[BiteCode_dev]

Maybe it's the french in my talking, but I really have a hard time trusting anything else than the state to handle health data.

Anytime you associate health with financial motivation, you end up with something twisted on the long run.

Sure, you can say that Apple, right now, is in the proper state to do that (although given they were part of PRISM, it's debatable).

But what about in 10 years? What if their executives decide that Apple Pay should lead to the creation of a bank? Then from a bank to an insurance company? Then they have a conflict of interest.

Simpler than that, what if they change their stance on user data, and decide to exploit it to understand their customers better? Or sell it? Or just partner it to labs, insurance companies, hospitals?

Like with facebook, it will of course all be "made anonymous", until it's not anymore.

Money and health data are not meant to be mixed IMO.

But even without all that, we are adding yet another tracking system on top of what is already a sensor packed pocket self-spying device.

It's hard to not worry that such concentration of power has a high potential for suffering.

[Yetanfou]

The solution to this conundrum and similar potential problems with other 'smart' devices is to leave them on the (virtual) shelves. If your insurer starts to promote the use of such a device you change insurer. The same goes for car insurance which wants to have access to (live) tracking data on your car, home insurance who demand the installation of and access to 'security systems', the list gets longer and longer. The way things are going this new nosy technology is set to create a new class of Luddites, those who while not averse to technology in itself do not accept their lives to be steered by profit-seeking entities through the use of such.

Another interesting question is whether law enforcement will be allowed to access such data and whether it can be used as proof against the wearer. If your data indicates you were in a higher state of alert with a raised pulse, the gyroscope and position sensors indicate you were physically active, the location data puts you in a given area and the microphone picked up suspect sounds they won't need much more to convict you. Who is the legal owner of the data? Some countries give people the right to refuse to testify against themselves so if the data is owned by the wearer I'd expect it to be off-limits to the law.

The potential good uses of this type of technology are myriad, it just needs to be made big-brother-proof. That will be a hard task since there are situations where you'd want some of these easily-abused features to be used - e.g. call in emergency services if the device detects a life-threatening condition, etc.

[close04]

> leave them on the (virtual) shelves

That's easy today because this option is unpopular. But look back and see how many things we (as entire populations, not necessarily individuals) starting accepting that was unfathomable a couple of decades ago.

Without strong government intervention we may end up at the point where you can take it or forfeit the insurance.

[wmeredith]

This is what I see coming as the mega corps eat our society alongside software. Look at the regulatory capture the telcos have managed with their negotiated service area monopolies or duopolies. It’s easy to say “buy something else” until there’s nothing else to buy and the product is a requirement for functioning in society (insurance, internet connectivity, healthcare). We need trust busting candidates now.

[jrockway]

I don't think trust busting can make the telco problem go away. You can punish someone for their past wrongdoings, but that doesn't necessarily incentivize anyone to become an ISP after the fact. You have to look at how we invest in infrastructure instead. In most of the country, ISPs are responsible for building their own infrastructure; they have to either dig up streets or beg the local power company for pole access. If they didn't have to do that, many more companies would be interested in being ISPs. As it stands right now, it's too expensive and too risky. Sure, being an ISP is 95% profit once you've paid for the infrastructure, but the payoff period is many decades. Nobody has that risk appetite anymore.

In Manhattan, under every street is a subway where you can put power cables, fiber optic cables, etc. The result is that there are a multitude of business ISPs around, because someone already dug a hole in the ground where their cables can go. The actual stringing of cables is a straightforward procedure; sure you need to buy trucks and cables, but that's a lot cheaper than saying "hey we're closing 5th Ave. for 3 months" and digging the whole thing up. The street was dug up once (in 1891!), and now nobody has to do it again. (OK, the tunnels are pretty full, but it's better than nothing.)

