Saying that just because they could have, we ought to be okay with them actually doing it is nonsense. If you apply that line of thought to a non-updatable product, it becomes pretty clear.
Pick basically anything man-made around you - your shoes, your couch, whatever. That could have plenty of awful things in it. It could be spying on you, it could be poisoning you, whatever.
Just because the manufacturer could have done something terrible, doesn't mean we're okay with them actually doing it. The mere fact Apple can do these things after purchase doesn't make it any more acceptable for them to do so.
That is not the argument I made. The argument was that if they could be corrupted we should assume they are already corrupted. And since they already have control over the device an already corrupted Apple could have been spying on you already. It isn’t excusing their behavior. It is pointing out the naïveté of the current outrage.
See also: https://stallman.org/apple.html and https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/apple.
https://www.econtalk.org/michael-heller-and-james-salzman-on...
I don't think there is a good faith argument that Apple is invading or controlling anything of you own. All that's happening is you agree to run the algorithm in exchange for using iCloud photos. That's just a contract; a mutual, voluntary exchange.
I'll wait.
This is the other thing "digital natives" don't get, nor want to. Negotiation is normal. Ya know something else tgey don't get? Selling something with the damn manual, and enough system documentation to actually be able to sit down and learn something. Drives me nuts.
If there were enough people out there to stand up and make a difference by going somewhere else and hitting these companies where it hurts (stop giving them money and personal data to mine), then maybe it would start to make a difference.
If your data is located in a cloud you might make the argument that Apple is the owner of the system. But if Apple is truly accessing data from your personal device or “server” without explicit authorization, it violates a whole host of computer crime laws.
If you're uploading the photos to iCloud Photos, you clearly have given authorisation to Apple - in the sense of accepting the iCloud T&Cs and saying yes to "store my photos in iCloud Photos" for them to access the data in those photos, else they wouldn't be able to upload them.
However, USA has claimed during decades that such restrictions of the rights of ownership are an abomination.
Even if we would accept that this is just a modification of a contract between the "owner" of a device and Apple, if Apple would have acted in good faith, they should have offered that if you do not agree to let Apple run programs on your own device for their benefit, which was never mentioned when you "bought" the device, then Apple should fully refund everything that you paid for your device and other Apple services, so that you will be able to get an alternative device.
As it is now, you either accept that Apple changes their "contract" at any time as they like, or you incur a serious financial loss if you do not accept and you want an alternative.
This certainly isn't a "mutual, voluntary exchange".
Apple controls the software that runs on it but there is nothing that stops you from modifying or hacking it to your heart's content if you are able to, just as they are not obligated to make that an easy task for you.
> but there is nothing that stops you from modifying or hacking it to your heart's content if you are able to.
Are you sure? I haven't read the terms, but that might be quite against their rules. Rules that you probably adhere to by using their product, but I'm not a legal expert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jailbreaking_(iOS)#United_Stat...
The terms govern your interaction w/ Apple. So, for example, if you crack open the case and try to re-wire the board, the terms say your warranty no longer applies. If you modify the software, they can ban you from interacting with their servers. And if you start offering to sell modified iPhones to other people, they can come after you for damaging their business.
That’s what owning the phone means. You can do what you want with the phone you bought, but they aren’t required to support your efforts or allow you to use the services they’re actively running.
Nothing except all of Apple's attempts to make that difficult and a bad op sec decision. Oh and let's not forget the series of lawsuits attempting to make jailbreaking considered illegal. Luckily they failed there, but if they could make modifying their software illegal make no doubt that they would.
They don't own the hardware they sell you in the same way a landlord owns a home because they have transferred all physical equity to the purchaser. However, Apple's model really stretches the definition of "ownership". Would you say you own a adobe acrobat because you paid for it, or would you say you own a license to use it? Buying Apple means you own the hardware and license the software that makes that hardware be anything other than a paperweight. It's not a very attractive idea. Kudos to their marketing department.
No one said it had to be easy or advisable.
> Would you say you own a adobe acrobat because you paid for it, or would you say you own a license to use it?
Any software that I run that I didn't write myself is subject to the license of the people who wrote it defined it to be. Even the MIT License places requirements on you for you to be allowed to use the software. Exceptions to these copyright protections have been made which extends to jailbreaking iOS devices, which requires modifying copyrighted code.
> Buying Apple means you own the hardware and license the software that makes that hardware be anything other than a paperweight.
All hardware is paperweight without software.
Now you're making a pedantic point about a technicality instead of what's happening in real life.
> Any software that I run that I didn't write myself is subject to the license of the people who wrote it defined it to be. Even the MIT License places requirements on you for you to be allowed to use the software. Exceptions to these copyright protections have been made which extends to jailbreaking iOS devices, which requires modifying copyrighted code.
