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.

▲

mmh0000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You may want to reevaluate.

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."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo

It happened in the UK; it will not be long before it happens in the US.

Also, USA: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36084244

Also, France, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Japan: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/pdf/requests-2024-H...

Also, Russia: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-04/apple-fil...

Also, China: https://www.article19.org/resources/apple-cares-about-digita...

Also in general: https://proton.me/blog/iphone-privacy

	▲	GeekyBear 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	add-sub-mul-div 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's brilliant how they've laundered their "privacy" reputation through Google etc. and people believe it so fully.

▲

GeekyBear 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

jeroenhd 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	jjice 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I believe the Apple one is E2E encrypted so they physically can't give useful data. Thats the core issue with Oura here.

▲

SoftTalker 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apple might be pretty good now. There's no assurance they always will be.

▲

haritha-j 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

echelon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In the US. Apple's policies are flexible when it comes to other nation states.

All it takes is a political sea change for E2EE to go away.

Apple already has to hand over a wealth of information when asked by the feds.

▲

GeekyBear 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

pepperoni_pizza 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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)?

▲

GeekyBear 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Nope.

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.

▲

clutter55561 an hour ago | parent [-]

Not exactly. Apple kept it for existing users but stopped offering it to new users. So new users are vulnerable.

	▲	GeekyBear an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Nope. > UK backs down in Apple privacy row, US says https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj2m3rrk74o

▲

samatman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Things might change in the future" is a perfectly general statement which applies to any state of affairs which is not restricted by natural law.

That makes it very nearly meaningless.

▲

echelon 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	GeekyBear an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Apple certainly lobbied against this stupidity. > 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. https://www.macrumors.com/2025/12/10/tim-cook-age-verificati...

▲

lorecore 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't trust them.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/apple-israel-unit-8200-hiring/...