If every street were built like this, it is likely that there would be many more ISPs. The big risks are gone. (There is a secondary problem in that many people still like linear TV, and many TV networks are owned by companies that are also ISPs. AT&T owns HBO. Comcast owns NBC. So that would be the sticking point after there is infrastructure, and sure... have the government break them up. They'll probably be dead long before we have the infrastructure, though.)

The short term solution is probably to invest in better trenching techniques. I've heard of microtrenches, nanotrenches, and picotrenches. Maybe we need femototrenches where you just run a fiber to someone's house through their lawn and cover it up with tape where it crosses the sidewalk. It's better than nothing. But probably still too risky for anyone to attempt.

[spockz]

Here in the Netherlands I see a tracking device for cars becoming popular. It is being marketed as a device to get early insights in car breakdown oh and btw you get a 10-20% discount on the insurance fee. That could amount to €40 a month which is a big incentive for people. Sometimes there are even additional insurance discounts when the accelerator has detected a gentle driving style.

[lotsofpulp]

Why should a gentle driver subsidize aggressive drivers? Why should a person that has a healthy diet and does regular cardiovascular exercise subsidize someone who doesn’t? Should someone that drinks only water subsidize those who regularly drink carbonated sugary or alcoholic drinks?

With more data, it’s possible to see how much certain lifestyles subsidize others, so it will be interesting what society deems eligible for subsidies and not.

[drewcon]

You just described exactly how insurance actually works. I don’t really want to live in a world where the higher risk people are MORE disincentivized from being able to secure insurance by eliminating “subsidies” because of their behavior. Insurers need more of lower risk people to subsidize higher risk people (or events) otherwise the whole thing simply doesn’t work.

[lotsofpulp]

As an insured, insurance is to protect yourself from an unknown randomly distributed loss that you can’t afford.

As an insurer, you can afford to insure if the losses occur within the assumed probability distribution and loss magnitude parameters.

In the case of auto (or driving) insurance, it is known that driving aggressively will cause more collisions hence more losses. Therefore, any insurance company not taking this knowledge into account will have uncompetitive premiums compared to another insurance company that is. Insurance only doesn’t work in this case for people who choose to drive aggressively.

A more contentious point would be people living in poor areas having to pay more for insurance due to more property crime in poorer areas. It’s easy to say someone who drives recklessly chooses to and should suffer the consequences, but what about someone who happened to be born to poorer parents?

In the case of healthcare, there are a few known factors that make many chronic health events not random, such as bad diet, lack of excercise, and bad genes. A broken arm might be a sufficiently random event, but what should society do about the non random health losses? What if you were born to poor parents and never had much of a chance to make it so you had a job schedule that allowed you a routine to workout regularly? Or time to cook healthy foods? Or you don’t make enough money to live near grocery stores that sell nutritious foods?

But then at least 70% of Americans are fat. And I see them voluntarily buying large containers of sugar water multiple times a week. Why should I have to pay for their diabetes? Same for a smoker or an alcohol drinker?

It’s a nuanced topic that makes me wonder what freedom is and how much freedom can cost. Am I restricting freedom by not wanting to pay for others’ actions known to cause certain losses? Should people be restricted from certain actions if they can’t afford the losses, therefore restricting their freedom? Can they even be restricted, logistically?

[elliekelly]

I’m more than willing to subsidize the more aggressive drivers in order to maintain my privacy. Joe Schmoe gets slightly cheaper car insurance than he “deserves” and my driving habits are known only to me. That’s a win-win for everyone except the insurance companies who want to collect data about our habits and monetize it to pad the bottom line.

[mdemare]

When aggressive drivers pay more than gentle drivers, that creates an incentive for aggressive drivers to drive more gently. Some of them will, and that in turn will save lives, not just money.

[rayhendricks]

I do agree with the possibility of uses for this kind of technology, however at least in the United States, health insurance is largely tied to ones employer which makes it impossible to switch insurance companies.

[wtmt]

> Maybe it's the french in my talking, but I really have a hard time trusting anything else than the state to handle health data.

