Eh, I don’t think it’s obvious. They would have to be more transparent for anything to be obvious.
The FBI requests these days are just to preserve the image of due process, they can already unlock iPhones on their own. And they aren’t the only ones.
apple not wanting to unlock a criminal’s iphone in a fbi case.
They couldn’t unlock it. If they could, or if the criminal had used iCloud backup, they’d have done it instantly.
What the FBI wanted was for Apple to make a “rooted” iOS version and update the phone with it, and that version would give them access to everything on it.
Apple didn’t want to do it because that iOS version could be used to get into any iPhone and it would’ve destroyed their image with their customers. Also, legally they could not be compelled to make a break-in tool.
Anyway, it was all for their own protection not for the principle of privacy.
I hear people talk about Apple and its “superior” privacy relatively often. But yes, they still see it as different from the others.
Apple exposes less to the user’s visibility, and it seems what is out of sight is out of mind!
they obviously not on the same level as google and meta, and media writes often about apple not wanting to unlock a criminal’s iphone in a fbi case.
average user just knows that apple doesn’t give your data to 3rd party, nobody thinks about apple being the bad one here.
Eh, I don’t think it’s obvious. They would have to be more transparent for anything to be obvious.
The FBI requests these days are just to preserve the image of due process, they can already unlock iPhones on their own. And they aren’t the only ones.
Graphene users do :)
They couldn’t unlock it. If they could, or if the criminal had used iCloud backup, they’d have done it instantly.
What the FBI wanted was for Apple to make a “rooted” iOS version and update the phone with it, and that version would give them access to everything on it.
Apple didn’t want to do it because that iOS version could be used to get into any iPhone and it would’ve destroyed their image with their customers. Also, legally they could not be compelled to make a break-in tool.
Anyway, it was all for their own protection not for the principle of privacy.