[smoldesu]

> Where's this denial by Apple?

https://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/

> Well that is not falsifiable and what evidence are you speaking to of Apple specifically colluding with the NSA.

Wow. What a conspicuous coincidence that all of the exonerating evidence is behind closed-doors and marked "trust us"!

> That would still not address the hardware issue.

Is there a hardware issue?

[epcoa]

That's from a decade ago. Verb tense matters. Apple denied knowledge of PRISM before the leak, I don't see where they are denying it since. In any event, you may not believe it, and it's not the craziest thing to be suspicious, but you also unfortunately don't seem to have any counter.

> What a conspicuous coincidence that all of the exonerating evidence.

What exonerating evidence? How does one generally exonerate themselves that they don't know something or were never privy to it.

And I'm no fan of Apple (I'm also not a fan of baseless conspiracy theories), and the flip side of this is what benefit would it be to the NSA to disclose a program to a multinational company of >100k employees if they didn't have to.

You're trying to make it sound like there is a smoking gun that Apple has been lying about their NSA involvement, moreover insinuating in ways that don't seem to serve the best interests of the NSA - and I might even believe you - but so far you have put up nothing but innuendo.

> Is there a hardware issue?

Ok, so you audit your firmware. Why do you trust the hardware you're going to run this audited firmware on? You have thus far proven my point about general public access to source code.

The bottom line is that for the threat model faced by most developed nation citizens, Apple's privacy value proposition is pretty good. If you're up against a large nation-state that is willing to spend some resources you're fucked - and auditing your firmware isn't going to change that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516780