I have a hard time letting the state amass more data from people.

> Anytime you associate health with financial motivation, you end up with something twisted on the long run.

Well, the state is not some objective, incorruptible entity without any ulterior motives. You end up with something twisted even when you let the state handle health data. The key is for individuals to decide how, where, when and what they want to share and provide enough control and literacy on why this is important. Unfortunately, too many people get lost in who should or shouldn't get some data and miss the point of maintaining one's freedoms.

[mark_l_watson]

I don't disagree with you in general but I wanted to say why I feel comfortable enough with Apple's approach. I looked at the privacy statements for Apple's health apps and the 3rd party sleeping apps. It is my understanding that all data stays on my watch and iPhone unless it is encrypted. My understanding is that only I have access to this data.

I would like to share some data with my doctor and insurance but I want that under my control.

EDIT: just wanted to add that I am also in general deathly against IoT devices re: tracking. I read Surielance Capitalism and took the book seriously.

[tempodox]

Apple is a for-profit organization that's free to alter their privacy terms any time they want. I don't trust that future modifications of those terms won't make all that data available to anyone who pays.

And even if they don't sell the data it will still be a huge attraction for all kinds of black-hats.

[scarface74]

And the government is also free to change the rules depending on the administration in power. I can leave a corporation I don’t like much easier than a government.

[adamsea]

That’s not necessarily true - realistically not using google or Facebook, for the average, non-tech person, is in many ways up there with moving from say, France to Germany (I chose the EU to make a specific point about ease of movement) in terms of difficulty.

Also, at least democracies have formal mechanisms for holding governments accountable, even if these mechanisms are often corrupted or flawed.

Living in a democracy means you have options beyond “voting with your feet”.

[scarface74]

Even in the best case ignoring the effects of the electoral college, two senators per state regardless of the population and gerrymandering suppressing the will of the people. It’s fine when a democratic government having power is ruled by the majority as long as you are in the majority.

Look at the history of how the government treats minorities (racial, religious, non straight, etc)

[adamsea]

I agree about gerrymandering, think the Electoral College is anti-democratic, and see you point about the way the Senate is set up (though that is maybe a bit trickier than the above 2 items).

But I feel like this is kind of outside scope of what we were talking about? The US is a flawed democracy, no doubt, and some political scientists argue it no longer functions as a democracy, but, it is still, both formally and somewhat in practice, a democracy.

[rexarex]

If this is anything like find my iPhone they don’t have access to the data even if they want to. It’s all encrypted and your hardware is the key.

[tempodox]

Except when encryption becomes mandated by law to be backdoored. Having the data distributed over multiple disparate systems is at least a major inconvenience for any attacker.

[scarface74]

Maybe it's the french in my talking, but I really have a hard time trusting anything else than the state to handle health data.

I wouldn’t trust the American Government with any more power than they have now. It’s not just contempt for the current government, but it wouldn’t matter which party were in power.

[nojito]

Health data being in the hands of the private organizations is disastrous.

There's no price transparency and there's no recourse for abuse or selective targeting.

[mrweasel]

Not trusting the government doesn’t have to mean trusting companies.

I completely agree with you, but I also have my doubts about governments as well. This leaves only the option of my health data being controlled by myself.

[scarface74]

Which is impossible because your records are shared in the course of doing business.

[scarface74]

You mean selective targeting like the government just announced with respect to transgender rights and health care?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/trump-transge...

[nojito]

At least you know that it is happening

What's the recourse when that action is hidden away behind some algorithm by a private corporation?

[scarface74]

So knowing is little solace for people that are affected. People who aren’t affected seem to always be the ones saying stuff like this.

See for example - “at least we now know that minorities are getting beat by the police now that it is getting filmed” ignoring the fact that it was happening for decades and no one believe it.

[postingawayonhn]

> I really have a hard time trusting anything else than the state to handle health data.

