From what I’ve heard it’s been harder for law enforcement to get into Android phones now.
Also, the whole privacy features only make Apple’s data gathering more valuable because they become the only ones that can access that information. Google caught on and is doing the same thing with their privacy features. Privacy features are nice, but it’s naive to think that Apple and Google don’t have other ulterior motives with implementing them.
Exactly! As if Apple would hesitate even one cycle of their M3 CPUs to establish a monopoly through “data protection” (aka “only we can sell access to your data to others”)
Apple being an american company, what’s to stop high level surveilance from demanding backdoor access and printing out a letter of non-disclosure as per current US laws?
It would be negligent of any intel agency with the possibility to not make their own Room 641A at Apple.
To say they are part of it kind of implies they even had a choice. When Yahoo tried to fight being a part of the program they were going to be fined $250k a day.
The government can’t compel them to actually lie, and under their current public disclosures, they do not do such things. At any rate, demands are not unlimited in scope; US law doesn’t require them to secretly re-architect the whole service to create a backdoor from scratch. AT&T willingly built 641A.
Only for things that are on Google’s servers. If you have something that’s on-device police will use something like Cellbrite to access it.
The vast majority of stuff Google has on their servers isn’t really all that useful to law enforcement anyway and Google requires a search warrant before handing it over. And they generally notify the user when it happens (when legally allowed to do so). Most useful would probably be location data, but law enforcement can also get similar information from cell phone companies (who are much more carefree about handing over subscriber data).
Google and Apple are both actually kind of a pain to deal with for warrant related stuff. In my line of work, I most often see subpoenas for cell phone providers and social media records as those are much easier to get.
People often act like Google is just handing out user user data to the highest bidder, but that really misunderstands their profit model. They are very protective of user data. Google does not like to give it out so that only they can be the ones to profit off of the data.
Yeah, I realize it’s worse than that… When did I say otherwise? I even started off the comment by stating that Apple and Google’s privacy features were made for anti-competitive reasons, not to benefit the consumer.
Your type of fear-mongering isn’t really helpful though. It just makes people feel powerless to large corporations and makes people try to address the wrong issues. It’s important to accurately state what they are collecting and how they are using that data. We spent a decade complaining about Google not respecting privacy and selling data and what we got was Google gaining even more power. Because, that wasn’t what Google was doing or their end goal.
You clearly have no idea how any of this works and are fear mongering based on sound bites you may have heard. I work in this field and I know that Google (at least in the US) won’t just hand over data without a valid warrant or subpoena. Now this can be a FISA warrant where the defendant (imo) doesn’t have proper due process rights, but it is still a court order requiring them to comply.
I suppose we’ll just take Google at their word, eh? They would never lie to us? They would never give out thousands of users’ information without a warrant, right?
From what I’ve heard it’s been harder for law enforcement to get into Android phones now.
Also, the whole privacy features only make Apple’s data gathering more valuable because they become the only ones that can access that information. Google caught on and is doing the same thing with their privacy features. Privacy features are nice, but it’s naive to think that Apple and Google don’t have other ulterior motives with implementing them.
Exactly! As if Apple would hesitate even one cycle of their M3 CPUs to establish a monopoly through “data protection” (aka “only we can sell access to your data to others”)
Apple being an american company, what’s to stop high level surveilance from demanding backdoor access and printing out a letter of non-disclosure as per current US laws?
It would be negligent of any intel agency with the possibility to not make their own Room 641A at Apple.
deleted by creator
To say they are part of it kind of implies they even had a choice. When Yahoo tried to fight being a part of the program they were going to be fined $250k a day.
The government can’t compel them to actually lie, and under their current public disclosures, they do not do such things. At any rate, demands are not unlimited in scope; US law doesn’t require them to secretly re-architect the whole service to create a backdoor from scratch. AT&T willingly built 641A.
Don’t need to just call up Google and get whatever they want. In fact they get whatever they want for thousands of people at a time.
Only for things that are on Google’s servers. If you have something that’s on-device police will use something like Cellbrite to access it.
The vast majority of stuff Google has on their servers isn’t really all that useful to law enforcement anyway and Google requires a search warrant before handing it over. And they generally notify the user when it happens (when legally allowed to do so). Most useful would probably be location data, but law enforcement can also get similar information from cell phone companies (who are much more carefree about handing over subscriber data).
Google and Apple are both actually kind of a pain to deal with for warrant related stuff. In my line of work, I most often see subpoenas for cell phone providers and social media records as those are much easier to get.
People often act like Google is just handing out user user data to the highest bidder, but that really misunderstands their profit model. They are very protective of user data. Google does not like to give it out so that only they can be the ones to profit off of the data.
Everything is on Google’s servers.
no it’s actually much worse than that
Yeah, I realize it’s worse than that… When did I say otherwise? I even started off the comment by stating that Apple and Google’s privacy features were made for anti-competitive reasons, not to benefit the consumer.
Your type of fear-mongering isn’t really helpful though. It just makes people feel powerless to large corporations and makes people try to address the wrong issues. It’s important to accurately state what they are collecting and how they are using that data. We spent a decade complaining about Google not respecting privacy and selling data and what we got was Google gaining even more power. Because, that wasn’t what Google was doing or their end goal.
“People” are not powerless. You and I are powerless because “people” don’t care about the dystopian future we’re living in.
And it’s not fear-mongering, it’s the truth. Google does not require warrants.
What are you talking about? Google does not give law enforcement information without a warrant or valid subpoena.
https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-does-google-handle-government-requests-for-user-information
You clearly have no idea how any of this works and are fear mongering based on sound bites you may have heard. I work in this field and I know that Google (at least in the US) won’t just hand over data without a valid warrant or subpoena. Now this can be a FISA warrant where the defendant (imo) doesn’t have proper due process rights, but it is still a court order requiring them to comply.
I suppose we’ll just take Google at their word, eh? They would never lie to us? They would never give out thousands of users’ information without a warrant, right?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
no it’s actually much worse than that
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.