artharg

It may sound strange to non-Europeans but yes, this does seem to violate the GDPR. People may be forced to go to an Apple Store, say for dropping off a device for repairs, for instruction or whatever. Those are not cases where one could say "Just don't go" or "Go somewhere else". And trivial as it sounds: reading someone's body temperature is a medical check. Medical data have extra protection under European law. Apple would need a very good reason to do this. "Checking to see if someone is infected with SARS-CoV-2" is not good enough. Not having an elevated temperature doesn't say you're not infected or infectious. And having an elevated temperature doesn't mean it stems from COVID-19.

In short: Apple are demanding customers submit to a medical procedure that is not fit for purpose and enforcing that by withholding service to people who don't. Which is forbidden under European law.

Fines are not small either. They may run up to 4% of the global turnover in the previous year. So Apple would do well to reconsider.

emoeller said:

If Apple does adopt this it will most likely be hard coded to the Apple T series chips.

Why? The benefit of USB keys is exactly that you can take them from system to system. It makes no sense to lock them to a T-chip that is bound to a specific system.

avonord said:

I'm unsure about this one. 

What if if the search phrase was something like "place bomb in Times Square"?  

What if some government agency bashed in your front door because you used those words just now? What if that phrase is the trigger to monitor all your digital doings in the next 30 days, just to see if this was an innocent remark or a clue to the existence of a really stupid terrorist? What if some of your doings might be interpreted as preparation for an attack if one assumed that you were a terrorist because you have just now, here, in this forum, used those words?

Dutch 'Loesje' had a quite good take on this: "I have nothing to hide. But they don't need to know that."

When Apple is compelled to allow third parties to bypass the App Store (i.e. when consumers win any suits they bring) they will have to implement a way to allow third parties to install apps. If they sandbox those apps more than they sandbox App Store apps, they'll face yet another set of suits alleging they are impeding competition by unfairly limiting the abilities of non-App Store apps. If they lose those suits, they'll have to allow non-App Store apps the same access as their vetted App Store apps, only without the vetting. They will have the same access as vetted apps, just no check on what they do with the data. And I bet that one of the first apps to take advantage of that would be one called "Backdoor" by FBI Software Inc. You'd still have to unlock the phone to allow installation, but from that moment on all your data are basically compromised.

Ah! So that would mean that if criminals were to use unbreakable encryption, they'd be breaking the law, right? Oh, wait …

I'm not so much interested in the rationale of switchers. They opt for the neighbour's greener grass. I'd be more interested in switching penitents: those who switched from Android to iOS and back, or the other way around. How many do repent and what was the reason they switched back? Did the neighbour's grass turn out to be synthetic turf? 

I think Apple took a long hard look at AI and realised that it is not possible to make a self driving car – one that is safe enough to operate in a real world environment – in the foreseeable future. It may never be. If you thought that AntennaGate, TouchBarGate or KeyboardGate marred the company's image, think of what accidents involving Apple Car would do. Apple is very sensible to take everything they've learned from this project and axe it.