beowulfschmidt

That pesky Freedom of Information Act strikes again...

Thank the gods.

AppleInsider said:

"Apple will refuse any such demands," says the FAQ document. "We have faced demands to build and deploy government-mandated changes that degrade the privacy of users before, and have steadfastly refused those demands. We will continue to refuse them in the future."

Until the government in question passes a law that requires Apple to do so, because as they've said many times, they'll comply with any local laws, even to the detriment of their principles concerning privacy.

AppleInsider said:

"We have faced demands to build and deploy government-mandated changes that degrade the privacy of users before, and have steadfastly refused those demands. We will continue to refuse them in the future."

And having "steadfastly refused" those demands in the past, you've now done what they want voluntarily.  And as soon as a government passes a law requiring the addition of something else, you'll comply, just as you have all along.

If it does, I'll turn it off just like I turned it off on my Watch.  I get that some people want that feature, and that's OK.  I have no desire to be using power (however little is actually being used, nor however much it's offset by other efficiencies) when I'm not looking at my device.

Happy_Noodle_Boy said:

mfryd said:

I wonder how the App handles payments? Most banks are federally chartered, and are not allowed to knowingly service customers running an illegal business.   Under Federal law, pot is illegal everywhere in the USA.  Therefore banks can’t take on pot sellers as customers.  This is why many pot businesses are cash only.  It’s true that the Feds tend not to enforce the pot laws in state that allow pot, but that is not the same as it being legal.

This was more of an issue prior to the Cole memo. Now there are over 700 banks that will work with cannabis sellers so taking credit/debit cards is pretty common. 

The Cole Memorandum was rescinded by A.G. Sessions, but an analysis of DOJ cases since then suggests that they're still following the guidance from Cole.  The fact that it was rescinded means, however, that the feds could go back to being stupid about it at any time.

crowley said:

beowulfschmidt said:

GamerGeek87 said:

williamlondon said:

swineone said:

The average Apple tech is much less knowledgeable and skilled than quite a few independent technicianS. I would trust e.g. Louis Rossmann with my hardware over ANY Apple technician. I mean ANY. There is no technician working at Apple that could do their job as well as Louis does. BTW: I’m an electrical engineer, I design portable electronic devices, and I’ve spent quite a few hours watching Louis’ videos. He displays impressive skills. And often he has to fix a crap job done by, guess who, Apple technicians.

Bullshit. And if he wants to become a certified repair person, I'm fine with that, but your other claims are pure bullshit.

BTW, anecdotes prove nothing

The problem of becoming a certified apple repair shop for Louis Rossmann and many others, is that they would lose the ability to offer the services they currently offer. He does data recovery for example, Apple does not. If he became certified he would not be able to offer that service anymore.

If the company that is currently "Louis Rossmann" were to become a "certified" Apple repair shop, there is absolutely no legal bar to the person Louis Rossmann spinning up a completely separate company that is not certified.  He can then be employed by both of them.

There's probably no legal bar to a certified Apple shop doing data recovery either, they'll just find their Apple certification gets revoked pretty sharply when Apple finds out about it.  And I doubt Apple would view your two company solution to be acceptable either, and no less detectable.

I doubt they'd have much choice about accepting it.  The "separate company" tactic is one used by many, many companies to get around restrictions exactly like this one.  If Apple wants to violate their contract with a company that doesn't do restricted items, they can certainly have their day in court.

No doubt Apple will put all kinds of weasel language in any such contract, but unilateral benefits aren't going to be very popular among the crowd that's likely to be supporting right to repair legislation.