I would say I'm exactly the opposite. The less data the state has about me the better.

In reality it's probably more a concern about anyone having too much data. I don't mind different organisations having little bits but I get concerned when people want to bring it all together.

[SquishyPanda23]

> The less data the state has about me the better.

This seems to me the wrong mentality. What you ultimately care about is the leverage you have over the entity holding your data. In most cases you have more leverage over the state via voting and lobbying.

> it's probably more a concern about anyone having too much data

I agree. The issue is what you give up when you let people have that data, and how to mitigate those downsides.

> I don't mind different organisations having little bits

Sure, but realistically that's not how it will work. The point of gathering all the health data is that it's valuable to provide your health information to other businesses. This is specifically called out in the article, with the example about the gym and your doctor.

> but I get concerned when people want to bring it all together.

Bringing it all together is the whole idea. Apple may not literally give the raw data to anyone, but they will do what is functionally equivalent. They'll provide an API for third parties to make business decisions about your individual health. There is no way to do this is a privacy-preserving way.

[darawk]

> This seems to me the wrong mentality. What you ultimately care about is the leverage you have over the entity holding your data. In most cases you have more leverage over the state via voting and lobbying.

I would argue the exact opposite. I've always found private companies to be far more responsive to my needs than government.

[arvinsim]

Their responsiveness is contingent to how it affects their bottom line.

[rbinv]

Of course, but the government doesn't really have such a bottom line, so it doesn't exactly need to care.

[ambicapter]

Other than, you know, their jobs...

[riversflow]

> In most cases you have more leverage over the state via voting and lobbying.

How is this leverage at all? Apple doesn't have my health data. I have a device produced by Apple that allows me to store and share health data conveniently. The state has the unilateral authority to use violence against me. I have very very little leverage on the state vs a company that sells me a glorified filing cabinet.

> The point of gathering all the health data is that it's valuable to provide your health information to other businesses. . . They'll provide an API for third parties to make business decisions about your individual health. There is no way to do this is a privacy-preserving way.

The point is that's valuable to me, the person who the data is about. Apple already has a. privacy preserving model all they to do is follow their current model. Collect all that data for me, the person who the data is about, store it on my device, and allow me, the owner of said data to provide it to whoever I see fit. This allows me to get the best of all worlds. I have this amazing resource that tracks my activity, diet and environmental exposures and various clinical health metrics across many different information streams. If I want to share my workout routine with my insurance company to get a discount I can decide to do that, if I want to show only my doctor i can pull it up during a visit and show him. If I want to share my Xrays or medications with my personal trainer I can likewise make that decision. There is no reason for me to think that Apple will implement an API here for mass data exports because there is no reason too, I can send the data on a case by case basis. And if Apple changes their privacy policy, which I honestly find unlikely, I can delete and walk away.

[jpxw]

I also feel the exact opposite, I have almost no personal control over the state. Not to mention the relentless incompetency and bureaucracy of state institutions, which often end up covering up their own mistakes.

[rbinv]

It really should be both: (almost) no health data with private entities, as little data as possible with authorities.

[lowwave]

Maybe it's the french in my talking, but I really have a hard time trusting anything else than the state to handle health data.

I'm not French, and also feel the same way. It can also due to the fact that is is the center of all the political focus and other stuff. In general US has worse data protection polices than other developed nations (of course still better than country like China).

[rubber_duck]

And state doesn't care about money ? I've heard several places talking about bumping insurance for stuff the moralising politicians find easy to wilify - from stuff like dietary choices and whatever the diet fad seem to be popular (nutrition being the scam that it is basing mandatory public policy on it is ridiculous), over drinking to smoking, illegal drug use (recreational or performance enhancing) etc.

I don't want anyone collecting data on me - I should be in charge of disclosing the information - there is an adage in the PED community - if you mention steroid use to your physician and it gets on your record the next time you brake a bone or catch a cold it's going to be "steroid related". Probably the same shit for rec drugs or regulated nootropics.

