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. In Apple…
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.
That sounds like a cracking idea, the suggestion is that something in Apple’s ToS prevents this generally - but is that the case, if Signal manages it?
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
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.
So. What do you suggest they in practice?
Not lying that they are improving the privacy of users would be a good start
But what should they specifically do in this case to improve the situation - got any actual suggestions?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
That sounds like a cracking idea, the suggestion is that something in Apple’s ToS prevents this generally - but is that the case, if Signal manages it?
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.
Hang on - what exactly did they lie about?
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
So rather that talking in generalities what specific lies have they told about respect for privacy?
Took me 5 seconds to find the first lie on their website
That’s a claim. You haven’t given any tangible evidence that it’s a lie, you just talk in handywavy generalities
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.
Previously they required a subpoena, now they require a court order. So what was the lie?