This is why although I don't love my Apple Watch, I'm not using anything else. It's very sensitive data and Apple is the only company worth trusting with it. They're not perfect but compared to others there's no competition.
A great example is Apple's new in-house cellular modem design, which gives you the option to stop reporting your exact location to your cellular provider.
The best way to prevent the Feds from getting access to customer data is to not collect it in the first place.
Google's Health Connect system doesn't share this data either (without a consent prompt for third party apps, off course). This is to the point where I wish it would just support some kind of sync, because two devices hooked up to the same accounts need a third party app to transfer the health info.
Apple is subject to the same laws Oura is. The competition is too.
Apple's iCloud default is still to link the encryption key to your account password, with a bunch of extra steps if you wish to use your own key instead, just like Google does.
It doesn't really matter that the data is encrypted end to end if Apple backs up the encryption key based on a factor they already know (your password).
Apple has a great PR (propaganda) department that has convinced many people they respect your privacy. In truth, they do not. They're "better" than Google, but only slightly. And only so slightly that realistically it doesn't matter.
"Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool from customers in the UK, after the government demanded access to user data."
Did you just post an article where Apple refused a UK government order to weaken their encryption as "proof" that Apple doesn't respect customer privacy?
Also, the US Government has already demanded that Apple weaken device encryption.
Apple fought it in court, and the government dropped their demand rather than set a privacy precedent they wanted to avoid.
I'm confused what you think Apple should have done differently there. If the government presents you with a legal demand generally your only options are to either comply or leave the market. Would you prefer Apple to have pulled out of the UK entirely?
I'm not even much of a fan of Apple but I really don't think you can hold it against them when they loudly protest but ultimately comply with legal demands.
>> "Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool from customers in the UK, after the government demanded access to user data."
They did exactly what they should have. Their choices were build a backdoor or disable the advanced data protection feature in the UK. They also made it incredibly public.
Yeah there's no one I'd trust with my personal data except Apple. Their track record of refusing to bow down to the feds has been golden. 24 carat infact.
Apple literally removed encrypted file storage as a feature in the UK rather than comply with demands for access to encrypted customer data from the UK government.
Previously, they refused US government demands for a backdoor that would allow them to unlock locked devices.
> Apple literally removed encrypted file storage as a feature in the UK rather than comply with demands for access to encrypted customer data from the UK government.
Does that mean that instead of UK government accessing the data (through a backdoor), UK government can now access to data (because it's not encrypted at all)?
They removed a specific (non-default) feature which provided end to end encryption rather than build a backdoor. They continue to offer encrypted backups etc. although they hold the keys. So not great but also not a backdoor that breaks encryption for everyone and can potential be accessed without legal oversight.
They offer standard encryption by default, where they hold a copy of your encryption key and can assist you if you lose access to your key.
They also allow you to opt into advanced data protection, where they do not have a copy of your encryption key, so you need to be sure you protect it yourself.
If a company has a copy of the customer's encryption key on their server, you have no choice but to hand it over in response to a warrant, as we recently saw with Microsoft handing over the bitlocker key for a customer's computer.
After Apple's announcement that they would remove encryption from UK users rather than weaken it, the bad press and public pressure forced the UK government to back down.
Maybe, weren't it for the fact that we're having age verification and IDV ("protect the kids"), hardware attestation, removal of 3rd party APKs, etc. heaved upon us.
We've never had so many threats to our privacy and liberties heaved upon us, and the rate is accelerating.
> Cook conveyed to lawmakers that device-level age assurance proposals should not require the collection of sensitive data like birth certificate or social security number, and that parents should be trusted to provide the age of a child when creating a child's account. Any data used for determining age should not be kept by app stores or developers, according to Apple.
While Google has rejected China's terms and moved out of the mainland, China has set up a separate iMessage/iCloud system that complies with the wants and needs of the CCP.
They have also abided by the UK's demand to disable E2EE.
Apple's resolve is quickly overcome by any threat to their revenue. They're one law away from handing over all of your data to the feds.
The best way to prevent the Feds from getting access to customer data is to not collect it in the first place.