| ▲ | wmf a day ago |
| If Apple can unlock the account from your stolen iPhone they can also unlock your account for the gestapo. Whether it's worth throwing normal people under the bus to protect a few dissidents is a matter of values on which people are going to have differing opinions of course. |
|
| ▲ | crazygringo a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| That doesn't make sense. This isn't a technical hurdle, is it? Apple already can unlock your account "for the gestapo" if they choose to. If the users have enabled Advanced Data Protection and don't have another Apple device, then I can understand why it would be lost for good. But that doesn't seem to be the case in these lawsuits. They make it clear that Apple has access to the data, and could transfer/restore it if they wanted to. |
| |
| ▲ | itissid a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Not all data. Not storing location history data is an example of not opening this for gestapo by ommision. For e.g. Apple does not furnish user location info on geo fence warrants because it can't.
I believe Google just made a change towardssm this direction too.
It's a fine line on what data to keep to unlock for a warrant and how to make services better based off centralized user data. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Apple already can unlock your account "for the gestapo" if they choose to But they don't. | | |
| ▲ | nativeit a day ago | parent [-] | | Not sure why this is getting down-voted. There are several high-profile instances of Apple refusing to assist law enforcement in gaining access to devices. I recognize this is cold comfort, and provides only marginal reassurance for the future. That said, for the moment, "But they don't," is a perfectly accurate assessment. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | IlikeKitties a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This irks me A LOT and is simplified to the point of being incorrect, yet lots of people here make the same logical errors. Protecting the contents of peoples devices and accounts with strong encryption and hardware security is great for the individual and protects them from thieves and governments alike. If Apple designed their devices so that they cannot unencrypt the content without the users secret passsword, that's sensible for a lot of users. But E-Mail Addresses and Accounts are derivatives of your identity and companies should have ways of returning your accounts to you, even if the content is lost, in case of stolen identities. I am pretty paranoid about this stuff and only store private data using encryption and on trusted devices running mostly hardened FOSS software (Graphene OS, Fedora Secure Blue, OpenSuse MicroOS, etc.) and my backups are rcloned encrypted to the cloud. Yet for my most important e-mail that is bound to paypal, banking, shopping etc. I use posteo. They do this exactly right. I have personally tested contacting their support to return access to the e-mail address in case of a "lost password". After some validation, they returned access for it to me, but the encrypted content was unrecoverable. That is exactly what any responsible company should do. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway48476 a day ago | parent [-] | | The people suing didn't turn on E2E encryption. The government could already get access to their data via subpoena. Apple already has access to their data as well. Apple just doesn't want to be forced into doing basic customer service. |
|
|
| ▲ | BolexNOLA a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >to protect a few dissidents Your opinion seems to be to trivialize how important this can be, which fine you do you, but I think saying it only protects "a few dissidents" is a bit ridiculous. Every protest I've filmed at I hit the lock button 5 times so it forces a passcode. I feel secure knowing the police can't just take it and start scrolling - they need a warrant or they're bust. You don't have to be a dissident to need your privacy. |
| |
| ▲ | SR2Z a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the point here is that either Apple has the technical ability to access your account (in which case they will be forced to do it by the government regardless) or they don't (in which case this lawsuit is ridiculous). The middle ground option where Apple has the ability to do this but is also somehow able to take a stand against the government is kind of difficult to support, because it doesn't make much sense. | |
| ▲ | VincentEvans a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >hit lock button 5 times so it forces a passcode I didn’t know what that meant - so I googled it. And it says something entirely different…. Quote:
Pressing the lock button (or side button) five times quickly on an iPhone or many Android devices will activate Emergency SOS. This will prompt a countdown and eventually, if not cancelled, initiate a call to emergency services, potentially alerting emergency contacts and sharing your location. | | |
| ▲ | _rutinerad a day ago | parent [-] | | I just tried on my iPhone and it does not do that, there is no countdown. It will force a passcode and give you the option to call SOS, shut off your phone or show your medical id. | | |
| ▲ | Aloisius a day ago | parent [-] | | It's a setting (Settings > Emergency SOS). It used to be on by default and do a little siren sound before calling emergency services. Personally, I just open the slide-to-turn-off phone screen instead (hold volume + side button for a couple seconds). Once that screen is loaded, it'll require a passcode to unlock after you cancel out. |
|
|
|
