One problem is, since they're opaque, you won't know if they stop, or won't know until it's too late.

That's valid, but what would you suggest is better? Even if Apple open sourced the implementation of key security libraries there is nothing to assert that the shipped version of the library hasn't be supplemented with closed source patches that allow for backdoors.

Ultimately it has to come down to do you trust Apple. The evidence to date is that their behavior is trustworthy (e.g. they fought against unlocking an iPhone device despite being requested by authorities). However, there is nothing we can do to assert that trust into the future.

Apple trustworthy? Apple initially claimed it was impossible for the company to aid in government data requests, which the press ate up. After the FBI showed that to be a lie, Apple quietly stopped making that claim. (The much ballyhooed phrase "not technically feasible" has magically disappeared from the privacy page.) I know of no other American tech company that has so brazenly lied to its customers without so much as a mea culpa after it was caught out.

https://www.google.com/amp/appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/1...

> Apple initially claimed it was impossible for the company to aid in government data requests

Apple does comply with government data requests, as they're legally required to, for data that they already have. What Apple had an issue with was adding a backdoor to products so that it would collect data that Apple currently didn't have to hand over to the government.

You missed the point. They claimed it was impossible for them to help the government obtain data off the devices. It clearly was not. When this was discovered, they simply disappeared this false claim from their marketing material (privacy page) without even admitting to their lie. Can you name any other American tech company that has lied like this and then covered up their lie? That is why I consider Apple untrustworthy.

Also, there was no backdoor requested, but that is a separate issue. If Apple could install a backdoor, that would make their initial claim even more of a lie.

> They claimed it was impossible for them to help the government obtain data off the devices.

Are you sure that's exactly what they said? Like you said, this could be construed as a lie and open them up to legal liability.

> Also, there was no backdoor requested

I'm pretty sure that's what the whole FBI thing was about. Write a version of iOS that we can install on this phone to gain access to it without the password.

> Are you sure that's exactly what they said?

I supplied a direct quote.

> I'm pretty sure that's what the whole FBI thing was about. Write a version of iOS that we can install on this phone to gain access to it without the password.

That is incorrect. The FBI asked for Apple to install a build that would let them brute force the pin without wiping the device. The device and build would stay on Apple's premises. Again, this is beside the point that Apple is untrustworthy.