• kirklennon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    269
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This headline is ridiculous; I expect better from Ars Technica. You “admit” to things you shouldn’t have done. In this case the government compelled Apple to disclose certain data and simultaneously prohibited Apple from disclosing the disclosure. Thanks to a senator’s letter, Apple is now free to disclose something that they previously wanted to disclose, about something they were forced to do in the first place.

    Compare to the Reuters headline: “Governments spying on Apple, Google users through push notifications - US senator.” The emphasis and agency are correctly placed on the bad actors.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah, it looks like most of the other new agencies are attributing it correctly as the government. IMO it’s the damn gag order that’s most damning. You will spy on them for us and tell no-one.

    • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair Google was already making this information public via their transparency reports, albeit in aggregate, since 2010 [0].

      “Google’s transparency report, Ars confirmed, already documents requests for push notification data in aggregated data of all government requests for user information.”

      Apple conveniently played it safe until the coast was clear. Maybe they’d have been allowed to comment on this privacy issue if they published it in aggregate like Google - e.g. not specifically calling out the U.S. Govt? But that wasn’t a risk Apple was willing to take for its users.

      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_report

    • sramder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I actually scrolled straight to the bottom of the article to see if it was flagged as being “republished from another Condé Nast property.” Just hoping there was an excuse for Ars.