[toast0]

> if you mention [X] to your physician and it gets on your record the next time you brake a bone or catch a cold it's going to be "[X] related"

Yeah, and likely they will treat you differently, and not consider that in outcome analysis. If you badger people about [negative health factor] every time they come in, they're not going to come in early, and you're going to blame the resulting poor outcome on the factor, not the behavior induced by the system. /rant.

[mrweasel]

As a Dane I don’t trust the government with my health data, but I don’t have a choice. Don’t get me wrong, it mostly perfectly safe and well managed, but then a government organisation mail CD-Roms with health data (unencrypted) on 5 million people to the Chinese embassy by mistake. Or the politicians decides that I can have medical help, but I lose all control of any tissue samples taken in the process, they will now be stored forever. I also have to accept that my daughters DNA is now stored by the government, and that’s not comforting in a country where xenophobes have to much power.

[nbashaw]

I think you're right about all of this! And to add another point, I worry the only people who will have access to this are those who can afford a bunch of health gadgets and a premium primary care provider.

But, at the same time, it's impossible to imagine our government creating such a thing :(

[barry-cotter]

> I worry the only people who will have access to this are those who can afford a bunch of health gadgets and a premium primary care provider.

A new iPhone SE costs $399 unlocked.

[BiteCode_dev]

That's a lot of money to most people in the world. To my mother it would be 2 months of food.

Even more if taking in consideration planned obsolescence.

[VLM]

To me with my $1700/month health "care" plan its a drop in the bucket.

You have to compare apples to apples. This is the kind of industry where a visit to the ER for a broken arm can and should cost $50K, supposedly.

[paulcarroty]

Tons $100+ iphones on ebay. Apple devices are everywhere now, obviously it's not luxury class.

[nbashaw]

Totally, but in order to benefit from this system you'd probably also need a connected mattress, watch, maybe a continuous glucose monitor, some sort of workout device, etc.

It adds up. This is a country where half the population earns $40k or less a year.

[BiteCode_dev]

And it's already a lot compared to most other countries.

[tjmaglio]

Which is peanuts in the overall costs of healthcare. At what point are you given one as part of your welcome kit? There are already health plans in the US that offer fitbits or will subsidize their cost. The game becomes encouraging a healthier lifestyle to help people avoid getting sick or hurt which costs alot less than treating someone once they have developed a full blown disease. It's one place where both the patients' and the insurer's and hospitals' interests are all in line with each other.

[amelius]

> But, at the same time, it's impossible to imagine our government creating such a thing :(

Government institutions created the internet ...

[akudha]

time trusting anything else than the state to handle health data

Why would you trust the state with anything? Didn't the UK govt sell health data to a Google owned company?

[rvz]

> Didn't the UK govt sell health data to a Google owned company?

The 'Google owned company' was given access to more sensitive health records than they should have with a NHS trust and was found to be illegal. [0]

[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139395-google-deepmind...

[BiteCode_dev]

I don't, but I already have to. They run my life, and in France, my health. And they are not for profit.

I'm all for putting a better system in place, but meanwhile, I'd rather have my health data being in state own institutions that I feed from time to time with my visits, than having an always on monitor that streams directly my life to a for profit company.

But to be honest, I don't want to stream my life to any entity.

[xenonite]

On the other hand, I also have a hard time trusting the government with the health data. I would actually prefer a federation of foundations under public law.

[BiteCode_dev]

As for most things, we probably would be better of with a lot of separated institutions instead of a big centralized governement: one in charge of police, one in charge of health, on in charge of education, one in charge or budget, all of them separated and not governed by one entity at the top.

But that's what we got now, so If I have to chose, I chose the gouvernement. At least in my country: they are paying for health already.

[Yetanfou]

> At least in my country: they are paying for health already.

