This is where you clearly see Apple is all about privacy posturing and not much about actual privacy.
If they really cared about their customers’ privacy, they would require notification servers registered with APN to push notifications encrypted with a key that only the recipient apps have the private key to. This would be true end-to-end encryption, and Apple would only relay encrypted notifications across, enabling them to deny all subpoenas and any kind of snooping requests from law enforcement on the simple basis that they plain can’t even decode the notifications in the first place.
The very fact that they do have access to the notifications in clear-text is undeniable evidence that they actively want and do collaborate with law enforcement.
Meaning Apple’s stance on privacy is utter BS - something anybody with a modicum of critical thinking suspected from the start, but now the evidence is crystal-clear.
This is used as a means to correlate accounts with timing attacks. The actual content of the notifications is just the cherry on top for the alphabet boys. Apple is still trash tho.
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.
A subpeana is a court order so that’s clear as mud.
once again apple marketing making it SEEM like they care about your privacy
So. What do you suggest they in practice?
Not lying that they are improving the privacy of users would be a good start
But what should they specifically do in this case to improve the situation - got any actual suggestions?
No, I don’t have any suggestion for how should Apple circumvent laws. But if they can’t improve on it, they shouldn’t lie that they did so.
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
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.
I mean they can’t exactly ignore the law, can they?
I’m not sure how newsworthy this whole topic is, but apparently it sets some people off, so it generates clicks if nothing else.
