Apple Tells US Senators Tech Bills Will Harm iPhone Privacy (bloomberg.com) 45
Apple warned U.S. senators that bipartisan antitrust legislation aimed at curbing the power of big technology companies would harm the privacy and security of American iPhone users if enacted into law. From a report: On Tuesday, Apple sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, the panel's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, Antitrust Subcommittee Chair Amy Klobuchar, and the subcommittee's ranking Republican, Mike Lee. The letter, which was obtained by Bloomberg News, underscores Apple's continued push to protect its App Store from government oversight and changes that would disrupt its business model. "After a tumultuous year that witnessed multiple controversies regarding social media, whistle-blower allegations of long-ignored risks to children, and ransomware attacks that hobbled critical infrastructure, it would be ironic if Congress responds by making it much harder to protect the privacy and security of Americans' personal devices," Tim Powderly, Apple's senior director of government affairs, said in the letter. "Unfortunately, that is what these bills would do."
I partly agree with Apple (Score:1)
Re:I partly agree with Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I do not know of a single iPhone user who complains iApps are too expensive.
Free, but with in-app purchases.
If you've ever had to deal with kids' apps on the AppStore, even "free" ones, you'll soon find out there's nothing "free" about them. You'd save more by buying something like a LeapPad for them and actually purchasing the $20+ games on that instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong thread, but yes totally agree - as I've said before Apple are being total hypocrites ("We're all about privacy!" "Here, buy our toys that tell everyone where your stuff is").
Re: The maker of Apple Airtags protects privacy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple didn't invent the app store (yes, I know you didn't say that they did).
Apple didn't invent most of the products you associate with them today. At most you can give Apple credit for being great at marketing the products they make that other people have invented.
Re: (Score:2)
All that is to say nothing of the countless times Apple has been at the receiving end of what many consider IP theft. Lot
Re: (Score:2)
Firewire as a standard has 58 Apple patents which include everything from voltage negotiation to signaling speed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you let the federal government set their prices, future presidents will promise to reduce Apple store fees when they campaign, and then fail to do it when Apple buys enough senators to block the attempt in Congress, while saying that reducing the fee will harm everyone's privacy and security.
Regulation also makes it harder for competitors to rise up unless the law is carefully written to not apply to new entrants to the market or companies with a small market share.
It's better to let people decide if th
and limited to no Censorship on the store as apple (Score:1)
and limited to no Censorship on the store as apple has pushed the Censorship part to far.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can keep their App Store and remain the gatekeepers to the App Store. All that is required is an alternative to the App Store.
Enabling the alternative can pop up big, scary warnings, and 90%+ of people can continue to use the safe walled garden of the App Store exclusively.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not quite all that is required. The App Store agreement also tells companies that they cannot tell people about alternative payment systems. This is akin to Walmart telling companies that they can't include an offer in their box that says "You can buy discounted accessories from our website." It's prima facie anticompetitive.
Without eliminating that clause, a third-party app store will almost certainly be used only by a tiny fraction of users, and will either end up not being worth the hassle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple get the source code of apps on their app store and review the code - using automated tools - to check it's not malcious. And users can't sideload apps at the moment.
If Apple's security model has to change to enable sideloading, Apple don't get to review the source code of software that can run on their phones. They can only review compiled code akin to antivirus scanning.
That's a security threat because bad actors (eg border control, state security forces) could write ma
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever it is (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Whatever it is (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. We're talking about government, after all.
Remember the Massachusetts Right to Repair law? The newer one that requires car manufacturers give you wifi access? The NTSB is currently asking Massachusetts to delay implementation until they can fix it because, as written, it requires car manufacturers to enable Internet control of things like steering and brakes. Essentially they wrote the law such that if it's possible that something can be controlled via the Internet, it must be controlled via the Internet. (Or local wireless connection if the car has no Internet connection, but a lot of cars these days have Internet connectivity built-in because they get the cellular modems "for free" via the SOCs they're using.)
Apple's probably right, the law as proposed probably would erode consumer privacy. Remember that the US government doesn't like privacy either, they want a government backdoor in every device. Neither Apple nor the US government are on the consumer's side here.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure: here's the NTSB's response [nhtsa.gov].
The initiative would specifically require that telematics platforms be directly accessible through a mobile-based application, and that this access must include the ability to send commands to in-vehicle components (including, e.g., braking, acceleration, and steering controls).
I'm not joking, the law seriously requires mobile access to steering, braking, and acceleration controls.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. We're talking about government, after all.
