I do think that a lot of these are hard problems to truly tackle, I was just commenting on this cognitive dissonance where people say things like “iCloud user data is private”, while in fact iCloud user data is this huge trove of very personal information that’s not private, and we don’t act like those ideas are in conflict.
Besides, Apple’s not doing the most they can within the confines of user wishes and local law. Neither one requires using dark patterns to ensure that 95% of users have privacy turned off. They’re also tracking every interaction for ad purposes on the App Store. I’m not trying to call them an evil boogeyman, but I think they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too: have users buy more because they think it’s private, while not disadvantaging themselves or pissing off local regimes by actually preventing data access in the majority of cases.
> What if I tell you that literally any physical supermarket will also have this data?
Great, now we're comparing iPhone privacy to a supermarket. Wasn't Apple supposed to care about this stuff?
You are either doing business with China at their own rules, or you don’t do anything. Apple has different iCloud settings for the rest of the world, and while it does suck for Chinese people, the alternative would be some domestic OS with much much more involved privacy violations.
Also, why should a company be above local law? Sure it sucks when the local law is bad and apple should not make the job easier, but if they do lawfully request some data then I don’t see why Apple should not fulfill it.
This was the ethical abstention that the rest of FAANG pursued. At least, the ones who didn't have vested manufacturing contracts in the China mainland. Let them replace it with their own thing, it's a better alternative than compromising every iPhone "just in case". It's not only about domestic security, it's about how it devalues the meaning of Apple's privacy worldwide.
> Also, why should a company be above local law?
Because their principles of privacy and security supersede their interest in moneymaking? If the local law is unjust, you don't do business there. That's what Microsoft, Google, Netflix and
> I don’t see why Apple should not fulfill it.
Your phone shouldn't have a backdoor in the first place. Letting Apple have this much vertical authority over their platform is why we're here now, trying to decide if America's largest corporation is right for sleeping with the enemy. It's obviously wrong (as you note), but we're also helpless to resist it (as you also note). The best path of recourse is legislation that dilutes Apple's absolute authority and forces them to play ball with the industry. It's attractive to legislators, regulators, and the common people.
But that’s absolutely not what happens - do you have any sort of citation for that?