• davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • driveway@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • gomp@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • VolunTerry@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is barely any rule of law left in the West.

      Also, the type of law you are talking about ≠ morality or justice. That ship sailed long ago.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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!