Remember the Massachusetts Right to Repair law? The newer one that requires car manufacturers give you wifi access? The NTSB is currently asking Massachusetts to delay implementation until they can fix it because, as written, it requires car manufacturers to enable Internet control of things like steering and brakes. Essentially they wrote the law such that if it's possible that something can be controlled via the Internet, it must be controlled via the Internet.
Sounds good to me. If a car company designed their system so badly that it is possible to control steering and brakes over the Internet, they should get sued into oblivion for that design defect. Forcing them to expose that to consumers trying to repair their cars isn't creating a new problem. It's exposing an existing one that they have just wallpapered over by providing security through obscurity.
Apple's probably right, the law as proposed probably would erode consumer privacy. Remember that the US government doesn't like privacy either, they want a government backdoor in every device. Neither Apple nor the US government are on the consumer's side here.
Antitrust legislation doesn't harm privacy. Apple's argument appears to boil down to "We're the only compa
Re: Whatever it is (Score:3)
That is a hell of a logic. That is like escaping from a puppy attack by jumping into a pit of rattlesnakes. Sorry but I would fear the government more. Apple does not have an Army or a Police that can come for you in the middle of the night. Sorry but I rather take my chances with Apple than handing more abuse privileges to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, do remember this is Apple we are talking about. They also declared that if people could install apps they didn't approve of, that it "networks could suffer "potentially catastrophic" cyberattacks by iPhone-wielding hackers". Yet this has never happened when people have jailbroken their iPhones, nor happened with Android phones.
https://www.wired.com/2009/07/jailbreak/
Trust us not them. (Score:2)
I wish we had a way without either trusting the Company to Protect us, or Trust the Government to protect us.
The Companies main interest is maximizing profits, if showing that they are good stewards to protecting us, then they get more business, however they will get away with what they can to save money.
The Government main interest is staying in power, if showing that they are good stewards to protecting us, then we may vote for them, however if it isn't a hot button issue the will let it slide and rot awa
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes they may be, but more then half the time. No!
Re: (Score:1)
The government is as trusted as we make it, we can either continue to reelect crooks and liars, or we can seek out something different, either way, it is merely a reflection on us
Re: (Score:1)
or we can seek out something different
Where is the something different and is there enough of them to matter? I will just continue not voting and stealing software until so.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone that thinks a company is your trusted source, needs to re-evaluate their misinformation.
Sometimes they may be, but more then half the time. No!
In short you can't trust anyone for your trusted source, however you need to be smart enough to figure out what peoples motivations are for what they say and do, and try to make sure their motivations to help you are better than their motivations to deceive you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's main interest has always been making a profit. They often focus on improving privacy as a value-add in an effort to make more profit. They also often use privacy as an excuse for unfair trade practices in an effort to make more profit. When deciding who to believe, the key is to evaluate each statement independently and decide whether Apple's privacy concerns are real or fantasy.
Apple wanting all payments to go through them doesn't sound like privacy to me. It sounds like a single point of compr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy and payment via the walled garden is not the same.
Correct. They have nothing to do with one another. But the latter is what Apple is trying to protect, and the former is what they're claiming will happen if they can't. It's a non sequitur.
Assuming they're talking about the same Klobuchar antitrust bill that was first introduced a year ago, here's some more information about it:
Any claim that such a law could harm privacy is just plain silly. What it does do is massively w
iPhone Privacy (Score:1)
Part of me wants to say (Score:4, Informative)
But how many are even aware this is going on? To this day I see folks claiming that the money spent keeping our economy from collapsing the last 18 months or so is the cause of inflation and not, say, the non-stop market consolidation, mega corps buying up every apartment building and house while blocking the infrastructure spending necessary to make new cities (Arizona is running out of water fast with some small suburbs about to be cut off and California's not far behind).
Basically given the lack of serious discussion of these issues and their causes in media today it's easy to make people doubt their own eyes and ears when they hear every day a new mega merger (*cough*Activision/Microsoft*cough*).
Re: (Score:2)
"business model" (Score:2)
Apple's continued push to protect its App Store from government oversight and changes that would disrupt its business model.
I think Apple misspelled "profit margins".
apple does not take 30% of all and they have stuff (Score:2)
apple does not take 30% of all and they have stuff in where taking 30% is an no no.
Like
lotto apps (does apple get the retailers promotional bonus?)
sports book apps (I think most states will say to no apple having an 30% vig)
uber / lift (there are airport fees and tolls in there that don't go to uber in there)
shopping like amazon / walmart / etc.
Iphone Privacy (Score:1)
Apple is trying to protect its profits. (Score:3)
Privacy of Apple products? (Score:1)
Sounds like (Score:2)