all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Apple will now require a court order or search warrant to give push notification data to law enforcement in a shift from the previous practice of accepting a subpoena to hand over data.

A subpeana is a court order so that’s clear as mud.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So. What do you suggest they in practice?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not lying that they are improving the privacy of users would be a good start

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    But what should they specifically do in this case to improve the situation - got any actual suggestions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Signal sends notifications via Apple's push notification servers. So I'm still not quite clear what are suggesting. That apps run continuously in the background. each doing real-time polling of their respective servers for notifications? Because your battery ain't going to last long.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, I don't have any suggestion for how should Apple circumvent laws. But if they can't improve on it, they shouldn't lie that they did so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Hang on - what exactly did they lie about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They're lying about many things, such as their respect for privacy, right to repair, sustainability, what else. Oh they've lied about use of slave labor if I recall correctly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So rather that talking in generalities what specific lies have they told about respect for privacy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Took me 5 seconds to find the first lie on their website

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    That’s a claim. You haven’t given any tangible evidence that it’s a lie, you just talk in handywavy generalities

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    This article is a clear evidence. If Apple cared, they'd not send sensitive messages in clear text they can just hand over to pigs

    Anyways, are you paid to shill for apple?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    No, the article is clear evidence that they are imperfect - not that they don't generally care about user privacy. In general the work they have done on privacy has been pretty good. Apple mandating end-to-end encryption might be something that they sholuld have done - and that's a reasonable criticism, but it looks like it is possible for individual app makers to encrypt their notifications: . There's syill the metadata, of course.

    If I am being paid to shill for Apple they are being particularly tardy with their payments. But to answer your question, no - I'm a user who is privacy conscious and thinks Apple does a reasonable job.

    I am, however always interested in knowing about where they are falling down so I can mitigate. General handy wavy accusations don't really help me practically - or indeed anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sorry for the delay. In this case they were lying that they have improved their process regarding handling such orders, implying that they will now only comply for fewer orders that they can't (yet) deny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Previously they required a subpoena, now they require a court order. So what was the lie?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    A subpoena is a court order. Nothing has changed and they market that as an improvement.

    An order issued under the authority of a court, commanding a person to appear in court on a particular date, usually to give testimony in a legal case. A writ requiring someone to appear

    https://www.wordnik.com/words/subpoena

    A subpoena is a kind of court order. Specifically it is an order to a particular person to appear and testify at a particular time and place. In many but not all cases, the order also requires that person to bring specified records or documents along. That is known as a subpoena duces tecum. In some cases this is used to, order the production of documents without any accompanying testimony.

    [...]

    Ther are many other court orders, such as an injunction which is generally an order not to do something. Different jurisdictions may use different terms for orders with similar effects. The exact name and exact effect of a given order will vary with the jurisdiction, which is not stated in the question at the moment. The needed process to obtain a court order will also vary. Without a jurisdiction, a more specific answer cannot be given.

    https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/59478/what-is-the-difference-between-a-subpoena-and-a-court-order

    If anything, they have even broadened the scope of documents they now accept for information disclosure requests.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    From the orginal linked reporting, it appears that previously Apple would accept a subpoena subpoena issued by police departments and law enforcement agencies with no judicial oversight. Under the new policy there has to be a court order or a search warrant, both of which have to be approved by a judge.

    This feels like a tightening to me. https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/13/apple-push-notifications-government-warrant/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    This is where you clearly see Apple is all about privacy posturing and not much about actual privacy.

    If they really cared about their customers' privacy, they would require notification servers registered with APN to push notifications encrypted with a key that only the recipient apps have the private key to. This would be true end-to-end encryption, and Apple would only relay encrypted notifications across, enabling them to deny all subpoenas and any kind of snooping requests from law enforcement on the simple basis that they plain can't even decode the notifications in the first place.

    The very fact that they do have access to the notifications in clear-text is undeniable evidence that they actively want and do collaborate with law enforcement.

    Meaning Apple's stance on privacy is utter BS - something anybody with a modicum of critical thinking suspected from the start, but now the evidence is crystal-clear.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    This is used as a means to correlate accounts with timing attacks. The actual content of the notifications is just the cherry on top for the alphabet boys. Apple is still trash tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean they can't exactly ignore the law, can they?

    I'm not sure how newsworthy this whole topic is, but apparently it sets some people off, so it generates clicks if nothing else.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I’m not sure how newsworthy this whole topic is

    It's right there in the first paragraph:

    Apple will now require [...] in a shift from the previous practice of accepting a subpoena to hand over data.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Wooow, and what compensation do all the people get that where harmed by this?

  • source
  • [–] [B] 2 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The change comes about a week after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland, warning his office received a tip last year that foreign governments were requested Apple and Google for their records of smartphone notifications.

    Push notifications are used by a variety of Apple applications and third-party apps to alert users.

    As Wyden explained in his letter, push notifications are not sent by individual apps but rather through the smartphone’s operating provider.

    Google already required a court order for law enforcement to get push notification-related data.

    In a statement to The Hill, Wyden applauded Apple’s move to match Google’s policy.

    “This is how oversight is supposed to work,” Wyden said, adding later, “Apple is doing the right thing by matching Google and requiring a court order to hand over push notification related data.”


    The original article contains 347 words, the summary contains 137 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Fuck Apple.

  • source