I was just about to post the same. I have no idea what went on, but the timing and Jobs' general beliefs on this matter lead me to suspect it's too coincidental. I'm sure the companies involved are getting something in return.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intelligence Program Gives US Government Direct Access to Customer Data on Apple Servers [Update: Apple Denies]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was just about to post the same. I have no idea what went on, but the timing and Jobs' general beliefs on this matter lead me to suspect it's too coincidental. I'm sure the companies involved are getting something in return.
So we should sacrifice our basic right to privacy and live in a weirdo surveillance police state just so we can..ahem, "prevent" the occasional terrorist attack? Millions more die from cancer, etc., yet Americans can't even agree on a decent healthcare system. Yet very rare terrorist attacks are enough to make us willingly hand over our privacy?
And how effective is such surveillance anyhow? It doesn't seem all that effective.
1. Don't panic.
2. Check whether any of your servers (or providers) is mirroring data to the US.
3. Don't do anything cloudy.
4. Search for alternatives.
5. Live on your life. For now.
Or
Just step 5.
You need to consider anything you post on Facebook to be in the public domain. However, this is something different as it is the ability to obtain information you have not purposely wanted to 'share'.
Sure. But can you convince me that a Republican wouldn't have done all this and more? I prefer Hilary and I'm not a huge Obama fan but I'd still prefer him to the alternatives the Republicans put forward.
Yes, the oxymoronically named Patriot Act should be repealed in its entirety. No, that's not going to happen.
They know exactly how to use it: To keep US citizens under their absolute control.
The goal isn't to stop attacks like Boston, the goal is to maintain the absolute obedience of the citizenry and ensure that the "people" never assert their rights over the "government" (or corporations, for that matter)
Not paranoia at all. Just a carefully calculated strategy to ensure obedience and control.
The worst part is that anyone would need a disclosure like this to realize that this type of activity is going on and has been for decades. Your corporate masters are always going to collude with the government to continue their wealth and power consolidation.
Not the least bit surprised, although that doesn't make it any less disappointing or discouraging.
I suppose Apple gets some modest amount of credit for holding out 4 years longer than Google (talk about lying through your teeth--"Don't be evil?") and six years longer than Microsoft. That's of course assuming that the NSA actually tried to get Apple on board prior to last year--it's at least possible (if unlikely) that they didn't.
Whether that makes each and every one of them a smear on the Constitution on that particular count is up for debate, but it's far from unique. It's also rather sad that every time something large and criminal goes wrong everyone vocally wonders why the government doesn't have something patently offensive like this. They of course do, it just doesn't work all that well, at least not for the stated intent.
Fiction also proves that some significant portion of the population practically wants something like this in the hands of "the good guys"--police procedurals and spy thrillers always have the heroes using similarly invasive (and usually illegal or unconstitutional) methods to catch "bad guys."
I suppose Apple gets some modest amount of credit for holding out 4 years longer than Google (talk about lying through your teeth--"Don't be evil?") and six years longer than Microsoft. That's of course assuming that the NSA actually tried to get Apple on board prior to last year--it's at least possible (if unlikely) that they didn't.
Not wanting to get partisan about this and leaving an assortment of other privacy and civil liberty abuses aside, this program started before Obama was president, and it or something like it will likely continue after he is not, regardless of the party of his successor. Doesn't make it any less wrong, but it's simply "business as usual" for the intelligence community--as noted, since the '70s at least--and sitting presidents obviously are happy to take advantage of what's handed to them by it.
Whether that makes each and every one of them a smear on the Constitution on that particular count is up for debate, but it's far from unique. It's also rather sad that every time something large and criminal goes wrong everyone vocally wonders why the government doesn't have something patently offensive like this. They of course do, it just doesn't work all that well, at least not for the stated intent.
Fiction also proves that some significant portion of the population practically wants something like this in the hands of "the good guys"--police procedurals and spy thrillers always have the heroes using similarly invasive (and usually illegal or unconstitutional) methods to catch "bad guys."
How things change:
"Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me
The front-running Democrat in the New Hampshire primary makes the promise in one last stump speech at an election day rally with the Facebook generation."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
"Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me
The front-running Democrat in the New Hampshire primary makes the promise in one last stump speech at an election day rally with the Facebook generation."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
Microsoft, Yahoo and Google joined this program before before Obama became president. Why does everyone insist on bringing things down to the partisan level? This runs deeper than one person or party.
The world hasn't been the same. I was 24 when 9/11 occurred, living in NY. I knew some high school friends who passed away in the towers, and good friends who went down to help (some still experiencing health related issues). I lost my innocence that day, the whole world did. Life seemed so promising in the 90's, the economy was doing well, the digital age seemed to be a new renaissance, people seemed, happier. After 9/11, the world seemed a darker place. Unconsciously, we became less happy and more angry. For a few months after, we were unified. Then the rose colored glasses came off, war(s) took hold, and fear replaced any sense of humanity we had left.
I miss those days. Maybe ignorant bliss, maybe not, but I miss them. I hate the world we have become, isolated, communicating in 1's and 0's behind displays that present a false sense of belonging, connecting to a world that seems more distant, intangible and bleak. Will we ever recover? I don't know. I hope so. That's about all I can do.
Still a lot less scary than some clowns on your side of the isle
Keeping records of every call from 350 million people and sort it to make sense.... Good luck with that.
Sometimes to much information is just like no information.
This is straight out of X-Files...
"Scully, have you ever heard of Project Echelon?"
[power goes off. Cancer Man lights up a cigarette]
"Scully, have you ever heard of Project Echelon?"
[power goes off. Cancer Man lights up a cigarette]
The program began under Bush. Good luck with learning how to think critically.
I don't disagree with any of this, while the Boston Police state lockdown was successful in catching one of the two terrorists, it came at a large cost of our personal rights and freedoms. Locking down a major city like in V for Vendetta with 'cerfew' sets, and having its citizens all abide out of fear, is the most horrifying precedent to set and then condition as a success.
I know it's been ongoing for a while, as long as George Sr since signing that environmental bill in 92 Earth Summit.
Possible even roots well before that. It's impossible to pinpoint, politics will always have some level of corruption if not a lot, undoubtedly.
What upsets me is how characteristically un-cool it is to criticize Obama, if whose name was Bush and was a Republican but with same actions and track record, people would have stopped tolerating this crap a long time ago.
Oh don't like Obama? must be racist or one of them intolerant republicans!!
No, I don't like Obama because he has failed to improve the state of economy, only worsened it, and he is filled to the brim with scandals on his hands, and probably even more that haven't been disclosed but are just around the bend. And I don't believe him because I don't trust anything he says. His speeches are not his actions.
Continuing tapping simply because "the previous guy" did it does not justify the successor.
It seems to be the case that governments [US & UK] take advantage of public emotion, of occasional "terror attacks" to continue to erode our basic privacy.
This is also the case in the UK, where the government are trying (a second attempt) to push through an unwanted "snoopers charter", on the back of the Woolwich soldier attack.
Wasn't the point I was making. It's the notion that this program is somehow Obama's idea, and that the program is some reason to call Obama a bad president.
Edit: I've realized that this is the internet, and that there is going to be a million illogical things spouted in this thread. I'm just going to preemptively say that I'm ignoring any other responses.
POTUS is but one member of the government. His powers on these issues are over-estimated by most. The juggernaut of the state is far more powerful and persistent.
Read the updated article.
This is why titles should not be so absolute until the all facts are proven.