Step 2, ban selling uncrippled (or, “confidentiality unchallenged”) crypto apps in the app stores.
The corporations will of course comply.
Then it will require sideloading. And the Apple cohorts will of course howl in a chorus of support for a closed walled-garden platform, spinning up tall tales about how the inability to sideload, and unilaterally opt-out from such idiocies, is a Good Thing.
Another reason why we need more open platforms where we the end users are the ultimate authority.
I would love to see Apple issue a statement to the effect of “If California doesn’t want to allow us to sell our phones, we need to rethink our commitment to keeping our headquarters in the state.” Even if they’re not seriously thinking about moving their corporate headquarters, just the threat of doing so could be enough to scare the legislator into withdrawing the bill.
In the 21st century, not understanding (or denying) … automatically disqualifies you for
Tell that to the House Science Committee - and to the people who keep voting these stooges into office.
It’s not just California as a whole - it’s Elk Grove in particular, which this assembly member represents. It’s an area a few miles south of Sacramento with a large Apple campus and large number of Apple employees who live out there. He’s from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, and a member of the “California Narcotics Officers Association” lobbying group, which among other things strongly opposes legal medical marijuana. He was elected in 2014, and we should make sure he doesn’t get re-elected in 2016. (And he’s a Democrat, which means getting rid of him would require a primary challenger.)
But if we didn’t try to ban crypto, Republicans might say we’re soft on crime! And that’s bad!
Step 1, (thing that isn’t going to happen)
Step 2, (thing that isn’t going to happen)
Step 3, conclusion: Apple and their users are awful
Wouldn’t a remote-wipe feature satisfy the requirements of this law? After the phone’s drive has been reformatted, it is no longer encrypted or locked.
There is an amendment someone should add to these bills that would let us determine whether their proponents are lying and/or fools. The government has to indemnify people and businesses that suffer damages when their phones are hacked by hackers due to this. Until such time as their assets are ruled gone by bankruptcy proceedings, the money for this indemnification will come from the assets of legislators who supported it.
If they aren’t ok with the amendment, they’re lying, and if they are, they’re fools.
Already happened, see China.
Or see how Blackberry caved to principially similar demands.
Corporations will fold to the will of the governments rather easily, when faced with loss of significant enough market. There are some exceptions, probably temporary.
Aple is just a corporation. Apple users in general aren’t intrinsically awful, just incredibly short-sighted and/or naive.
Why do they favour a world in which all reasonable people are forced to break the law?
So they have something to nail you with and not come empty-handed if they screw up.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.