I don't dispute the facts of the article or any of the points made in your post. My contention is that nothing leaks out of Apple unless Apple wants it to be leaked. Apple has made the protection of user data a cornerstone of their smart device strategy. We saw nearly zero leaks out of Apple for the last 10 years yet suddenly we now get inside information about how their engineers reacted to the potential of having to compromise their encryption and now how their business group is reacting to pressure to utilize user data, both stories which support Apple's strategy. You'd have to be cynical not to believe that these leaks weren't humble brags straight from Apple HQ.
For a company as secretive as Apple, stories like this don't get out unless Apple intentionally leaks them. It's just like the recent story of how some Apple engineers might quit if forced to implement an encryption backdoor for the government.
The US Government knows that Apple has made encryption a cornerstone of their product strategy in order to protect their international sales in our post-Snowden era (in other words, to protect the world from the US Government). What better way to hit back at Apple for their lack of cooperation than to strike at the heart of Apple's strategy.
$399 for a current-spec iPhone (without subsidy) is a very aggressive price point. Looks like the low-priced second and third tier Android phones are having an impact on Apple's unit sales.
Don't think I'm missing any point. You keep claiming banks were already collecting all the information they needed to comply with BSA. My contention is that they weren't. And participation in the FDIC is mandatory for any bank that has any hope in attracting deposits, so it's a bit naive to think that banks weren't required to implement the money-laundering risk software as a requirement of BSA.
I'm with Apple on this whole mess but this "leak" is a PR move. Apple usually doesn't let their engineers talk about what they ate for lunch let alone matters such as this.
Here's an example of the additional information banks were required to obtain and retain as part of BSA (https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=439815):
Monetary Instrument Sales Records : A bank must retain a record of each cash sale of bank checks, drafts, cashierâ(TM)s checks, money orders, and travelerâ(TM)s checks between $3,000 and $10,000 inclusive. These records must include evidence of verification of the identity of the purchaser and other information. (31 CFR 103.29)
And for a more direct example of precedent as it relates to Apple, the BSA actually required the banks to develop and deploy software to detect money laundering. One of the core arguments Apple makes is that companies can't be compelled to develop something to comply with a court order (and in turn a law).
You're implying that banks already kept all the information and had all the necessary procedures like account verification that were necessary to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act before the law was passed. If you read the regulation (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8-1.pdf) you'll find that's likely not the case, that many banks had to start tracking additional information and employ new procedures. So there is a precedent for the federal government to compel businesses to collect information and enact new procedures.
I agree, Congress will need to pass a law to compel Apple to retain this information, the same as they did for the financial industry. I think we'll see such a bill in the near future.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly...
I don't see a large distinction between divulging information you're already retaining vs being compelled to retain new information that you also must divulge. For example the Bank Secrecy Act compels banks to retain transactional history that they weren't already keeping, such as details of specific credit and cash transactions that exceed $10,000/USD.
It's not just because their customers want access to their banking history but because there are federal laws such as the Bank Secrecy Act (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8-1.pdf) that require banks to keep banking information to aid in the governments monitoring of criminal activity and money laundering. If the federal government can compel banks to keep this information I'm not sure what prevents them from compelling Apple as well. This is not to say that I support the government's position on this - I'm wholly in Apple's corner. But Cook's analogy to the banking industry is actually a case against Apple rather than one that supports it.
Yes but the US government isn't the one claiming that ride-sharing services are anti-competitive. Some municipal governments say that they're too competitive but that's another can of worms.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't dispute the facts of the article or any of the points made in your post. My contention is that nothing leaks out of Apple unless Apple wants it to be leaked. Apple has made the protection of user data a cornerstone of their smart device strategy. We saw nearly zero leaks out of Apple for the last 10 years yet suddenly we now get inside information about how their engineers reacted to the potential of having to compromise their encryption and now how their business group is reacting to pressure to utilize user data, both stories which support Apple's strategy. You'd have to be cynical not to believe that these leaks weren't humble brags straight from Apple HQ.
For a company as secretive as Apple, stories like this don't get out unless Apple intentionally leaks them. It's just like the recent story of how some Apple engineers might quit if forced to implement an encryption backdoor for the government.
A little levity on this sad day, considering Intel got its start in flash memory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The US Government knows that Apple has made encryption a cornerstone of their product strategy in order to protect their international sales in our post-Snowden era (in other words, to protect the world from the US Government). What better way to hit back at Apple for their lack of cooperation than to strike at the heart of Apple's strategy.
Even with a 30% improvement in fuel efficiency vs a concord. Just take a jumbo jet and read a book.
$399 for a current-spec iPhone (without subsidy) is a very aggressive price point. Looks like the low-priced second and third tier Android phones are having an impact on Apple's unit sales.
Don't think I'm missing any point. You keep claiming banks were already collecting all the information they needed to comply with BSA. My contention is that they weren't. And participation in the FDIC is mandatory for any bank that has any hope in attracting deposits, so it's a bit naive to think that banks weren't required to implement the money-laundering risk software as a requirement of BSA.
Here you go:
https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/...
They called me up last night and asked if I've heard about Apple's new doohickey.
That's like Briebart running a seminar on ethics in journalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Because they have to make the tough executive decisions, like how long a tweet should be.
Agree. I'm waiting for a study with the headline "water may not be wet".
I'm with Apple on this whole mess but this "leak" is a PR move. Apple usually doesn't let their engineers talk about what they ate for lunch let alone matters such as this.
Here's an example of the additional information banks were required to obtain and retain as part of BSA (https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=439815):
Monetary Instrument Sales Records : A bank must retain a record of each cash sale of bank checks, drafts, cashierâ(TM)s checks, money orders, and travelerâ(TM)s checks between $3,000 and $10,000 inclusive. These records must include evidence of verification of the identity of the purchaser and other information. (31 CFR 103.29)
And for a more direct example of precedent as it relates to Apple, the BSA actually required the banks to develop and deploy software to detect money laundering. One of the core arguments Apple makes is that companies can't be compelled to develop something to comply with a court order (and in turn a law).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Do you really believe the NSA was only looking at headers?
You're implying that banks already kept all the information and had all the necessary procedures like account verification that were necessary to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act before the law was passed. If you read the regulation (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8-1.pdf) you'll find that's likely not the case, that many banks had to start tracking additional information and employ new procedures. So there is a precedent for the federal government to compel businesses to collect information and enact new procedures.
I agree, Congress will need to pass a law to compel Apple to retain this information, the same as they did for the financial industry. I think we'll see such a bill in the near future.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...
I don't see a large distinction between divulging information you're already retaining vs being compelled to retain new information that you also must divulge. For example the Bank Secrecy Act compels banks to retain transactional history that they weren't already keeping, such as details of specific credit and cash transactions that exceed $10,000/USD.
It's not just because their customers want access to their banking history but because there are federal laws such as the Bank Secrecy Act (https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/manual/section8-1.pdf) that require banks to keep banking information to aid in the governments monitoring of criminal activity and money laundering. If the federal government can compel banks to keep this information I'm not sure what prevents them from compelling Apple as well. This is not to say that I support the government's position on this - I'm wholly in Apple's corner. But Cook's analogy to the banking industry is actually a case against Apple rather than one that supports it.
Yet the government did it anyway. I wouldn't put too much faith in laws when the government really wants to do something.
The US has a population of 319 million people, Germany has 81 million. I'll take DT's over Verizon and AT&T.
Just a little Mom and Pop business in Germany with an $81 Billion USD market capitalization. :)
Yes but the US government isn't the one claiming that ride-sharing services are anti-competitive. Some municipal governments say that they're too competitive but that's another can of worms.