Apple will now require a court order or search warrant to give push notification data to law enforcement in a shift from the previous practice of accepting a subpoena to hand over data. In Apple…
They’re lying about many things, such as their respect for privacy, right to repair, sustainability, what else. Oh they’ve lied about use of slave labor if I recall correctly
No, the article is clear evidence that they are imperfect - not that they don’t generally care about user privacy. In general the work they have done on privacy has been pretty good. Apple mandating end-to-end encryption might be something that they sholuld have done - and that’s a reasonable criticism, but it looks like it is possible for individual app makers to encrypt their notifications: . There’s syill the metadata, of course.
If I am being paid to shill for Apple they are being particularly tardy with their payments. But to answer your question, no - I’m a user who is privacy conscious and thinks Apple does a reasonable job.
I am, however always interested in knowing about where they are falling down so I can mitigate. General handy wavy accusations don’t really help me practically - or indeed anyone.
Sorry for the delay. In this case they were lying that they have improved their process regarding handling such orders, implying that they will now only comply for fewer orders that they can’t (yet) deny.
A subpoena is a court order. Nothing has changed and they market that as an improvement.
An order issued under the authority of a court, commanding a person to appear in court on a particular date, usually to give testimony in a legal case. A writ requiring someone to appear
A subpoena is a kind of court order. Specifically it is an order to a particular person to appear and testify at a particular time and place. In many but not all cases, the order also requires that person to bring specified records or documents along. That is known as a subpoena duces tecum. In some cases this is used to, order the production of documents without any accompanying testimony.
[…]
Ther are many other court orders, such as an injunction which is generally an order not to do something. Different jurisdictions may use different terms for orders with similar effects. The exact name and exact effect of a given order will vary with the jurisdiction, which is not stated in the question at the moment. The needed process to obtain a court order will also vary. Without a jurisdiction, a more specific answer cannot be given.
From the orginal linked reporting, it appears that previously Apple would accept a subpoena subpoena issued by police departments and law enforcement agencies with no judicial oversight. Under the new policy there has to be a court order or a search warrant, both of which have to be approved by a judge.
Hang on - what exactly did they lie about?
They’re lying about many things, such as their respect for privacy, right to repair, sustainability, what else. Oh they’ve lied about use of slave labor if I recall correctly
So rather that talking in generalities what specific lies have they told about respect for privacy?
Took me 5 seconds to find the first lie on their website
That’s a claim. You haven’t given any tangible evidence that it’s a lie, you just talk in handywavy generalities
This article is a clear evidence. If Apple cared, they’d not send sensitive messages in clear text they can just hand over to pigs
Anyways, are you paid to shill for apple?
No, the article is clear evidence that they are imperfect - not that they don’t generally care about user privacy. In general the work they have done on privacy has been pretty good. Apple mandating end-to-end encryption might be something that they sholuld have done - and that’s a reasonable criticism, but it looks like it is possible for individual app makers to encrypt their notifications: . There’s syill the metadata, of course.
If I am being paid to shill for Apple they are being particularly tardy with their payments. But to answer your question, no - I’m a user who is privacy conscious and thinks Apple does a reasonable job.
I am, however always interested in knowing about where they are falling down so I can mitigate. General handy wavy accusations don’t really help me practically - or indeed anyone.
Sorry for the delay. In this case they were lying that they have improved their process regarding handling such orders, implying that they will now only comply for fewer orders that they can’t (yet) deny.
Previously they required a subpoena, now they require a court order. So what was the lie?
A subpoena is a court order. Nothing has changed and they market that as an improvement.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/subpoena
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/59478/what-is-the-difference-between-a-subpoena-and-a-court-order
If anything, they have even broadened the scope of documents they now accept for information disclosure requests.
From the orginal linked reporting, it appears that previously Apple would accept a subpoena subpoena issued by police departments and law enforcement agencies with no judicial oversight. Under the new policy there has to be a court order or a search warrant, both of which have to be approved by a judge.
This feels like a tightening to me. https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/13/apple-push-notifications-government-warrant/