Assuming that you pay taxes it will be you paying for health care services, albeit indirectly. If you live on government subsidies it is others who pay for your health services. The government is the intermediator between tax payers and beneficiaries.

[BiteCode_dev]

Of course, I used that phrasing to highlight the fact it causes less conflicts of interests (albeit not none).

[labster]

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to health.

[mola]

Yeah well, that's maybe an over active imagination. The best healthcare systems in the world (with respect to quality, and quantity of people getting it) are public health systems. So I dunno, I'd rather have the (functioning democratic) government, a body I actually have a stake in be in charge of health as opposed to a body that it's only duty is to it's share holders. As I see it, a governmental body is (should be) something we all have equal share in independent of our financial situation. I'm quite aware to the ways this body could malfunction. But at least we have a moral footing to work against these malfunctions. With a public/private company as long as it makes money, I have no moral grounds to oppose it ruining my and our lives.

[ChuckNorris89]

In Europe the most terrifying words you can hear are "We're gonna switch to a US style health system."

[theduder99]

US has best health care in the world.

[labster]

Slight correction: the US has the world's best health care that money can buy.

[BiteCode_dev]

I heard enough about the Amercan health system to be eternally grateful to the one I have in France.

I made my tax declaration this month.

I made it with a smile.

[sumedh]

You will say that if you live in the US, try living in some other developed countries with free healthcare, you will change your mind.

[kgin]

For many people, most of wanting to keep their data private is to keep it private FROM the state.

[shadowtree]

A for-profit company will sell or hand-over data at the government's request anyway. Apple's stance on encryption of phones is nice, but once health data is on a server, nothing matters.

Anything cloud is government property, just like all financial data. Now, if your health data starts in state owned DBs, like say in Germany, there is a fighting chance the data will stay in Germany.

Once it is in a global cloud like AWS, GC, Azure? Any major government has access.

China bought so much data already, and with recent enforcement of their Cybersecurity laws, all data touching their citizens is fair game. Oracle pulled out of China, other like AWS go the route of joint ventures to continue operating.

[kgin]

Apple Health data is stored on the phone only. It would end up in encrypted iCloud backups of the phone, which would put it in the government requesting all your data with a warrant situation. It’s not an easily accessible thing.

[black_puppydog]

Can I haz both plz, state and corps? Kthxby

[hackpert]

That concern immediately screams for an "in perpetuity" agreement that can perhaps only be amended (like a constitution or other open source licenses; amended for updating technology etc.) within certain pre-established limits that are hard to circumvent, such as a limitation on the use of health data for profit via insurance. As long as the company agrees to stick to such an agreement for every customer forever, I don't see the problem (unless, of course, they are secretly selling data that you never find out about and can thus never sue them for -- I don't know how likely that is).

[hrktb]

I’m conflicted as we are having this exact debate with contract tracing: Apple And Google came with a solution and the french gov chose a completely different one.

TBH can we trust the current gov. to do the right thing:

- In terms of competency: it took how many weeks to come up with an online form to generate a PDF ?. Then their contact tracing app hits all the limitations that motivated Apple and Google to work on an integrated solution, which then again means its effect will be super limited and people just don’t bother installing it.

- in terms of legitimacy: a lot of messaging and decisions caused litteraly hundreds of death for stupid or corrupted reasons. Like delaying lockdown because there wasn’t enough contaminated people. I mean, even at this point wearing a mask in public is still officially touted as some “perhaps you do perhaps you don’t” kind of behavior.

I really wonder if at this point the gov. is as motivated to keep people alive as some of the global companies.

[wait_a_minute]

Why would you trust the state either? States aren't exempt from abuses of power or needing to balance a budget.

[m463]

> you can say that Apple, right now, is in the proper state to do that

I wonder why you say that. Is it because apple has been pushing the "privacy is a right" dialog and that somehow makes apple more trustworthy, right now?