The MIT license doesn't require you to allow anyone else to scan your private data and doesn't allow the licensor to change the terms after you've already started using the software.
> All hardware is paperweight without software.
If you buy a Dell and you don't like the Dell crapware, you can remove it and the device still works just as well (if not better). If it came with Microsoft Windows and you don't like the Windows license, you can install Linux or OpenBSD. The hardware is still useful even if you don't like the license for the software it came with.
If you don't like Apple's software licensing terms, your iPhone is a paperweight.
In real life people are looking for escalation of privilege exploits that enable them to exploit iOS to allow for installation of arbitrary software on it. This is what jailbreaking is.
> The MIT license doesn't require you to allow anyone else to scan your private data and doesn't allow the licensor to change the terms after you've already started using the software.
At what point did I ever state any of this or even imply this? I am simply stating that licenses affect all the software we run and places restrictions from the creators of said software on the users of it. This has nothing to do with Apple surveilling its users with its new tech.
> If you buy a Dell and you don't like the Dell crapware, you can remove it and the device still works just as well (if not better). If it came with Microsoft Windows and you don't like the Windows license, you can install Linux or OpenBSD. The hardware is still useful even if you don't like the license for the software it came with.
Hypothetically it is possible to run whatever software you want on an iPhone, including installing another OS. In reality this translates to people are jailbreaking devices. As has been mentioned, people are allowed to hack their own iPhones and it's protected by DMCA exemptions.
But if you're going to accuse me of being pedantic about technicalities instead of real life, how about this: In real life almost no one gives a shit about running arbitrary code on their devices and just use it to get access to the applications that are readily available in official app stores.
> If you don't like Apple's software licensing terms, your iPhone is a paperweight.
You can dislike their software licensing terms and still use your iPhone. I dislike the things that Apple is proposing with regards to CSAM detection but that doesn't mean I can't use my phone.
"Unjust imprisonment is fine because you can hire a black ops team to break you out."
So you jailbreak your iPhone. Then an iOS update comes out patching a security vulnerability. If you install it, it removes your jailbreak (or bricks your phone). If you don't, your device has an unpatched security vulnerability.
And at any given time there may not be a jailbreak for the current version of iOS.
This is not a reasonable state of affairs.
> At what point did I ever state any of this or even imply this? I am simply stating that licenses affect all the software we run and places restrictions from the creators of said software on the users of it. This has nothing to do with Apple surveilling its users with its new tech.
The problem is that Apple is imposing license restrictions you don't want. Your response was that all licenses impose restrictions. That ignores the important distinction between restrictions you actually care about and restrictions that don't really affect you.
> Hypothetically it is possible to run whatever software you want on an iPhone, including installing another OS.
Hypothetically you can make your own iPhone out of sand and crude oil. In practice no third party operating systems for iPhones exist because Apple doesn't document their hardware and so there are no drivers for third party operating systems.
> In real life almost no one gives a shit about running arbitrary code on their devices and just use it to get access to the applications that are readily available in official app stores.
In real life most people unjustly imprisoned by a government don't have the wherewithal to break out of prison. That doesn't mean they like being in incarcerated, or having Apple scan their devices.
What it means is that they're structurally bound into a position where their true preferences can't be expressed. Which is the problem.
> You can dislike their software licensing terms and still use your iPhone.
Yes, exactly. But you can't refuse to accept their software licensing terms and still use your iPhone, which means that your choice is between having something imposed on you that you dislike, or your iPhone is a brick because you can't in practice use it under any other terms.
You miss the point. I can buy an x86 machine and run Windows or a FOSS OS or any number of unix clones or hell even write my own OS. From the outset I can say I own the hardware.
You can't say the same for Apple hardware. Even if the act of jailbreaking as a specific case is not considered illegal, you have to do many illegal things if you want to pwn an Apple device enough to run another OS on it.
Can’t think of a single one, elaborate please?
You are more than welcome to use an x86 machine as your cell phone, but I don't think most people would choose to. If we're talking about comparable hardware, even m1 macs allow you to run alternative operating systems [1] on it so this isn't a valid point.
You could write your own OS on an desktop computer and it'd be a significantly easier process than doing so for an iPhone which has a locked bootloader, but that doesn't mean that you can't. Just that it's tremendously difficult and low value proposition. Privilege escalation on a jailbroken iPhone is typically about as much as people want. Why would they buy an iPhone over a device with an unlocked bootloader otherwise?
> You can't say the same for Apple hardware. Even if the act of jailbreaking as a specific case is not considered illegal, you have to do many illegal things if you want to pwn an Apple device enough to run another OS on it.
What laws do I have to break to pwn an Apple device enough to run another OS on it? Jailbreaking [2] is protected by a DMCA exception.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jailbreaking_(iOS)#United_Stat...