Notsofast

mjtomlin said:

86hawkeye said:

On one hand I can see the "inherently testimonial" argument on this.

On the other hand, how is a warrant to unlock a device via Face ID or Touch ID different than a warrant to allow police into your house to search for something?

Because it takes no action on the "suspects" part to gain access to the house and search it. The idea behind the law is that you cannot compel an individual to take part in their own incrimination. This is why entrapment is illegal as well as coercing a suspect in any way.

A warrant gives authority to gain access and search. It does not void a "suspects" 5th Admendmant right, which is the right to stand aside and do nothing and remain silent.

No, no, no!  The Fifth Amendment doesn't mean "you cannot compel an individual to take part in their own incrimination."  Our schools do a disservice to our great Republic by not educating people properly about the Bill of Rights and what they mean. 

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution was designed to protect people from the government forcing an individual to TESTIFY against themselves.  You have never had the right to "stand aside and do nothing."  That's why the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the police can FORCE you to do all sort of things that incriminate you, such as forcing you to provide your fingerprints, give blood, saliva, etc. Heck, it's required that you provide your name and other information to law enforcement in many circumstances, such as when you are being issued a citation or arrested.  The courts have consistently ruled that providing such information is not "testimonial" in terms of the 5th Amendment even though providing your own name may incriminate you, e.g., you are wanted in a crime, etc.  It's why they can force you to give up the key to the safe deposit box or to your car or your house, all of which "compel you to take part in your own incrimination."  

No, it's just plain silly to suggest that an officer can force you to place your fingers on a scanner at the police station to determine who you are and whether you have warrants,  or to compare against fingerprints found at a crime scene, and they can make you pose for a photograph to run against databases to tell if you're wanted, to show witnesses to a crime, etc., and that they can take the keys from your pocket that unlock the car where the body is in the trunk,  but that it would be a 5th Amendment violation to hold a phone up to your face or put your finger on the scanner.

rob53 said:

Stores are still shutting off Apple Pay capability even though their POS hardware handles it. Home Depot is a perfect example. Until all POS hardware is forced to accept Apple Pay stores will continue to turn it off.  Of course users need to understand what they have and use it. 

This is the problem in the US!! I do recall being able to use Apple Pay at Home Depot, but, they, like others, have changed POS systems or payment services and they only accept chip or swipe cards now. Some places accept some NFC payments, but not Apple Pay. Some places have dropped everything except swipe. Most food places haven’t updated at all, only swipe, which is ridiculous! It’s not because people weren’t using it, there is some other reason for it. I think paying through an app has become what they all want, that way they can track your purchases and use or even sell that information. I am totally against this, you have to put your credit card information into each app to use it this way...and you have more and more servers where your credit card (and other information) is stored and more and more chances of it being hacked. ...Kroger won’t accept Apple Pay but working on another system like this. They aren’t listening to what we want, but trying to do what they want.

Unfortunately, there is no way to force merchants to accept Apple Pay. Only thing we can do is keep telling these companies we shop where we can use Apple Pay first, because we prefer the security, privacy and ease of use.

One correction.  Companies aren't upgrading to new systems that don't accept NFC, as all the new systems being installed have it; they just aren't activating that feature. 

This article skims over a key fact that many readers will miss-- Each of these apps can still use always on location tracking!   All Apple did was to wisely eliminate it as a checkbox choice, FOR EVERY APP.  Instead, an app will have to make an explicit request for always on tracking and then the user has to take a few seconds to go into privacy settings and allow it.  

These particular app companies are being disingenuous in that they are afraid that they can't make the case for always on tracking and they are currently relying on people giving them permission without thinking about it.  They are not afraid that you won't be able to use their apps, because obviously if you download it, you are going to give it permissions to work, but they fear that having people make a more conscious decision to allow "always on" tracking will result in fewer people choosing to do so, and them having less data to harvest and sell.  

davgreg said:

With universal Siri, all spoken requests would be in error.

You must not use Siri much.  I use Siri everyday in my car, at my desk, on while about with iPhone.  Most of the time performs spot on.  Am using it now with HomePod, and for those who haven't yet jumped on the HomePod experience, you are missing out on terrific audio quality and a great Siri experience.  From controlling my HomeKit devices, to playing music/podcasts, making phone calls, sending texts, asking sports, weather, checking calendar and yes, setting timers, she does fantastic. In other words, Siri does what 99% of people actually use a smart speaker for.   Is getting even better with iOS 13 with recognizing separate voices. 

This is why Spotify is in such trouble, and their only long term hope is to get acquired.  Despite people trying to defend their music streaming service as somehow superior, it is essentially a "commoditized" business where the primary differentiator for most people is price. Spotify would lose half its 200 Million subscribers who get it for free if they had to start paying, ditto with Amazon.  Apple Music has the most tracks and is in the most countries, but at the end of the day, 99% of what anyone wants is on every music service.

Problem for Spotify is that Amazon, Apple, and Google can leverage their music services to add value to their other revenue streams, e.g., Amazon uses it to make their incrreasing Prime Membership fees more palatable.   Spotify has lost hundreds of millions but it can't raise prices in a "commoditized" industry to offset those costs. That's why it is desperately trying to get exclusive podcasts, a likely fail in an effort to build another revenue stream. It's also why Spotify hurts artists by paying them about half of what Apple does, and why Spotify is desperately trying to use governments to go after Apple to slow down competition until it can be sold.  I wonder what their attack will be against Amazon??