Many people who buy Apple products do so because of Apple’s privacy stance. Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that.
If the majority of the citizens want that, then they can outvote their leaders. If the minority of the citizens want that, they either convince the majority to agree, or they keep quit.
I haven't bought the iPhone for the privacy stance. Apple is a part of PRISM. There is ZERO % chance that their privacy stance is more then a façade. While I try to protect my privacy from other private companies, I do not have that privacy requirement from the government as long as what they're doing is legal and collecting it to the extent permitted by the law. I will instead petition and support senators that would change the law to my liking. But if the majority disagrees, either I stop doing it, or I keep trying to change the law slowly by spreading awareness about why it's wrong.
How far back can you take that? Were they right about slavery, the nazis etc.? Or were they somehow magically wrong then, but are right ever since?
tyranny of the majority is scary to you, neglect by the minority is scary to me. What should happen in a reasonable world is that governments maintain sovereignty and that Apple, in particular on software questions (hardware would be tricky to do), to comply with regional governments.
What's blatantly absurd is that a gadget company even starts to argue with the government of the United Kingdom.
You seem to assume I am arguing for no tracing at all, but am simply saying I doubt the UK's own technology is better in terms of preserving privacy than Apple's, while achieving the same goal.
Laws, at least theoretically, exist so that you're protected in certain situations even if you don't have any actual "might".
I am simply saying that my belief in UK's own, homegrown tech, is less than Apple's/Google's tech, which is saying something as I am no fan of either.
Do you have a source for that?
Or a reason for us to believe an anonymous persona instead of a corporation that could be held liable if their claims were proven to be false?