Yowzer, that's one horrific piece of typing from me!
Meant to say that "I'm not sure its even that close".
Did they really?
So is it safe to say we will see our current phones slow down drastically over the coming months with the lack of support?
Or to look at it positively, remain response with tried and test leaner old code. Combined with the inability to install any further software (through the google play store) they should remain as fast as they are today.
Secret program gives NSA, FBI backdoor access to Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft data
Yes, and I've read the Greenwald book on the Snowden leaks.
But that aside (? I guess they literally had no choice), where Apple do have a choice, in the way they do business and whether they have some ethics re their own collection of your data, they have been miles better than most of the rest, for whom its an integral part of their DNA.
Look at the post from Verge chief Nilay Patel a few months back - he was doing some network stuff at his parents, when he noticed staggering and frequent spikes in his parents new Vizio TV uploading data.He had the Vizio CEO on the podcast not long after, who made it fairly clear that they need the revenue from selling Vizio TV owners data - that's part of what makes the Vizio's relatively cheap, and that was the TV continually sending / resending data.
Contrast that with Apple and giving Samsung TV's the Apple TV app soon - the condition of which was that Samsung / Tizen could not collect or share data from within the app on the Samsung TVs.
Whether people care or not about privacy, Apple are not in the same boat as most of the rest, even if their record is not blemish free.
So that wasn’t actually in relation to the mobile phone devices. And the Washington post had to backtrack from that story as well.
From which story?
PRISM was very real.
See the updated note at the bottom of the story you linked. And it wasn’t directly from the device.
Whilst in those days, and today, the various services have capabilities within the law for legal intercepts, that is normally for services where they terminate at a service provider. When end to end encryption is employed they did then, and now, have limited capability. Certain devices could be bypassed by taken the chip off and reading the keys that way and then reinserting the chip. That is not a guaranteed process, requires access to the device, and is dependent on a limitation in its design, with no guaranteed success in the resoldering process.
Thanks - the updates to the article were in the days after publication back in 2013.
Without getting deep in the weeds, bear in mind that the security chiefs lied to the Senate hearings initially when they were first called to account.They then had to retract some of their false testimony, albeit not for many months afterwards, when the sheer weight of the leaks became clear over the ensuing months and a fuller picture appeared.
I'm no security expert, so I will exit stage left at this point. But I have read Greenwalds book, and the scale of the access is almost beyond belief.Apple did not completely sidestep all of this.
But my broader point was that those who lump all the tech companies together are, is not quite correct, for the reasons mentioned above.The point originally made by someone earlier was along those lines, i.e. that we shouldn't trust any of them, that they are all much the same. I don't think that is quite true, but whatever, not sure really how many people really care about privacy that much anyway, despite its increases prominence as an issue.
Not sure anyone actually knows what will happen between the two governments, but given the 90 day extension to support existing devices I do not see it there will be a creeping slow down. If there is no deal or further extension the tap will be turned off on day 91. So 90 days for Huawei to finalise plan B if there is no deal or extension