[JeremyNT]

So, you trust Apple to install this spyware and only use it in the way they currently describe. Great!

But what happens the second they get an order from $GOVERNMENT that tells them to use the spyware to also look at other documents on the device?

I think it's pretty obvious what Apple will say. They'll say "OK." They have no plausible deniability to tell $GOVERNMENT to go pound sand - they have demonstrated the capability already! Telling the spyware to scan different files is a trivial change from a technical perspective.

[caymanjim]

They could have done what you describe at any time in history. This doesn't change anything in that regard. Either you trust Apple enough to use their products or you don't.

[adventured]

> They could have done what you describe at any time in history.

That doesn't make sense. The issue is that Apple is very publicly signaling they are changing their approach to privacy now. Companies change approaches to any number of things all the time, they're not static entities. As such you have to evaluate their nature as a consumer on an ongoing basis, not one time forever. It's true of food, it's true of consumer electronics, it's true of general product or service quality, it's true of privacy issues or censorship, and so on. Apple even knew the consequences ahead of time - per the insider notes - and don't care, they charged ahead regardless.

[m4rtink]

They could have done that any time because their code is proprietary, their hardware closed & won't boot code not signed by apple + they gate keep all third party apps from their walled garden.

It would be much harder for them to pull of if the system was open with user actually in control.

[amanaplanacanal]

So I guess the answer is “don’t”.