Because I think apple is, right now, playing both sides of the privacy game.

for instance, all the blockers they allow are opt-out rather than opt-in.

Actually all their data choices are opt-out. I think they know statistically that nobody would willingly opt-in, so for business advantage (and fear?) that's what they do.

IHMO any data collected, whether "anonymized" or not, can be used against people and the human race so it should be opt-in. And opt-in should not be cleverly engineered into a faustian bargain.

[saagarjha]

This is one of the reasons why it’s nice that Apple currently has no access to health data. They might change this is the future, but you can always stop sharing then. (Rather than them saying they’re cool, having your data, and doing something malicious with it later.)

[BiteCode_dev]

Because their software is not open source and they are very secretive, you have no way to verify that.

No to mention it assumes you would know about their change of heart, which you may not.

Apple said they were not part of any spying program, until it was revealed they were part of PRISM.

They also said their home button had a hardware problem and you had to buy a new phone, when it's been later demonstrated it could be fixed with software.

Everything a company says must be considered marketting until proven otherwise.

It's not specific to Apple, and it's not a moral stand. It's a practical approach to have with every companies since their driver is being profitable.

[DagAgren]

> Apple also said they were not part of any spying program, until it was revealed they were part of PRISM.

This does not seem like an accurate statement. After the PRISM revelations, which named Apple, Apple said they were unaware of the program and were not giving them access. As far as I know, this is the way things still stand today. The leaks claim access to Apple, Apple says they are not providing access. This may be explained through either party lying, or by the FBI being able to access Apple without their cooperation.

> They also said their home button had a hardware problem and you had to buy a new phone, when it's been later demonstrated it could be fixed with software.

This also seems inaccurate. Apple has never claimed you need to buy a new phone if the home button breaks. The actual issue is that the home button is part of the security system of the phone, runs its own fingerprint detection and is paired with the mainboard, and thus cannot be replaced without updating this pairing, otherwise there would be a trivial security break for the fingerprint protection. As a result, only Apple have the required access to replace the button, and thus third-party replacements are impossible.

As far as I know this is also still the case.

[BiteCode_dev]

> This does not seem like an accurate statement. After the PRISM revelations, which named Apple, Apple said they were unaware of the program and were not giving them access. As far as I know, this is the way things still stand today. The leaks claim access to Apple, Apple says they are not providing access. This may be explained through either party lying, or by the FBI being able to access Apple without their cooperation

Of course, gag orders (and PR common sense), prevent them from giving you this information.

But given what we know about the NSA and the context around it, I'm enclined to trust The Guardian and Snowden about it.

> This also seems inaccurate. Apple has never claimed you need to buy a new phone if the home button breaks. The actual issue is that the home button is part of the security system of the phone, runs its own fingerprint detection and is paired with the mainboard, and thus cannot be replaced without updating this pairing, otherwise there would be a trivial security break for the fingerprint protection. As a result, only Apple have the required access to replace the button, and thus third-party replacements are impossible.

No, the failure I'm refering to is of the iPhone 4 home button, which didn't have a fingerprint sensor yet.

[DagAgren]

> But given what we know about the NSA and the context around it, I'm enclined to trust The Guardian and Snowden about it.

None of my options suggested above required not trusting them. Either Apple lies about cooperating, the FBI lies about having access, or the FBI has access without Apple's knowledge.

Anyway, their statements on the matter go much further than what a gag order would require.

[bergstromm466]

Dang, I'm keen to understand the process here on HN because I can see my reply is hidden, not flagged. It is only visible to me when I am logged in. Where can I read about your framework that you use to make decisions like this?

[saagarjha]

You're shadowbanned, usually because people have flagged your comments as nonconstructive in the past, and although I would personally think your other one is a bit ranty it's probably not worth being flagged, so I vouched for that one and this. If you're seeing this consistently I would email the moderators at [e-mail]; they'll be able to help.

