I don't think a doc about how they operated two years ago is still applicable is it? Especially since this is a recent "decision" by Apple. The article put it best:
> they should say explicitly and unambiguously what they’ve done
Why would they choose to be guarded and opaque? I think the silence speaks volumes...otherwise, I can't understand why it's pervasive.
Can't they just be clear and transparent and answer the question we all have here and move on?
Their press statements about this "recent decision" have always reiterated that there are no backdoors.
>Why would they choose to be guarded and opaque?
I mean isn't the answer to this obvious? Sure, Apple could come out and spell this out for everyone, but this is extremely political and Apple is not going to be better served by loudly touting how they are in a privileged position relative to others because they have their own cards to play with the CPC.
"No backdoors" has nothing to do with whether the Chinese Government own and/or use the front door.
> I mean isn't the answer to this obvious?
I thought it was obvious... because they know we won't like the answer. But it seems none of us know. It is really easy, regardless of political harm, to issue statements about data privacy for one country. Not so much for another... making other public statements about citizen data privacy more hollow if they only make them when they think they can. It's a clear case of principles vs money to me.
> they should say explicitly and unambiguously what they’ve done
Why would they choose to be guarded and opaque? I think the silence speaks volumes...otherwise, I can't understand why it's pervasive. Can't they just be clear and transparent and answer the question we all have here and move on?