They've unlocked many phones in the past for the government, they're protecting their technology and using the moral issue to look good at a time when they're still majorly losing their way. To me this looks like governmental appeasement. Shutting down Snowden and other's methods of private communications is a fantastic gift to the government who doesn't want more of that type of scrutiny and people talking about the NSA badly, there's already enough thinking they're a major problem. What perfect a guise to get it done under another companies name that also happens to be having a great PR week on the back of data they gave up or are going to give up anyway, they always knew that. I wish more people would think for themselves or at least consider why the script might not be reality. They hired him! What happened is a formerly non corporate secure, private form of communication is now... who knows what. Maybe the government just figured out how to deal with the next Lavabit and not deal with more backlash. Nobody trusts them right now, everybody seems to love this Apple letter PR play.

[the_ancient]

>They've unlocked many phones in the past for the government

I do not really see why this is always brought up. Ofcourse they unlocked phones in the past, they had a master password, they could not legally refuse to do it. There was no legal way for them to resist such actions by the government

Do you understand the difference between the security model today, and previous versions of the iPhone?

Further I do believe there is a Fundamental Difference between Apple run by Steve Jobs, and Apple run by Tim Cook in how they view government. This is why your seeing Apple shift its technology to resist government agents as well as more "traditional" threats

//For the Record, I hate apples business model, and their Walled Garden Ecosystem. I will never own a iPhone because of that, however this on going theme of "well they unlocked it in the past" is just technological ignorance that need to be put down.

[givinguflac]

What do you mean by hating their business model? Genuinely curious. I don't like Google collecting and selling my personal data so I don't use their products. What is your reasoning for "hating" Apple's model? Seems pretty identical to other companies except they don't collect and sell user data.

[the_ancient]

>What do you mean by hating their business model? Genuinely curious.

They do not support open protocols, they do not support interoperablity, they want to much control over the device I supposedly bought from them..

I have to use their App Store, they Operating System, their Backup (iCloud), their Desktop App (iTunes) etc etc etc

There is no F-Driod, for iOS for example.

I hate walled gardens.

>Seems pretty identical to other companies except they don't collect

They may not sell it, but they are certainly collecting data about you...

[jayarcanum]

Things of all kinds went wrong after Steve left us. They've lost their way.

[the_ancient]

In what way?

You preferred the less secure work with the government in all things Apple? that is what Steve Jobs Apple was...

[jayarcanum]

I preferred when the software didn't suck and got out of the way. I preferred when they built truly world glass hardware with out of this world materials. I'll keep all the downvotes fuckers, no prob.

[hellbanner]

Yes. And I'll say it again. When Apple revised their privacy text (around 12 months ago), it looked to me that a warrant canary died.

Replaced with text like

"We care about your privacy." "We protect you with all legal means available."

And then there's PR like

http://www.dailytech.com/Feds+Cant+Crack+Apples+iMessage+Enc...

Maybe it's true. But are you really that trusting?

[givinguflac]

How can you possibly be so cynical that you think this? Be an Apple hater all you want, but your comment is just silly. If Apple has "unlocked many phones for the government" before, why does the government have so many they want unlocked? A warrant canary can't "look to you" like it died. It did or it did not, and it most definitely did not. You're blowing this almost as far out of proportion as the article. Where is your proof for all these prior phones they unlocked??

[gotchange]

Yes, this could be all smoke and mirrors and Apple is already in bed with the USG and they just playing us and taking us for suckers but setting all these legitimate concerns aside and assuming that this whole controversy is legit, I think Apple's position is vulnerable given their tax policies and hoarding cash reserves in offshore subsidiaries and holding the repatriation of these funds to the US.

I think that the USG could really twist Apple's arm and take them to courts over trumped up tax evasion charges and force Apple to cooperate with them on that FBI issue.

Let's just wait to see how this interesting story evolves and concludes before passing judgements very early.

[Zigurd]

While I agree that closed-source privacy protection isn't trustable, and therefore isn't sufficient, that doesn't mean that Apple doesn't intend to protect APple customers.

There's a big difference between not going far enough and deliberate deception on this topic. There are also multiple stages to the battle for privacy, and most technology products and services are relatively far behind Apple in that progression.

[carlosnunez]

Not sure if I believe that Apple acqui-hiring this developer was a concession for the bad press they've been giving the government lately. It was his choice to work for Apple; I'm going to guess that they didn't coerce him into taking this deal.