[bergstromm466]

> You're shadowbanned

saagarjha and dang - please could you give an answer to my previous question?

[bergstromm466]

> You're shadowbanned

@dang @saagarjha - Does this mean all my comments will keep getting banned? I just wrote a comment, and it is blocked again. Where can I read the rules/process on shadowbanning? I am committed to trying to tone down my replies and focus on being accepting of others' realities, and being constructive.

[bergstromm466]

Thanks

[bergstromm466]

> and thus cannot be replaced without updating this pairing

Congrats, you've successfully swallowed both the marketing of Apple the corporation, and the marketing of the 'benevolent' rentier hacker empire that is America! [1]

I believe PRISM, Crypto AG, Dual_EC_DRBG, Intel Management Engine, etc. are just the tip of the iceberg. I think we're only just now starting to understand the massive impacts of the continued existence of these backdoors. The immense covert power the NSA has had since the beginning of the digital age (and in the case of the CIA-owned Crypto AG, even long before [2]), most of these powers it has actually been able to keep post-Snowden. Have you heard of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which Snowden revealed is used extensively by the NSA [3]? If yes, then you know that it is undemocratic, yes? We cannot have courts that are closed, and at the same time call ourselves a democratic country. That is Doublespeak.

Is it strange that many are starting to see the US as essentially the biggest propaganda machine in our new hyperconnected digital world? That it is selling the wasteful consumerist nuclear family way of life, plundering the commons, while at the same time being a militant (military industrial complex) hypocritical rogue agent through parasitical corporate neo-colonial practices [4]?

How many times do these things need to happen for us to start believing it?

Fuck Captain America. Fuck Hollywood. Fuck the NSA powered US empire. Fuck the corporate charter.

I am talking about the power we humans have given to these ideas. I mean the people in them no harm. I am campaigning for us to collectively transcend these ideas and to stop destroying our earth's capacity to support humanity. The idea of America, the NSA etc. are in actual fact metaphysical power systems that do violence to hundreds of millions of people, daily [5]. The sooner we dismantle the current racist systems [6], especially black-box surveillance apparatus, and shift away from Platform Surveillance Capitalism and move towards Protocol Cooperativism, the better. We can do this using technologies like Ceptr and the Holographic chain pattern/framework by the MetaCurrency Project (an agent-centric Ruby on Rails-type framework for distributed networking applications, built using ideas from Git and BitTorrent)[7].

I believe Commons based peer production (instead of firm production) has to be our future. For beautiful visions I often turn to the works of Kevin Carson, Arthur Brock and Eric Harris-Braun.

[1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812499752/uncovering-the-cias...

[3] https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillanc...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btF6nKHo2i0

[5] http://www.openculture.com/2017/11/carl-jung-psychoanalyzes-...

[6] https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/banking-against-black-ca...

[7] https://medium.com/holochain/holochain-reinventing-applicati...

[jjtheblunt]

For people who innately distrust the state's competence, maybe it's more appealing.

[rakkhi]

Mentions in the middle Google also doing this a much bigger instl base then just ignores it. Also more specialist devices justs asks for all data that Apple or Google has in the health apps so how is this a moat?

[nickbauman]

All valid complaints. However when you look at how doctors deal with data and information tech they seem unable to innovate in that space. No medical establishment has the capability to make something like what Apple is doing. It just doesn't exist in that intellectual DNA. Furthermore, in my experience doctors are terrified of tech. They fear being replaced for some reason. I've seen it over and over.

(full disclosure, I've been working the the health sector for a while making new applications using Apple's HealthKit.)

[sukilot]

> Maybe it's the french in my talking,

That's a very April 1940 French perspective

[tinus_hn]

So do you think the machines in the hospital are running US-os?

[BiteCode_dev]

No, and they are very insecure. It's real problem.

But they are not meant to be connected to a home base.

I don't carry them with me all the time, while they are measuring and streaming metrics about my life.