Real question. I would like to know what drives you to hate Apple? (In terms of privacy of course because in terms of price it’s another story).

  • tahoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Their latest announcements are interesting because they say some of their privacy claims will be verifiable by independent firms (mainly when it comes to their custom built AI servers iirc). Is this actually worth something or is it just marketing fluff?

    • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Independent firms hired by them? Right. I don’t think “independent” means what they think it means.

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I mean, the Linux lmza exploit was found by a Microsoft engineer. Just because dollars exchange hands doesn’t mean the data provided is invalid.

        Companies hire Jepsen to validate their code for example, and you’d be a damn fool not to accept their analysis.

        • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Are you under the impression Microsoft was being paid to find that exploit or something? How is that at all related?

          That truly was an independent third-party finding an exploit, and do you know why it was possible? Because the code was open source.

          Great point.

        • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          That could very well be the case. However, I would have to be seriously gullible to believe anything those closed companies promote an “independent” party paid by them found, moreso if the findings only serve to push their proven lies forward for "public perception’.

          In this case it’s and actual independent party auditing open source code, that makes much more sense.

          Just because dollars exchange hands doesn’t mean the data provided is invalid.

          You are absolutely correct. What means the provided data is invalid is the fact that these companies are regularly found lying about how they handle our " privacy" or how secure they are. Just search for “Apple lied” and see all the instances and how they try to bury it all via PR bullshit.

          I believe that, out of Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and Apple, Apple is the lesser evil, but that means shit when they all do the same, just in different ways and at varying degrees.

    • Who gives a fuck what the server was running when tested. Its not like large companies have ever designed software specifically designed to fool when being tested is it cough vw cough. Its worth something so its probs gonna be fine for the majority of people but never trust anythibg that isnt on hardware u control running verifiably open source code or e2e encrypted.