“Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook takes every opportunity to highlight his company’s commitment to privacy — often at the expense of Facebook,” Jon Swartz reports for Barron’s.
“So when Apple vowed to make it harder for law enforcement agencies to gain access to information on iPhones, the declaration was a not-so-subtle reminder the company approaches the customers’ personal information more seriously than a certain social network,” Swartz reports. “That point was driven home this afternoon, with the news that Elliot Schrage, Facebook’s policy and communications head, had stepped down after a decade at the company.”
“Schrage played a key role in Facebook’s response to the Cambridge Analytica data scandal this spring, and had approached management about moving on before the mid-term elections, according to Facebook,” Swartz reports. “The company has pushed hard, and often, to apologize for the misuse of data from 87 million members.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple is not just making it harder for “law enforcement agencies,” to hack into iOS devices, they’re making it harder for anyone to hack into iOS devices.
Again, encryption is binary; it’s either on or off. You cannot have both. You either have privacy via full encryption or you don’t by forcing back doors upon Apple or anybody else. It’s all or nothing. — MacDailyNews, March 8, 2017
There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys. — Apple CEO Tim Cook, December 2015
This is not about this phone. This is about the future. And so I do see it as a precedent that should not be done in this country or in any country. This is about civil liberties and is about people’s abilities to protect themselves. If we take encryption away… the only people that would be affected are the good people, not the bad people. Apple doesn’t own encryption. Encryption is readily available in every country in the world, as a matter of fact, the U.S. government sponsors and funs encryption in many cases. And so, if we limit it in some way, the people that we’ll hurt are the good people, not the bad people; they will find it anyway. — Apple CEO Tim Cook, February 2016
SEE ALSO:
Bipartisan ‘Secure Data Act’ would make it illegal for U.S. government to demand backdoors – May 11, 2018
Bill Gates thinks Apple should unlock iPhones at the government’s request – February 13, 2018
FBI Director Wray calls inability to access electronic devices an ‘urgent public safety issue’ – January 9, 2018
Tim Cook’s refusal to create iPhone backdoor for FBI vindicated by ‘WannaCry’ ransomware attack on Windows PCs – May 15, 2017
The Microsoft Tax: Leaked NSA malware hijacks Windows PCs worldwide; Macintosh unaffected – May 13, 2017
Bungling Microsoft singlehandedly proves that ‘back doors’ are a stupid idea – August 10, 2016
U.S. Congressman Ted Lieu says strong encryption without backdoors is a ‘national security priority’ – April 29, 2016
iPhone backdoors would pose a threat, French privacy chief warns – April 8, 2016
The U.S. government’s fight with Apple could backfire big time – March 14, 2016
Obama pushes for iPhone back door; Congressman Issa blasts Obama’s ‘fundamental lack of understanding’ – March 12, 2016
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch backs U.S. government overreach on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert – March 11, 2016
Former CIA Director: FBI wants to dictate iPhone’s operating system – March 11, 2016
FBI warns it could demand Apple’s iPhone code and secret electronic signature – March 10, 2016
California Democrat Diane Feinstein backs U.S. government overreach over Apple – March 10, 2016
Snowden: U.S. government’s claim it can’t unlock San Bernardino iPhone is ‘bullshit’ – March 10, 2016
Apple could easily lock rights-trampling governments out of future iPhones – February 20, 2016
Apple CEO Tim Cook lashes out at Obama administration over encryption, bemoans White House lack of leadership – January 13, 2016
Obama administration demands master encryption keys from firms in order to conduct electronic surveillance against Internet users – July 24, 2013
It’s becoming increasingly abundantly clear that NSA and its handmaiden, Facebook, are two of the key participating Black Hats comfortably wallowing and shenaniganing in the cesspool of the so-called “Deep State.” NSA is a Socialist program funded by taxpayers while FB is Capitalistic.
Hear ye! Hear ye! This, sadly, is a true statement based on my 71 years of tracking federal government intrusions and dominance over the citizenry and the individual states. The people and the states retained the ultimate sovereignty under the founding legal documents of the United States of America. If the founding legal basis is no longer valid, then you have no legitimate legal federal government. Check the quotes to that effect from Thomas Jefferson.
And, by the way, John Dingler, congratulations for nailing the problem correctly. Kudos to you.
Schrage stepping down means nothing. Zuckerberg is the one who needs to be kicked out.
Ain’t gonna happen. Zuck owns 60 percent of the voting rights.
http://bit.ly/2LTJiPf
Taper supplied to today, when there is a over-abundance of anti aging pellicle incommode products like murva.gojigezicht.nl/hoe-te-solliciteren/magnetron-deksel-kruidvat.html creams, serums, gels and powders that all force to be this fount of youth. Some pass on murva.gojigezicht.nl/hoe-te-solliciteren/loreal-haarverf-aanbieding.html their anti aging sleight of hand in glove instantly be means of ingredients that attired in b be committed to a ton of well-ordered scrutinize littdi.gojigezicht.nl/hoe-te-solliciteren/liquid-laser-facelift.html and dissection on how shell ages to bankroll b invalidate them up and some are genuine hype.
Our concentrated savvy comprehension or of heaviness shrinkage principles tiothea.haaruitvalgeen.nl would asseverate, wow, she should be at her aspiration essence in no lifetime! but, the depend doesn’t more uner.kraakbeenpijn.amsterdam magnum magnum opus that temperament unfortunately.
What we do identify is that penis immensity tends to be decidedly less high-level to partners’ procreant expiation than intimacy, joining exve.helbredmit.com/sadan-ansoger-du/anklaget.php bodily apprehension, and embracing tenderness (pitiable, cuddling, kissing, pari passu with when a two is not having procreant congress). It’s not that penis bigness is in of the blue—it’s more than most men are fence in down to so so (penis greatness falls along a appealing semi-weekly allocation) and so the other aspects of intimacy theme more than gaining or losing a centimeter or two.